What Is The State of The German Language in The American Education System?

What is the state of the
German language in the

American Education System?
Alyssa Geiger
Table of Contents
I. Introduction………………………………………………………………………3
II. Literature Review……………………………………………………………… 4-7
III. Project Scope…………………………………………………………………...7-9
IV. Data Collection…………………………………………………………………9-11
V. Statistical Methods………………………………………………………………11-14
VI. Output and Results……………………………………………………………...15-18
VII. Validity & Reliability……………………………………………………….....19
VIII. Discussion…………………………………………………………………….19-22
IX. Conclusion & Recommendations……………………………………………….22-23
XI. References………………………………………………………………………24
XII. Appendices……………………………………………………………………..25-69
A. Survey Questions……………………………………………………........25-28
B. Data Collection Plan……………………………………………………...29
C. Methodology……………………………………………………………...30
D. Table for 1st hypothesis…………………………………………………...31
E. Data set 1………………………………………………………………….32-33
Data set 1
Boxplot
Summary
Levene’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance
Independent Samples T-Test
F. Data set 2, Last 2 years……………………………………………………..34-41
Data set 2
Summary
Scatterplot
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Matrix
Linear Regressions
G. Data set 3……………………………………………………………………42-51
Data set 2
Summary
Scatterplot
Linear Regression
H. Answers to Descriptive Questions…………………………………………...52-56
I. RCommander Script Windo…………………………………………………..57-66
2
I. Introduction
In 2010, administrators at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS), a Graduate

School of Middlebury College, made a decision to cancel the German language program that is
offered as a component of International Policy and Management degrees. In Spring 2010, the
German classes at MIIS had low enrollment numbers compared with other language classes, with
11 enrollments at the 300-level and only 6 at the 400-level. Prior to 2010, some German classes
had as low as 3 enrollments but the had not yet been cancelled. Although the smaller class size
gave students a better opportunity to practice speaking German, the low enrollment numbers for
the program were not cost-effective in terms of resource allocation compared with other language
programs that were high in demand and worthy of more investment. As of 2010, the German club
had ended, and so had recruitment and promotion for the German program. The final decision to
end the program also took other factors into consideration pertaining to the German language’s
local and global situation. On the local level, the administration cited the lack of a German
community on the west coast, with few ethnic Germans and little or no German being offered at
California schools. Factors of concern on the global level included the fact that German is not a
world language and is only spoken in a few parts of the world, that Germans are fluent in English
so there is less of a need for people to learn German, and that German was not considered
applicable to many fields of study at MIIS. Although the German program will end in the fall of
2011, MIIS is keeping a close eye on its feeder school, Middlebury College, because of its strong
German program and recent addition of German to the Middlebury Monterey Language Academy
for kids. If more students from Middlebury as well as other incoming students have German as
their target language, MIIS will consider restarting the program. 1
As one the few dedicated students enrolled in the advanced German program at MIIS from Fall
2009 to Spring 2011, I was deeply concerned by the program’s cancellation and wondered how
other German language programs around the country were doing. During the fall of 2010 at MIIS,
I decided to research the question: What is the state of the German language in the American
education system? It is my intention that this report will illuminate best and worst practices that
predict success of German language programs. I hope that it elicits dialogue between a variety of
stakeholders such as German teachers, language faculty and departments, parents, students, and
school administrators, and helps to inform the decision-making process concerning the fate of
German language programs.
II. Literature Review
In the literature review, I look at four different studies to help construct a picture of past and
present trends in the German language. Three studies measure the success of the German
language by the percent increase or decrease of German speakers and enrollments in German
language programs. The fourth study, however, measures success based on a program’s ability to
increase as well as maintain enrollments. I then give an overview of factors that have contributed
to successful German programs. Finally, I discuss factors that hinder the success of German
programs as well as some arguments for why German is still considered to be a promising
language today.
1
Confidential personal communication on 9/28/2010
3
German language trends: 4 studies
In 2007, a study on language use in the United States found that between 1989 and 2007, there
had been a steady increase in the number of people speaking languages other than English of
around 34%. The use of the German2 language, however, decreased by 30.4% over the same time
span.3 The study found that the highest percentage of German speakers live near the Canadian
boarder, including 1.8% of the population in North Dakota and 1.5% in South Dakota, 4 which are
areas of German ancestry with a history of immigration. 5 Indiana and Pennsylvania also had
relatively large numbers of German language speakers.
Paralleling the increase in the number of people speaking foreign languages, a study by the
Modern Language Association (MLA) has seen a steady upward trend in the study of languages
at Institutions of Higher Education, although the enrollments in German language programs has
not always followed this trend.6 The study showed that since 1960, enrollments in German classes
have fluctuated quite a bit. Between 1960 and 1970 enrollments increased by 38.6%, then
decreased by 37.3% between 1970 and 1980, then increased again by 5.1% between 1980 and
1990. Between 1990 and 1995 enrollments decreased by 27.8%, then decreased again by 7.5%
between 1995 and 1998. Between 1998 and 2002 German language enrollments increased by
2.3%, and between 2002 and 2006, enrollments also increased by 3.5% from 91,100 to 94,264. It
should be noted that this more recent increase might reflect first and second year language
requirements.7 In 2006, German remained the third most taught language at US colleges and
universities.
In 2004 and 2007 the Mapping and Enhancing Language Learning (MELL) project 8 in
Washington State surveyed high schools asking whether they offered world languages, and if so,
which ones. The study found that the percent of schools offering German declined from 40% in
2004 to just 27% in 2007. In 2007, 93% of the schools that offered German said they would
continue offering it, 72% said their German classes were full, while 7% said enrollment was not
high enough to justify keeping it, and they would not be replacing retired faculty.
Program success has been defined by stable or increased enrollment percentages in the
introductory sequence as well as the upper division in college German programs, and by the
percent of German majors. Specifically, enrollments less than 3% have been used to define the
threshold of “stabile” enrollments.9 Changes in these percentages can indicate a program’s ability
to build student commitment and program strength. The literature emphasizes both stable and
increased enrollment as bottom-line indicators of success for language programs, since
“administrators tend to look at student numbers as a criterion for determining departmental
2
In this paper, “German” includes other West Germanic languages as well
3
Shin, Hyon B. and Robert A. Kominski. 2010. Language Use in the United States: 2007, American Community
Survey Reports, ACS-12. (6) U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
4
Ibid (8)
5
visit Ancestry Web site: www.census.gov/population/www/ancestry/index.html
6
Furman, Nelly, David Goldberg, and Natalia Lusin. Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in the United
States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2006. (7) Web publication, 13 November 2007. Modern Language
Association of America 2007. For the complete report, please visit: www.mla.org/2006_flenrollmentsurvey
7
Deutsche Welle “German Dying as a Scholarly Language, Culture Council Warns. 31.01.2009. pg. 1. http://www.dw-
world.de/popups/popup_printcontent/0,,3979371,00.html
8
Mapping and Enhancing Language Learning (MELL) in Washington State. Policy Brief #5 Fall, 2008.
9
Wells, Elizabeth B. Foreign Language Enrollments in the United States Institutions of Higher Education (8) ADFL
Bulletin, Vol. 35, Nos. 2–3,Winter-Spring 2004
© 2004 by the association of departments of foreign languages
4
support.”10 A study surveying 1,962 foreign language departments examined the change in
enrollment percentages between fall of 1995 and fall of 1999. Looking at the introductory
sequence, 37.8% of schools saw an increase in enrollment and 19.5% remained stable, meaning
57.3% were successful.11 In the upper division, 43.3% had increased, 17.5% remained stable,
meaning 60.7% were successful.12 Although most school administrators look first to these
enrollment figures in deciding whether or not a program is successful, other factors that affect
enrollments and contribute to program success need to be considered. According to Ursula Dinter
from the Goethe Institute, San Francisco, German programs in the public sector have been hit
hard, however, Saturday schools have experienced large increases in enrollments. 13
Best Practices of successful language programs

