|
Summary of Teacher Education
Graduate Follow-Up Survey
2005-2006
1. (29) Principal of beginning teachers and
(10) beginning teachers in two parishes were asked to complete a
survey:
- Domains in the Components of Effective
Teaching and added a few others (Technology, Collaboration,
Student Achievement)
- Teachers – How well prepared were they in
these areas
- Principals – How effective were the
teachers in these areas
2. Principals
- Areas most effective – Student Achievement
(3.48), Instruction, Technology, and Content Knowledge (all
average 3.44)
- Areas least effective – School
Improvement, Diversity, and Management
3. Teachers
- Areas best prepared – Management,
Instruction, and Student Achievement
- Areas least prepared – Diversity and
School Improvement
4. Areas of Support Most Requested
- Diverse learning needs
- Assessment
- Management
- Technology
- Parents
5. Preference of Delivery:
- Workshops __16___
- Printed Material __10___
- Direct Contact with University
___1___
-
Website ___6___
Employer:
Teacher Education Graduate Follow-up Survey
|
LIVINGSTON PARISH
On a scale from 1-4 with “1” being “unsatisfactory”
and “4” being “exemplary.” |
Employee
Beginning
N=10
|
Employer: Beginning
N=16*
N=29** |
Employer:
1-3 years
N=9*
N=16** |
|
1. PLANNING:
Was prepared to plan effectively for instruction |
3.78 |
3.38 |
3.89 |
|
2. MANAGEMENT:
Was prepared to maintain an environment conductive to
learning, maximizes the amount of time available for
instruction, and manages learner behavior to provide
productive learning opportunities |
3.89 |
3.13 |
3.67 |
|
3. INSTRUCTION:
Was prepared to deliver instruction effectively and
provides opportunity for student involvement in the learning
process |
3.89 |
3.50 |
3.78 |
|
4. ASSESSMENT:
Was prepared to consistently monitor and assess student
performance effectively |
3.78 |
3.19 |
3.56 |
|
5. DIVERSITY:
Was prepared to understand how students differ in their
approaches to learning and creates instruction opportunities
that are adapted to diverse learners |
3.56 |
3.19 |
3.33 |
|
6. TECHNOLOGY:
Was prepared to use technological tools and/or the
products of technology to promote learning and expand
instruction options |
3.78 |
3.38 |
3.22 |
|
7. COTENT KNOWLEDGE:
a)
Was prepared to use the Louisiana State Content
Standards and Benchmarks to plan instruction
b)
Was prepared to exhibit relevant, up-to-date
content of the discipline being taught, including concepts,
principles, relationships, methods of inquiry, and key issues |
3.78 |
3.50 |
3.89 |
|
3.78 |
3.50 |
3.79 |
|
8. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Was prepared to plan for and engage in meaningful
professional self-development |
3.67 |
3.19 |
3.22 |
|
9. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT:
Was prepared to take an active role in school
improvement planning, implementation, and evaluation |
3.56 |
3.00 |
3.56 |
|
10. COLLABORATION:
Was prepared to create partnerships with parents/
caregivers and colleagues. |
3.78 |
3.31 |
3.78 |
|
11. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
Was prepared to have a positive impact on student
learning, |
3.89 |
3.50 |
3.67 |
*Number of
employer responses
**Number of employees reported
|
TANGIPAHOA PARISH
On a scale from 1-4 with “1” being “unsatisfactory” and
“4” being “exemplary.” |
Employer: Beginning
N=9*
N=10**
|
Employer:
1-3 years
N=11*
N=37** |
|
1. PLANNING:
Was prepared to plan effectively for instruction |
3.33 |
3.45 |
|
2. MANAGEMENT:
Was prepared to maintain an environment conductive to
learning, maximizes the amount of time available for
instruction, and manages learner behavior to provide
productive learning opportunities |
3.11 |
3.55 |
|
3. INSTRUCTION:
Was prepared to deliver instruction effectively and
provides opportunity for student involvement in the learning
process |
3.33 |
3.55 |
|
4. ASSESSMENT:
Was prepared to consistently monitor and assess student
performance effectively |
3.11 |
3.55 |
|
5. DIVERSITY:
Was prepared to understand how students differ in their
approaches to learning and creates instruction opportunities
that are adapted to diverse learners |
3.00 |
3.18 |
|
