During January and February 1999, the Education Department surveyed the 215 student teachers in our program during the academic years 1996 – 1998 and 551 principals and superintendents in the districts in Eastern and Central Connecticut. The goals of the survey were to
1) gather our graduates’ assessment of our teacher education programs in preparing them in our own programs’ objectives, objectives from the Connecticut Teaching Competencies, and BEST assessment objectives, and
2) compile information on regional educators’ interest in in-service and graduate education at Eastern Connecticut State University.
The return rate is analyzed in the Survey of 1996-98 Teacher Education Graduates and School Personnel Table that follows this narrative. Twenty-six percent (26%) of our 215 graduates responded to the two surveys, the Survey of Teacher Education Program Graduates –1996-1998 and the Survey of Interest in Graduate Programs, with percentages within programs ranging from 13% to 38%. Twenty-three percent (23%) of the 551 educators responded to the Survey of Interest in Graduate Programs.
Characteristics of the Graduate
Respondents
An analysis of responses to the Survey of Teacher Education Program Graduates – 1996-98 has been compiled in an annotated survey that follows.
Fifty-five (26%) of our 215 teacher education
graduates responded to the survey. Of
this group, 30 had prepared in Elementary Education, 2 in Elementary Education
and Middle Level Education, 11 in Secondary Education, 7 in Early Childhood
Education, and 5 in Physical Education.
Sixty-seven
percent (67%) were employed full-time, 22% part-time, 7% not currently
employed, but looking, and 4% not currently employed and not looking.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) are employed in Connecticut and 4%
indicated other states. Eighty-two percent (82%) are teaching and
9% indicated working in other fields.
For those currently teaching, 27% were teaching in suburban schools, 27% in rural schools, 18% in urban schools, and 5% in a combination of these settings. Seventy-three (73%) are teaching in public schools and 10% indicate that they are teaching in private schools or other settings.
Other interesting statistics include that it took on average of 3.9 months after completing student teaching to receive initial certification. Most of the respondents took the exit exams only once, although on average it took the respondents1.5 time to pass the Content Area Exercises (Essays).
Employment of Respondents by
Program
Five (71%) of the seven Early Childhood Education respondents are employed full-time as teachers in Connecticut.
Twenty-one (70%) of the thirty Elementary Education respondents are employed full-time as teachers in Connecticut. The two Elementary/Middle Level Education respondents are employed part-time as teachers.
Seven (64%) of the eleven Secondary Education respondents are employed full-time as teachers in Connecticut.
Three (60%) of the five Physical Education respondents are employed full-time as teachers in Connecticut.
Responses to the Programs’
Objectives
Graduates were asked to respond to 31 objectives drawn from program descriptions and state documents. They were asked to rate the statement
“ECSU’s teacher education and other courses I completed at ECSU well-prepared me in the following areas” for each objective from 5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=undecided, 2=disagree, to 1=strongly disagree.
Early Childhood
Education (ECE) Responses
The 7 ECE respondents on average strongly agreed or agreed that the program well prepared them for 28 objectives. They rated three objectives below 4:
applications of educational technology in the
classroom (3.57),
competency in reading, writing, speaking, and
mathematics (3.29), and
an understanding of the organization, administration,
governance, and financing of the American public educational system (3.57).
Elementary Education Responses
The thirty-two elementary and middle level respondents on average strongly agreed or agreed that the program well prepared them for 10 objectives. They rated twenty-one objectives below 4:
applications of educational technology in the classroom (3.28),
inclusion of children with special needs (3.97),
competency in reading, writing, speaking, and mathematics
(3.61)
a broad knowledge base in the humanities and the natural,
physical, and social sciences (3.68),
logical and critical thought in problem-solving and
decision-making. (3.71),
an understanding of major principles and concepts in areas
of academic preparation. (3.81),
an understanding of the organization, administration,
governance, and financing of the American public educational system. (3.78),
competency in the development of short & long term
objectives for a variety of needs and settings. (3.66),
competency in planning, implementing, and evaluating
instruction for a variety of needs and
settings. (3.66),
competency in assessing student needs and growth and using
the results of these assessments in instructional decision-making. (3.75),
competency in planning and implementing learning experiences
that meet the needs of students of varying cultural backgrounds, learning
styles, and exceptionalities. (3.66),
an understanding of the legal and ethical responsibilities
of a professional educator. (3.66),
competency in autonomous critical analysis of American
educational practices. (3.53),
effective communication skills with students, parents, and
other professionals. (3.31),
the maintenance of appropriate standards of behaviors. (3.94),
the effective management of routines and transitions.