There has been a great deal of research on factors affecting program success. The American
Association of Teachers of German (AATG) offers both short and long-term initiatives designed
to increase the success of German programs (for example, “Maintain and Strengthen Your
German Program”14), and provides a space to share or read about success stories where German
programs have been saved.15 Some of the strategies include creating a study abroad or exchange
program, maintaining an active German club that sponsors conversation hours, film screenings,
festivals and excursions, and ensuring that the German program takes on an active role by
advocating and recruiting at campus events, fairs, and study abroad receptions.
An article in Fanning the Flames, titled Best Practices for Ensuring the Survival of Small German
Programs,16 notes that long-term success of German programs is dependent upon teachers
remaining passionate, which includes participating in AATG seminars and professional
development opportunities to stay informed of new and improved pedagogical practices. The use
of social media, including video, Internet, podcasts, movies, broadcasts and having a good
website are proven to be beneficial to German language programs. Collaborative efforts with
other departments, including partnering, cross listing classes and making it easy to earn course
credits in German are also important factors. 60% of respondents in the MELL project described
previously cited “good teachers” and “quality of instruction” as main factors for program
success.17 Institutional support for faculty including travel to conferences, technical training,
research and scholarship, study abroad, and course development were also important. 18 Other
factors influencing success include departmental practices and features involving teaching
approaches and curriculum characteristics (e.g. teaching emphasis on culture, literature, reading,
writing and oral communication) and involving administrative arrangements (e.g. hiring language
coordinators, instituting language centers, and allowing for teacher preparation time). The
10
Goldberg, David and Elizabeth B. Welles. Successful College and University Foreign Language Programs, 1995-99:
Part 1, pg. 171 Profession 2001
11
12
ibid 1(77)
13
Phone conversation, October 2010
14
AATG http://www.aatg.org/resources/tool-kit-for-german-advocacy/sus-the-mo/maintaining-a-strengthing-german-
programs.html
15
AATG http://www.aatg.org/resources/tool-kit-for-german-advocacy/sus-the-mo/success-stories-from-german-
programs.html
16
Fanning the Flames: Best Practices for Ensuring the Survival of Small German Programs. Unterrichtspraxis 42 no1
Spring 2009
17
18
5
likelihood and strength of co-occurrence or association between enrollment growth and a given
practice has been researched. Past studies have shown that programs with study abroad
participation were 20.1% more likely to experience growth in enrollments in the introductory
sequence of BA and MA departments.19 The use of technology in the testing and placement of
students into their appropriate language level was also correlated with increased enrollments.
Dr. Kathy Bailey20, President of the International Research Foundation for English Language
Education and Professor of Applied Linguistics at MIIS, calls for more attention on students’
perception of their own language learning, advocating for the use self-assessment methods such
as pre-and post-testing and keeping a portfolio, which offer valuable insight into their progress in
a language. This can influence learning outcomes such as student confidence or stress-levels,
allowing students to better judge their own language ability and what they are capable of.
Ultimately, this practice increases the likelihood of student success and commitment to the
language, which decreases dropouts and stabilizes enrollments. Dr. Bailey also points out the
importance of creating a classroom environment where students are required to speak only
German, where the optimal level of frustration and challenge exists so that students are engaged
in learning the language, not discouraged. Dr. Bailey places heavy emphasis on program
perception as a major factor of program success. Publicity and recruiting, for example, can make
or break a program and play a major role in making a good first impression on prospective
students and parents. Informing them about why the language is useful to learn and setting the
right expectations about the learning environment, the material to be covered, the workload, and
how user-friendly the program is, all may influence decisions to enroll in the program.
Unsuccessful language programs

