Lindsay sets forth systematic procedures for designing and conducting follow-up studies of teacher education graduates. Specifically, the author makes recom mendations with regard to formulating instrument questions and scales, deter mining the length and appearance of the questionnaire, writing the cover letter, planning the follow-up reminder proce dures, and comparing nonrespondents and respondents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, J.F., & Berdie, D.R. (1975). Effects on response rates of formal and informal questionnaire follow-up techniques. Journal of Applied Psychology , 60, 255-257.
2.
Belson, W.A. (1981). The design and understanding of survey questionsAldershot, England: Gower.
3.
Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1971). Educational research: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: McKay.
4.
Borich, G.D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 31 (3), 39-42.
5.
Champion, D.J., & Sear, A. (1969). Questionnaire response rate: A methodological analysis. Social Forces, 47, 335-339.
6.
Clausen, J.A., & Ford, R.N. (1947). Controlling bias in mail questionnaires. American Statistical Association Journal, 42, 497-511.
7.
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design methodNew York: John Wiley and Sons .
8.
Fritschel, A.L. (1975). Program weaknesses identified by NCATE evaluation boards using the 1970 standards. Journal of Teacher Education , 26 (3), 205-210.
9.
Gallup, G. (1947). The quintamensional plan of question design. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11, 385-393. Hochstim, J.R. (1967). A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households . American Statistical Association Journal, 62, 976-989.
10.
Katz, L., Raths, J., Mohanty, C., Kurachi, A., & Irving, J. (1981). Follow-up studies: Are they worth the trouble ? Journal of Teacher Education, 32 (2), 18-24.
11.
Krueck, T.G. (1976). A comparison of three alternative methods of conducting a follow-up study based on cost, rate of return, and nature of information obtained (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1975). Dissertation A bstracts International, 36, 4355A-4356A.
12.
Lindsay, M.K. (1980). A follow-up study of Stanford University Secondary Teacher Education Program graduates in social studies, 1960-1977 (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 6238A.
13.
Linsky, A.S. (1975). Stimulating responses to mail questionnaires: A review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 82-101.
14.
Nixon, J.E. (1954). The mechanics of questionnaire construction. Journal of Educational Research, 47, 481-487.
15.
Parten, M. (1950). Surveys, polls, and samples: Practical proceduresNew York: Harper and Brothers .
16.
Payne, S.M. (1951). The art of asking questionsPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
Scott, C. (1961). Research on mail surveys. Royal Statistical Society Journal (Series A), 124 (Part 2), 143-195.
18.
Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L.S., & Cook, S.W. (1976). Research methods in social relations (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
19.
Simon, R.E. (1967). Response to personal and form letters in mail surveys. Journal of Advertising Research, 7 (1), 28-30.
20.
Sletto, R. (1940). Pretesting of questionnaires. American Sociological Review, 15, 193-200.
21.
Standards for the accreditation of teacher education. (1979 ). Washington, DC: National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
Wheeler, C.W. (1980). NCATE: Does it matter? (Institute for Research on Teaching Research Series No. 92). East Lansing: College of Education, Michigan State University.
