1. Cheryl Gibbs Beth MacRae July 27, 2011 Office of Postsecondary Education International and Foreign Language Education

3.  Fellow Pre and Post Language Evaluation The importance of the language evaluation Results of feedback from Centers Challenges and solutions IRIS Enhancements  FLAS Tracking Survey Why now? What will the survey cover? Challenges and concerns FLAS tracking survey – tentative plan  Carry-Over Funds

4.  Results of the language evaluations will show: Effectiveness of the FLAS program Future budget justifications  First year and still a learning process….  FLAS Language Advisory Group Ray Clifford, Meg Malone & Scott McGinnis

5.  Most Centers currently: Use instructors familiar with administering OPI or ACTFL tests and/or trained as evaluators Use instructors of the target language Administer the tests through the Center Hold the student responsible for identifying the evaluator

6.  Same vs. different instructors?  Same instructor = standardization of testing  Students and language evaluators forget about the post evaluation during the academic year  FLAS Coordinators send reminder one month prior to final report due date  The test does not fit the clientele  Potential future revisions

7.  FLAS fellows tend to be less motivated to participate in the evaluation process after completing the study program  Centers can require students sign an agreement  Limited English language skills of the instructor overseas  Available domestic backup  Not all summer programs are completed by September 1 when reports are due  IFLE will change the date to October 1

8.  Format is challenging because it only tests oral proficiency.  IFLE will consider other evaluations in the future  Can IFLE provide the instructors with a standard rubric for determining the language markers?  No, it would allow potential predetermination of the student’s ability.  Can IFLE consider the option of offering a small stipend or compensation to the evaluators?  Unfortunately, this is not an option at this time.

9.  FLAS competition import  Guides and FLAS instructor business process document  Language evaluation results  FLAS instructors now have one account

10.  The Congress believed – That a mechanism for determining program IMPACT was long overdue. All grantees shall administer a survey to determine—  Post graduate employment  Education  Training

11. That the federal INVESTMENT has been substantial. FY 2000 – 2002: $56,669,000 FY 2003 – 2005: $84,193,000 FY 2006 – 2009: $117,903,000 That thousands of fellows have been trained. FY 2000 – 2002: 4,696 FY 2003 – 2005: 6,037 FY 2006 – 2009: 8,210

12. And that the INTEGRITY and VALUE of the program could best be validated after students had graduated from their area studies and language training programs.

13. The FLAS tracking survey will solicit the following: 1. FLAS Recipient (Alum) Information Gender Age Race/ethnicity Citizenship Location (state, country) 2. Postgraduate employment, education, & training Employment status Sector Year (first) degree with FLAS support is obtained Additional degree(s) or training obtained & when

14. 3. Foreign language and area studies training Relevance of area studies training to job requirements and responsibilities Frequency for using/applying language skills and area studies expertise Usefulness of language and area studies training These are examples of data elements. The goal is to construct questions that will collect data that can be compared to other national data sets to demonstrate the difference in outcomes between FLAS fellows and non FLAS fellows.

15. 1. Updated email addresses 2. Centers’ access to data 3. Privacy issues 4. Center specific questions 5. Security concerns, Survey Monkey vs. Qualtrix 6. Alternate format besides email 7. ED vs. Center administered survey and effect on response rate 8. IRIS capabilities for administering the survey

16. 1. Select FLAS Tracking Advisory Committee 2. Convene FLAS Tracking Advisory Committee 3. Send survey to Centers for final comment 4. Submit survey for approval 5. Request updated email addresses 6. Survey first cohort: AY 2010 and Summer 2011 7. Publish data on program outcomes 8. Provide data to Centers

17.  Academic Year to Summer  Summer to next Academic Year with approval from program officer Only after attempting to use and share summer funds Email request must be approved by program officer

18. Thank You!