Fall 2008 TNE Common Entry Survey Results

Teacher Preparation Program Fall 2008 TNE Common Entry Survey Results

This report presents the results of a survey administered to the students in the Teacher Education Program at the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut in 2008. The Teachers for New Era (TNE)’s Common Entry Survey was administered to all incoming students enrolled in the Neag Teacher Education Program’s three components: the Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s Teacher Education (IB/M), Music Education, and the Teacher Certification Program for College Graduates (TCPCG).

Introduction

The goal of the Teachers for a New Era (TNE) Project’s goal is to prepare excellent teachers who are committed to enhancing the learning and opportunities of their pupils. Decisions-driven by evidence, engagement with the Arts and Sciences faculty, and teaching as an academically taught clinical practice profession are the three design principles driving the TNE program. The Common Entry Survey is directly tied to the first of the three guiding principles. This survey is designed to gain insight into the views, expectations, goals, and perceptions of students toward their teacher preparation program, and also their opinions on a number of related topics.1

Method

Participants

In the summer and fall of 2008, individuals in the Teacher Preparation Program were invited to complete the TNE Common Entry Survey. The present analysis included 77 juniors from the IB/M, 13 from the Music Education, and 1 student from TCPCG program.

Procedures

In June of 2008, TCPCG students were asked to take the Common Entry Survey in hard copy during orientation. 1 TCPCG student completed the survey. In September of 2008, IB/M and Music Education students were introduced to the survey during EPSY 221 class. They were then instructed to take the survey online during the next two weeks. A total of 77 IB/M and 13 music students completed the survey. Data were analyzed separately by program; listwise deletion was employed to handle missing data.

1 Please see the Teacher Preparation Program Fall 2006 Common Entry Survey Results for a more complete explanation about the survey instrument. 1 Results

In the next section the results from surveys are presented. These are presented in terms of student demographics, goals and intentions, self-efficacy, dispositions, standards and future teaching plans.

Student Demographics

This year 81.8 % of the students in IBM program are females and 18.2 % of them are males. In regards to ethnic distribution of our sample, among all of the participants 2.6 % are African-American, 93.5 % of them are White and 3.9 % of them have multiple ethnicity. As indicated in the table 1, 2.6 % of the participants reported that they were 22 years old at the time of the data collection, 18.2 % reported they were 21 years old and the remaining 79.2 % reported that they were 20 years old (see Table 1).

When asked about their parents’ education, majority of the IBM students (72.8 %) stated their mothers and 71 % stated their fathers have at least some college degree (please refer to Table 2 for further information).

93.5 % percent of students in the IB/M program and 77.1% of those enrolled in the IBM program attended public schools. The majority of the sample attended schools of primarily White students of middle social economic status (SES). About 37.4% of the IB/M sample reported that they attended an average achieving school, and another 60.7% reported that they attended a high achieving school. The majority of the TCPCG students reported that they attended an average achieving school (47.9%) while another 45.8% reported that they attended an average achieving school (see Table 3).

The demographics of the 2007 participants are very similar to that of 2006 for both the IB/M and TCPCG students. For both groups in 2006 and 2007, females are the majority in the IB/M program, and males in the TCPCG. Additionally, the 2007 results for education levels of parents, and type of high schools graduated bear a similar resemblance to last year’s cohort, where the majority of students have parents that have completed at least some college and the students themselves come from average to high achieving, high social economic status schools.

Table 1

2 Student demographic data IB/M Gender N % Female 63 81.8 Male 14 18.2 Race and/or Ethnicity Table 2 Asian or Pacific Islander 0 0 Black or African American 2 2.6 Hispanic American 0 0 White or Caucasian 72 93.5 Multiple Ethnicity or Other 3 3.9 American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 Age 22 2 2.6 21 14 18.2 20 61 79.2 Other 0 0 Primary Language Chinese 0 0 English 75 97.4 French 1 1.3 German 0 0 Korean 0 0 Spanish 0 0 Other 1 1.3 Highest education levels of mothers and fathers of students IB/M Mother Father N % N % some high school 13 16.9 1 1.3 completed high school 2 2.6 11 14.5 some junior/community college 6 7.8 4 5.3 completed junior community college 13 16.9 6 7.9 some college 24 31.2 10 13.2 completed college 1 1.3 28 36.8 some graduate school 18 23.4 2 2.6 completed graduate school 13 16.9 14 18.4

Table 3 High school type, location, SES, racial composition, and achievement levels

