Date of Award:

1971

Document Type:

Dissertation

Degree Name:

Doctor of Education (EdD)

Department:

Family, Consumer, and Human Development

Department name when degree awarded

Curriculum Development and Supervision

Advisor/Chair:

Eldon M. Drake

Abstract

Introduction

The present study attempted to identify the strengths and limitations of the Utah State University teacher preparation program, Recommendations of improvements and changes in the program were based on the evaluations of graduates of the teacher preparation program. Information was gathered to determine if any difference in graduate evaluations of the program would be found based on the graduate's sex, age at graduation, community size teaching in, number of years of teaching experience, secondary major area of preparation, and the college graduated from.

Method

A questionnaire was developed to survey the evaluations of the graduates of the teacher preparation program who had graduated between June, 1968 and June, 1970 and who had one, two, or three years of teaching experience. A random sample of 305 graduates was drawn and from that sample 219 useable questionnaires were returned or 71.4 percent. Data from the questionnaire, Section II, The Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Program; Section III, The Student Teaching Experience; and Section IV, Adequacy of Instruction in the Preparation Program were analyzed using the analysis of variance test to identify statistically significant items. Response frequencies and percentages were further employed in the data analysis.

Findings

1. Graduates evaluated the course of "General Elementary Psychology" (Psychology 53) and "Educational Psychology" (Psychology 106) as the least helpful in preparing them to teach.

2. Special methods courses in the graduate's major preparation area and the student teaching experience were judged to be the most helpful in preparing graduates to teach.

3. Graduates evaluated that they received inadequate assistance from their cooperating teachers while student teaching in the areas of: (1) setting overall teaching goals and objectives, (2) relating theory to practice, and (3) assessing the learning needs of their students.

4. The evaluations of graduates indicated that they received inadequate assistance from their university supervisors while student teaching in the areas of: (1) observing students more objectively and subjectively, (2) selecting appropriate media and methods, (3) visiting you sufficiently to make a valid observation of your teaching, and (4) acted as a resource person in locating and utilizing teaching materials.

5. Graduates evaluated the instruction in the following teacher preparation content areas was "not considered" or "inadequately considered" in the program: (1) techniques for communicating with parents, (2) understanding how various school services affect the life of a student, (3) techniques for developing self-discipline among students, (4) applying research writings to teaching, (5) discipline (classroom management), (6) techniques for studying group processes, (7) social and cultural backgrounds of students, (8) understanding the teacher's role in the school with regard to the extra-curricular activities.

6. Respondents indicated that the following teacher preparation content areas were "adequately considered" or "highly emphasized" in the teacher preparation program: (1) adolescent growth and development, (2) a desire to be innovative, (3) skills in developing teaching materials, (4) evaluating pupil progress, and (5) theories about how learning takes place.

7. Graduates indicated that there were three significant experience areas other than professional education classes which helped prepare them to teach: (1) church work with such related activities as sunday school teaching, youth groups, and missions; (2) experience with teachers while attending high school; and (3) experiences in college course work exclusive of education classes.

8. There was no significant difference in the evaluations of the teacher preparation program regardless of the sex of the graduate, of the age of the graduate at time of graduation, of the size of community teaching in, of the number of years of teaching experience, or of the college graduated from at Utah State University.

9. There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the evaluations of the teacher preparation program with regard to the major area of study of the graduates. Graduates in academic major preparation areas of social science; English, speech, drama; mathematics; science; and foreign language perceived the program more critically than did graduates in the non-academic major preparation areas of physical education, health; and industrial arts, home economics.

10. Graduates of the preparation program evaluated the program significantly different at the .05 level when compared to the middle value score of the instrument. Graduates evaluations were more critical of the program when compared with the middle value score.

Included in

Education Commons

Share

COinS