6. TECHNOLOGY:
Was prepared to use technological tools and/or the
products of technology to promote learning and expand
instruction options |
3.56 |
3.82 |
|
7. COTENT KNOWLEDGE:
c)
Was prepared to use the Louisiana State Content
Standards and Benchmarks to plan instruction
d)
Was prepared to exhibit relevant, up-to-date
content of the discipline being taught, including concepts,
principles, relationships, methods of inquiry, and key issues |
3.33 |
3.36 |
|
3.33 |
3.45 |
|
8. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Was prepared to plan for and engage in meaningful
professional self-development |
3.22 |
3.36 |
|
9. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT:
Was prepared to take an active role in school
improvement planning, implementation, and evaluation |
2.89 |
3.36 |
|
10. COLLABORATION:
Was prepared to create partnerships with parents/
caregivers and colleagues. |
3.33 |
3.45 |
|
11. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
Was prepared to have a positive impact on student
learning, |
3.44 |
3.64 |
*Number of employer responses
**Number of employees reported
|
TOTAL
On a scale from 1-4 with “1” being “unsatisfactory” and “4”
being “exemplary.”
|
Employer: Beginning
N=25*
N=39**
|
Employer:
1-3 years
N=20*
N=53** |
|
1. PLANNING:
Was prepared to plan effectively for instruction |
3.36 |
3.65 |
|
2. MANAGEMENT:
Was prepared to maintain an environment conductive to
learning, maximizes the amount of time available for
instruction, and manages learner behavior to provide
productive learning opportunities |
3.12 |
3.60 |
|
3. INSTRUCTION:
Was prepared to deliver instruction effectively and
provides opportunity for student involvement in the learning
process |
3.44 |
3.65 |
|
4. ASSESSMENT:
Was prepared to consistently monitor and assess student
performance effectively |
3.16 |
3.55 |
|
5. DIVERSITY:
Was prepared to understand how students differ in their
approaches to learning and creates instruction opportunities
that are adapted to diverse learners |
3.12 |
3.23 |
|
6. TECHNOLOGY:
Was prepared to use technological tools and/or the
products of technology to promote learning and expand
instruction options |
3.44 |
3.55 |
|
7. COTENT KNOWLEDGE:
e)
Was prepared to use the Louisiana State Content
Standards and Benchmarks to plan instruction
f)
Was prepared to exhibit relevant, up-to-date
content of the discipline being taught, including concepts,
principles, relationships, methods of inquiry, and key issues |
3.44 |
3.60 |
|
3.44 |
3.60 |
|
8. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Was prepared to plan for and engage in meaningful
professional self-development |
3.20 |
3.30 |
|
9. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT:
Was prepared to take an active role in school
improvement planning, implementation, and evaluation |
2.96 |
3.45 |
|
10. COLLABORATION:
Was prepared to create partnerships with parents/
caregivers and colleagues. |
3.32 |
3.60 |
|
11. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
Was prepared to have a positive impact on student
learning, |
3.48 |
3.65 |
*Number of employer responses
**Number of employees reported
Livingston Employer: Teacher Education Graduate Follow-up Survey
Additional Comments:
- Areas that are not a 4 often are because
the teacher is new. I prefer SLU Graduates because they are
always prepared to teach.
- We had to work with her on reaching all
students at their level.
- Both adapted very well to the new
Comprehensive Curriculum this year.
- Ms. Hogan does a very good job. With
experience, she will be an outstanding teacher.
- Didn’t have any first-year teachers, but
in general, let me say that the students you folks put out are
much better prepared to meet the rigors of their first year than
other programs. I hope you will continue to put out a quality
product.
- The teacher I have is in her third year of
teaching and does an excellent job inside and outside the
classroom.
- Teachers have been well prepared to enter
the classroom. Time management has been the greatest concern
but experience and mentoring has greatly assisted teacher growth
in this area.
- Both are “Great Teachers”.