(3.44),
the presentation of appropriate learning experiences.
(3.91),
the creation of structure for learning. (3.84),
the development of a learning experience to promote
achievement of objectives. (3.88),
the use of appropriate questioning strategies. (3.78), and
the monitoring of student understanding of learning
experiences and the adjusting of instruction when necessary. (3.75).
Secondary
Education Responses
The eleven secondary education respondents on average strongly agreed or agreed that the program well prepared them for 20 objectives. They rated eleven objectives below 4:
constructivist and whole perspectives to teaching. (3.55),
applications of educational technology in the classroom (3.91),
infusion of multicultural approaches in the curriculum.
(3.73),
an understanding of the organization, administration,
governance, and financing of the American public educational system. (3.73),
competency in the development of short & long term
objectives for a variety of needs and settings. (3.91),
a repertoire of instructional techniquest reflecting
theories of learning and instructional design. (3.91),
competency in assessing student needs and growth and using
the results of these assessments in instructional decision-making. (3.82),
competency in autonomous critical analysis of American
educational practices. (3.45),
the effective management of routines and transitions.
(3.73),
the creation of structure for learning. (3.91), and
the use of appropriate questioning strategies. (3.82).
Physical
Education Responses
The five physical education respondents on average strongly agreed or agreed that the program well prepared them for 28 objectives. They rated three objectives below 4:
applications of educational technology in the classroom (3.40),
infusion of multicultural approaches in the
curriculum. (3.40), and
competency in autonomous critical analysis of
American educational practices. (3.45).
Thirty-five (64%) of the 56 graduate respondents chose to add written comments to the survey. These responses were transcribed and identified by program and date of initial certification. The responses suggested greater emphasis on specific topics in the preparation program, including evaluation and assessment, classroom management, and preparation for the PRAXIS II exams and were overall positive about the teacher education program at ECSU.
The Education Department’s 215 student teachers during 1996-1998 and 551 principals and superintendents from districts in Eastern and Central Connecticut were asked to respond to a survey of interest in graduate programs. Of the 179 respondents (23% of the total surveyed), 125 (23% of the administrators surveyed) and 54 (25% of the graduates surveyed) indicated their interest in four study options on a variety of curriculum themes. These options were Professional Development Workshops, Certificate Programs (5 courses), Master of Science degree programs (12 courses), and Six Year programs (10 courses beyond MS) in 14 areas of study. An annotated Survey of Interest appears at the end of this report.
These respondents on average completed their BA/BS in 1979 and were not currently enrolled in other graduate programs.
For Professional Development Workshops, interest was highest in the areas of Educational Technology, Educational Leadership, Reading/Language Arts, Special Education, Children and Young Adult Literature, Mathematics Education, and Early Childhood Education.
For Certificate Programs, interest was highest for Educational Technology, Reading/Language Arts, Educational Leadership, Special Education, and Mathematics Education.
For Master of Science degree programs, interest was highest for Reading/Language Arts, Elementary Education, Mathematics Education, Special Education, Educational Technology, Children and Young Adult Literature, and Early Childhood Education.
For Six Year Program, interest was highest for Educational Leadership, Reading/Language Arts, Early Childhood Education, Mathematics Education, and Educational Technology.
Education Department faculty and staff will review the information provided by the survey for program refinement and development. Of particular note will be tentative conclusions about areas of improvement for the department’s revision of our elementary education certification program, the statistics from the graduate program interest survey as we proposed additional graduate courses and options, and the graduates’ comments as we refine all of our certification program. It is planned that the survey instruments will be modified in preparation for a survey of our 1997-1999 student teacher graduates during Fall 1999.
Thanks to Paulette Mares, Education Department Secretary, and Heather Majewski and Aimee Johnson, Department Student Assistants, for their administrative support in preparing the survey for mailing and for creating the spreadsheet for the analysis. Thanks also to Dr. Jay Hughes, Planning and Institutional Research, Dean Patricia A. Kleine, School of Education and Professional Studies, and the faculty of the Education Department for the additional refinement of the survey.
Survey of 1996-1998 Teacher Education Graduates and School Personnel Return Rates
Annotated Survey of Teacher Education Program Graduates
Annotated Survey of Interest in Graduate Programs – 1999
Written Comments from the Survey of Teacher Education Graduates – 1996-98