IB/M High School Type N % 3 Charter/magnet 1 1.3 private (non-religious) 1 1.3 private (religious or parochial) 3 3.9 public 72 93.5 High School Location rural 14 18.2 suburban 58 75.3 urban 5 6.5 High School SES Low SES 4 5.2 Middle SES 53 68.8 High SES 20 26.0 High School Racial Composition Primarily students of color 2 2.6 A mix of both students 21 27.3 Primarily White students 54 70.1 High School Achievement Level A low achieving school 3 3.9 An average achieving school 26 33.8 A high achieving school 48 62.3

Goals/Intentions

The goals of the 2008 cohort are, once again, similar to those of the 2007 and participants from IB/M. Most of the students in the IB/M sample are intended to focus on elementary school education.

Table 4 Level of focus in the program *

IB/M N % Early childhood 7 9.1 Elementary school 45 58.4 Middle school 19 24.7 High school 35 45.5 * More than one choice was allowed.

Table 5 presents the frequencies of subject specialties being selected, with English being the preferred area. In addition to their teacher preparation degree in education, some students pursue earning another major or minor degree outside of education (see Table 6). Table 5 Subject specialties planned by IB/M students * Subject specialties N % 4 Bilingual; English Language Learners, ESL 1 1.3

English 25 32.5 Foreign Language 0 0 Math 18 23.4 Music 1 1.3 Science 10 13.0 Special Education 7 9.1 Social studies 18 23.4 Agricultural Education 0 0 Other 1 1.3 * More than one choice was allowed.

Table 6 Fields for IB/M students Areas outside of education students plan to major N %

If you plan to major outside of education Arts (e.g., Fine Arts, Drama, Music, 1 1.3 5 Areas outside of education students plan to major N %

Design)

If you plan to major outside of education Biology 2 2.6

If you plan to major outside of education Business or Professional studies (e.g., 0 0 Agriculture, Architecture, Law)

If you plan to major outside of education Chemistry 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education Engineering or Computer Science 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education English (e.g., English Literature or 8 10.4 Composition, Communications or Journalism)

If you plan to major outside of education Ethnic or Global Studies (e.g., African- 0 0 American or Latin-American Studies)

If you plan to major outside of education Foreign Languages 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education Geology or Earth Science 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education General Studies or Other 0 0

Interdisciplinary Studies (e.g., Liberal / Family Studies)

If you plan to major outside of education Mathematics (e.g., Mathematics or 4 5.2 Statistics)

If you plan to major outside of education Other Humanities (e.g., History, 5 6.5 Philosophy, Religious Studies)

If you plan to major outside of education Physics 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education Psychology 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education Social Sciences (e.g., Economics, 3 3.9 Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science)

Table 6 Fields for IB/M students

6 Areas outside of education students plan to minor N % If you plan to major outside of education Arts (e.g., Fine Arts, Drama, Music, 0 0 Design)

If you plan to major outside of education Biology 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education Business or Professional studies 0 0 (e.g., Agriculture, Architecture, Law)

If you plan to major outside of education Chemistry 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education Engineering or Computer Science 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education English (e.g., English Literature or 3 3.9 Composition, Communications or Journalism)

If you plan to major outside of education Ethnic or Global Studies (e.g., 0 0 African-American or Latin-American Studies)

If you plan to major outside of education Foreign Languages 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education Geology or Earth Science 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education General Studies or Other 0 0 Interdisciplinary Studies (e.g., Liberal / Family Studies)

If you plan to major outside of education Mathematics (e.g., Mathematics or 0 0 Statistics)

If you plan to major outside of education Other Humanities (e.g., History, 0 0 Philosophy, Religious Studies)

If you plan to major outside of education Physics 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education Psychology 0 0

If you plan to major outside of education Social Sciences (e.g., Economics, 0 0 Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science)

Efficacy of Classroom Teaching

For self-efficacy of classroom teaching, the IB/M students are moderately confident with their teaching ability. On a “1-to-5” scale with five indicating “very strong,” the average score on the self- efficacy scale was 3.27 for IB/M students. In general, IB/M and TCPCG students were moderately confident with their teaching abilities, with a mean of three of the scale for each statement.