- I think SLU grads are the best prepared in
the state. I would hire an SLU grad over any other all things
being equal. The new teachers are not knowledgeable of the
comprehensive curriculum. They all reference benchmark and
standards. This shortfall must be addressed in the SLU
curriculum. The new teachers are generally more familiar wit
classroom technology than all older teachers.
- The student teachers from SLU seem to do
well.
- Two of the teachers of the beginning
teachers are top notch. But one is week. The two teachers were
well prepared and provide excellent learning opportunities to
their students.
Livingston Employee: Beginning Teacher
Education Graduate Follow-up Survey
Additional Support:
- Managing learner’s behavior, professional
development, assessing student’s performance effectively, and
school improvement.
- Dealing with administrators who differ in
theories of learning and teaching.
- Technology use in the classroom.
- Building working relationships with
parents and tips for maximizing planning time.
- Classroom management
- Individual differences
- I always completed my field experiences in
the upper grades. After teaching the second grade for the
second half of the year I wish I had a college course just in
phonics. I did not feel comfortable teaching phonics when I
began teaching. This year I went to the Project Read workshop,
and now I feel very confident teaching phonics.
- Assessment
- Writing grants
- I feel regular education majors do not get
enough information to teach special education students.
- I think that SLU should provide students
with more information on dealing with parents, conferences, and
technology resources that can be accessed through the classroom
for use within the classroom (educational games, interactive
websites, student friendly websites).
- Informal assessment techniques
- Professional Development
- Instruction
- Meeting the needs of individual students
and planning for their diverse learning styles.
- Grading and classroom management of
assessments (paperwork management); “centers” applications
- Diversity
- Technology
- Planning for the lower and higher learning
students and time management.
- Kindergarten curriculum (centers)
- School improvement
- Comprehensive curriculum
- Assessment; non-traditional
Preference of Delivery
Workshops
__16___
Printed Material
__10___
Direct Contact with University ___1___
Website
___6___
Additional Comments:
- I feel that SLU prepared me to be in a
classroom. I just wish there was a system in place that each
teacher from beginning classes to your methods would use the
same format for lesson plans. Once you learned how to do it,
then the teacher would not have to waste so much instruction
time with formatting a lesson plan.
- My undergraduate program did not fully
prepare me, however I feel better prepared through the Teacher
Scholars Program.
- I really enjoyed my time at SLU and I had
great teachers.
- Managing paperwork and assessment
materials needs to be addressed at all levels and specifically
the 415 level. Overall, I feel my education provided me with
the necessary tools I need to be a successful and effective
teacher. Thank you.
- SLU provided me with the education, tools,
role models and inspiration to allow me to become an effective
and professional educator. THANK YOU for all I have learned!
- I felt well prepared for this year in
every area.
- Comprehensive curriculum was implemented
after I had graduated. It was difficult to get accustomed to
the new curriculum since I began in January 2006.
Tangipahoa Employer: Teacher Education Graduate Follow-up Survey
Additional Comments:
- In the last 10 years I have not hired new
grads from any university. In 2004, I hired 2 new grads from
SLU and they have been well prepared. This year I hired another
SLU graduate at mid-term and she is doing well. I believe they
you are beginning to prepare the new teachers to teach in the
high-risk school. This must be done to a greater degree.
Student teaching needs to be extended to a full year. The
student teachers just begin to understand what is expected in
the classroom and then the semester ends.
- One difference I see between the “new” SLU
grads and the grads with 3 years experience is the grads with 3
years have elementary certifications and the “new” teacher has a
secondary certification. Another difference is the grads with 3
years have completed the Tangi F.I.R.S.T. program and the new
teacher, who graduated in December 2005, has not entered the
program yet.
- I think the survey should be conducted in
a different manner because in the 1-3 years’ experience group,
there were 2 of the 4 teachers who really affected the way I
scored that group. Two were exceptional, and two were not and
need a lot of work to be employed next school year.
- The SLU graduates who have been hired
during the last 5 years have been exemplary. Student teacher
preparation has played an iatrical part in this.
- Our new teachers are doing a fantastic
job. I wish the older ones were able to get a refresher course.
|
