What Surveys Tell Us About

STARTALK Programs

David Ellis, NFLCBetsy Hart, NFLCMeg Malone, CAL

SESSION OVERVIEW

STARTALK 2015 2

1. Survey Types

1. Survey Findings w/Discussion

SURVEY TYPES

STARTALK 2015 3

Impact • Program Director (2014)

• Longitudinal Participant (2007 – 2013)

Participant • Teacher (2015)

• Student (2015)

Stakeholder • Team Leaders (2015)

• Program Directors (2015)

• Program Instructors (2015)

• Site Visitors (2015)

PROGRAM DIRECTOR IMPACT SURVEY:

5 AREAS

STARTALK 2015 4

1. Programs

2. Institutions

3. Participants

4. World Language Field

5. Communities

STUDENT PROGRAMS (N=95)

STARTALK 2015 5

STARTALK-language programs started because of STARTALK

School-Based

• 28 new programs in 2014

• 223 AY programs cumulatively since 2010

Community/Heritage

• 25 new programs in 2014

• 156 programs cumulatively since 2010

223 SCHOOL-BASED PROGRAMS:

WHERE ARE THEY?

STARTALK 2015 6

0 10 20 30 40 50

California

Texas

Pennsylvania

Illinois

Utah

Maryland

WHAT LANGUAGES?

STARTALK 2015 7

148

61

11 113 3 3 2 1

WHAT GRADE LEVELS?

STARTALK 2015 8

91

65

104

22

K-5th 6th-8th 9th-12th Postsecondary

OTHER FORMS OF IMPACT

STARTALK 2015 9

Institutions• Increased language courses and enrollments

Students• Increased participation in NSLI-Y and Flagship

• Continued involvement in STARTALK

Community• Student recruitment from underserved groups (ethnic minorities,

socio-economically disadvantaged, individuals with special needs)

TEACHER PROGRAMS (N=57)

STARTALK 2015 10

Institution level

• 12 report an increase in language teacher training program enrollments

Teacher participants

• 35 programs award credits toward professional development, certification, and endorsements

• 47 program directors hired participants in academic year and STARTALK programs

IMPACT ON THE FIELD

STARTALK 2015 11

• 14 presentations about STARTALK at ACTFL

• 25 presentations about STARTALK at other conferences

• 9 scholarly articles related to STARTALK

• 6 doctoral students writing dissertations about STARTALK

DISCUSSION:

IMPACT SURVEYS

STARTALK 2015 12

1. Is STARTALK Central collecting the right data?

2. What other questions should STARTALK Central be asking?

2015 PARTICIPANT SURVEYS

Total student participants =

Total survey respondents =

Response rate =

4,997

2,843

57%

STUDENT PARTICIPANT SURVEY

STARTALK 2015 14

2015 STUDENT SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY LANGUAGE

STARTALK 2015 15

Arabic8%

Chinese59%

Hindi12%

Korean2%

Dari0%

Persian1%Port.

4%

Russian7%

Swahili1%Turkish

1%Urdu5%

STUDENT RESPONDENTS BY GRADE

LEVEL

STARTALK 2015 16

912

786

1003

113

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

K-5th grade 6th-8th grade 9th-12th grade Post secondary

STUDENT RESPONDENTS BY STATE

STARTALK 2015 17

Total teacher participants =

Total survey respondents =

Response rate =

977

794

81%

TEACHER PARTICIPANT SURVEY

STARTALK 2015 18

2015 TEACHER PROGRAM RESPONDENTS BY LANGUAGE

STARTALK 2015 19

Arabic12%

Chinese 62%

Dari0%

Hindi3%

Korean6% Persian

1%

Portuguese3%

Russian7%

Swahili1%

Turkish1%Urdu

4%

RESPONDENTS BY STATE

STARTALK 2015 20

RESPONDENTS BY TEACHING LEVEL

STARTALK 2015 21

114

385

282316

241

0

100

200

300

400

EDUCATION LEVEL

STARTALK 2015 22

63.3% 32.5%

CERTIFICATION

STARTALK 2015 23

14.8%

No

27.1%

Yes58.1%

Want to get certified

14.7%

Yes

45.1%

Want to get certified

40.2%

No

STARTALK

Languages

Other Languages

TEACHER TRAINERS

STARTALK 2015 24

More than 95% of respondents agreed with the following

three statements:

1. The teacher trainers were knowledgeable about language education and were good resources for information about program implementation, materials, etc.