Table 8

7 IB/M students’ self-efficacy results M SD Provide stimulating lessons for students 3.17 .888

Motivate students to participate in academic tasks 3.38 .744

Change the way to present material to accommodate the learning needs of 3.12 .873 all students

Create learning experiences that are meaningful to students 3.38 .779

Know what procedures to follow if you believe a student has a disability 2.64 1.087

Implement a variety of teaching strategies to reach students who are not 2.22 .968 native English speakers

Teach even the most challenging students 2.70 .961

Effectively address classroom management issues 3.42 .784

Get along well with students who struggle with behavioral issues in 3.32 .834 school

Facilitate learning for all of your students 3.34 .754

Adapt curriculum to accommodate individual differences 3.21 .951

Develop a strong rapport with your students 3.94 .749

Teach students with different cultural backgrounds from your own 3.74 .750

Integrate educational technology into your lessons 3.10 .981

Effectively teach special education students 2.75 1.114

Respect cultural backgrounds different from your own 4.31 .847

Use effective classroom assessment strategies 3.43 .924

Use formalized assessment (i.e., CMT, CAPT, norm-referenced) results 2.95 .944

Develop a strong rapport with parents of your students 3.48 .940

M SD Use computers effectively in the classroom 3.48 .940

Help your students better learn to use technology 3.31 1.055

8 Know all the content that you will be required to teach to your students 3.56 1.006

Provide stimulating lessons for students 3.17 .888 average 3.27 0.913

Priorities identified

Students were asked to rank the three statements based on what is their most important priority as a teacher (1: most important propriety; 3: least important priority). Motivating their students to be engaged in school emerged to be the most important priority, while helping students learn the required content was ranked as the least important priority. Moreover, students were asked to rank their skills as educators (1: your strongest skills / qualities as an educator; 5: your least strong skills/ qualities as an educator). Ability to establish rapport with students was ranked by most students as their strongest skill as educators, while classroom management skills was considered the least strong skill by most students (see Table 10).

Table 10 Priorities identified IB/M N % Having a positive personal relationship with your students 1 40 51.9 2 20 26 3 17 22.1 Helping your students learn the required content 1 29 37.7 2 27 35.1 3 21 27.3 Motivating your students to be engaged in school 1 51 66.2 2 13 16.9 3 13 16.9 Ability to establish rapport with students 1 35 45.5 2 22 28.6 3 12 15.6 4 5 6.5 5 3 3.9 Classroom management skills 1 8 10.4 2 21 27.3

N % 3 26 33.8 4 15 19.5 5 7 9.1 9 Command of content knowledge 1 14 18.2 2 20 26.0 3 25 32.5 4 12 15.6 5 6 7.8 Lesson planning skills

1 10 13.0 2 24 31.2 3 15 19.5 4 13 16.9 5 14 18.2 Lesson implementation skills

1 5 6.5 2 21 27.3 3 15 19.5 4 17 22.1 5 19 24.7

Future Teaching Plans

Students were also asked to describe their future teaching plans. The majority of the students reported that they planned to teach in a suburban school with a mix of both students of color and white students for the majority of their career. Student responses seem to follow the similar but not same structure between what schools they would like to teach in and what schools they will actually end up teaching and this includes the desire to teach in average achieving schools (see Table 14).

Table 14 School type, location, SES, racial composition, and achievement levels for future teaching IBM N % Location Rural 7 9.1 Suburban 55 71.4 Urban 14 18.2 SES Low SES 12 15.6 Middle SES 59 76.6 High SES 6 7.8 Racial Composition Primarily students of color 7 9.1 A mix of both students 63 81.8 Primarily white students 7 9.1 Achievement Level 10 A low achieving school 6 7.8 An average achieving school 37 48.1 A high achieving school 33 42.9 School they think they will actually end up teaching for the majority of their career

Location Rural 11 14.3 Suburban 48 62.3 Urban 18 23.4 SES Low SES 15 19.5 Middle SES 57 74.0 High SES 5 6.5 Racial Composition Primarily students of color 7 9.1 A mix of both students 47 61.0 Primarily white students 23 29.9 Achievement Level A low achieving school 12 15.6 An average achieving school 49 63.6 A high achieving school 16 20.8

11 Short Summary

In 2008 the majority of juniors in the IB/M program were females (81.8 % of the students in IBM program) and the remaining 18.2 % of them were males. Among all of the participants 2.6 % were African-American, 93.5 % of them were White and 3.9 % of them had multiple ethnicities also majority of the students 79.2 % reported that they were 20 years old at the time of the data collection. Majority of students in the IB/M program attended public schools. 36.8 % of the students reported that their fathers completed college.

In general, the majority of students reported that motivating their students to engage in school and having a positive personal relationship with your students were their most important priorities. Also, their ability to establish rapport with students was perceived as IB/M student’s strongest skill.