2. The instructors were able to prepare me for teaching my target language and culture.

3. After participating in this program, my confidence in teaching the target language has increased.

EVALUATION OF TEACHER PROGRAM

STARTALK 2015 25

More than 95% of respondents agreed that they’d gained

useful knowledge/skills in the following areas:

1. The three modes of communication

2. Performance-based instruction and assessment

3. Implementing a standards-based and thematically organized

curriculum and/or lesson plans

4. Facilitating a learner-centered classroom

5. How to integrate language, culture, and content

6. How to stay in the target language and provide students with

comprehensible input

EVALUATION OF TEACHER PROGRAM

STARTALK 2015 26

The rates of agreement for the following two statements

were slightly lower:

1. Adapting and using age-appropriate authentic materials (94.2%)

2. Sufficient opportunity to practice new skills (92.8%)

DISCUSSION:

PARTICIPANT SURVEYS

STARTALK 2015 27

1. Is STARTALK Central collecting the right data?

2. What other questions should STARTALK Central be asking?

What surveys tell us about STARTALKSTARTALK 2015

What surveys tell us about STARTALKSTARTALK 2015

Margaret E. Malone

OutlineOutline

Native languages of student/teacher program instructors

Years in STARTALK program

Additional roles in STARTALK 2015

Language teaching experience

Training/majors related to language teaching

Grade levels taught

Compensation

29

Native language/s of instructors (student program)Native language/s of instructors (student program)

N = 293

Native language/s of instructors (teacher program)Native language/s of instructors (teacher program)

N = 139

Languages of our instructorsLanguages of our instructors

Variety of first languages

Growing group of L1 English speakers teaching in STARTALK student programs

Instructor years in STARTALK program (student program)Instructor years in STARTALK program (student program)

N = 289

Years as Program Director in a STARTALK programYears as Program Director in a STARTALK program

N = 115

Additional roles of instructors in STARTALK programs (student program)Additional roles of instructors in STARTALK programs (student program)

Additional role(s) % (N=262)

Student program: Program director 3.4%

Student program: Instructional lead 30.5%

Student program: Any other administrative or leadership

position

6.5%

Teacher program: Program director 0.8%

Teacher program: Instructional lead 8.0%

Teacher program: Any other administrative or leadership

position

2.7%

Instructor in a STARTALK teacher program 19.9%

Participant in a STARTALK teacher program 23.3%

STARTALK Central site visitor 0.8%

STARTALK Central team leader 0.0%

No additional roles 26.7%

Other: Web, multimedia, technology role, etc. 11.1%

Additional roles of instructors in STARTALK programs(teacher program)Additional roles of instructors in STARTALK programs(teacher program)

Additional role(s) % (N=133)

Teacher program: Program director 9.8%

Teacher program: Instructional lead 41.4%

Teacher program: Any other administrative or leadership

position

14.3%

Student program: Program director 6.0%

Student program: Instructional lead 10.5%

Student program: Any other administrative or leadership

position

8.3%

Instructor in a STARTALK student program 12.0%

Participant (learner) in a STARTALK teacher program 4.5%

STARTALK Central site visitor 6.8%

STARTALK Central team leader 5.3%

No additional roles 19.5%

Other 9.0%

Experience and roles of program leadersExperience and roles of program leaders

Over 1/3 new instructors in student programs

Almost 1/4 new Program Directors

Many instructors play multiple roles in STARTALK programs

STARTALK: new professional opportunities in language (instruction, program management…)

Instructor years teaching target language

(student program)Instructor years teaching target language (student program)

N = 290

Instructor years teaching a language

(teacher program)Instructor years teaching a language (teacher program)

N = 121

Instructor background in language teaching (student program)Instructor background in language teaching (student program)

N = 291

Instructor grade levels taught in STARTALK program vs. during academic year (student program)Instructor grade levels taught in STARTALK program vs. during academic year (student program)

More instructors teach at the elementary, middle, or high school grade

level during STARTALK than during academic year.

Fewer instructors teach at the university level during STARTALK than

during academic year.

Instructor backgroundInstructor background

Strong base in language teaching and learning

Great experience at all levels of language teaching

STARTALK: provides opportunities for professional development and experience

I felt I was paid adequately for my teaching load this

summer (N=251). (instructors in student program)I felt I was paid adequately for my teaching load this

summer (N=251). (instructors in student program)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Agree 75.5% 84.3% 84.8% 83.8% 82.8% 86.9%

Disagree 22.0% 15.7% 15.1% 15.5% 14.5% 12.4%

N/A 2.5% -- -- 0.7% 2.7% 0.8%

Note:

Agree = Strongly Agree & Agree

Disagree = Strongly Disagree & Disagree

I felt I was paid adequately for my teaching load this

summer (N=123). (instructors in teacher program)I felt I was paid adequately for my teaching load this

summer (N=123). (instructors in teacher program)

2012 2013 2014 2015

Agree 88.2% 93.1% 78.9% 87.3%

Disagree 11.8% 6.9% 9.7% 9.5%

N/A -- -- 11.4% 3.2%

Note:

Agree = Strongly Agree & Agree

Disagree = Strongly Disagree & Disagree

ConclusionsConclusions

Well-prepared instructors

Many instructors teaching STARTALK languages during academic year AND summer

Most instructors satisfied with compensation

Our program staff often play multiple roles during the program

DiscussionDiscussion

1. Is CAL collecting the right data?

2. What other questions should CAL be asking?

THANK YOU