The literature identifies several factors that can lead to unsuccessful German language programs.
Teachers have cited a heavy work load, wearing too many hats, pressure from cost-driven
administrators for minimum enrollment numbers, a lack of assistants and support staff, a lack of
ready-made materials due to low investment by textbook publishers, the diversity of student
learning styles and the range of language proficiency within the classroom as main factors
contributing to lack of success.21 Some of the challenges German language programs face as
mentioned in the MELL study include being unable to find qualified teachers, pressure for
students to take other classes, too many languages offered, and budget cuts. The emergence of
Brazil, Russia, India and China, the so-called BRIC countries, demonstrate how political and
economic factors are influencing and increasing the demand for which languages are offered. 22
Graduation and entrance requirements in higher education institutions have also been mentioned
as factors negatively affecting program enrollments.
Unsuccessful German language programs may also be the result of what many see as a decline in
the German language itself. An article in the Deutsche Welle, German Dying as a Scholarly
Language, Culture Council Warns, argues that German is declining as a scholarly language
because German academics prefer publishing their work in English, therefore decreasing the
motivation for non-German researchers and scholars to learn the German language. 23 Terrence
19
Part 1, 191-195, pg. 195 Profession 2001
20
Interview 9/30/2010
21
Fanning the Flames: Best Practices for Ensuring the Survival of Small German Programs. 65 Unterrichtspraxis 42
no1 Spr 2009
22
www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research
23
Deutsche Welle “German Dying as a Scholarly Language, Culture Council Warns. 31.01.2009. pg. 1.
http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_printcontent/0,,3979371,00.html
6
Wiley in Learning from History, argues that the German language has been stigmatized from the
two World Wars resulting in restrictive language policies in the US in the past. Wiley suspects
that the language has also declined significantly due to the decline in German immigration. 24
German, a promising language

An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled Is German Necessary? Nein, Says One
University, AATG Executive Director Helene Zimmer-Loew sees the closure of the German
program at University of Southern California due to declining enrollments as unjustified.
According to Zimmer-Loew, not only did the decision hurt the University’s reputation by
diminishing the curriculum, it ran “counter to national trends according to the MLA,” 25 whose
finding showed that German enrollments have slowly started rising back up, and remains the third
most popular foreign language at colleges and universities. Zimmer-Loew also suggests that
learning German has become more promising given Germany’s leadership in EU 26 as well as its
robust economy, the fourth largest economy in the world.
Russell Berman’s article in the German Quarterly, Our predicament, our prospects, concedes that
although “German studies cannot win a game of pure numbers,” 27 smaller numbers of students
can actually be a good thing for German language programs. A decrease in enrollments can mean
a better student-teacher ratio and improved quality of student learning. Since many universities
have language requirements for the first two years, higher total undergraduate enrollment does
not necessarily translate into committed upper level enrollment. What Berman suggests is making
the lower-level German courses less Americanized and more focused on putting students on a
path to fluency, preparing them for more language-intensive upper level courses. Focusing on
preparing and retaining students who are genuinely interested can result in real gains for the
German language: a higher number of German speakers in the U.S.
III. Project Scope
The last four studies mentioned above focused on German language trends until 2007. Although
the MLA’s study suggests that German is slowly making a comeback, the low enrollments in
upper-level courses and the cancellation of the German program at MIIS made me wonder how
many other programs are experiencing similar set-backs. My current study examines the percent
change of enrollments in advanced German language programs in the U.S. using concepts and
approaches from the literature. I hope to address to what extent advanced German language
programs have been successful in increasing and maintaining upper-level enrollments over the
last five years, and why?
Definitions
advanced German language program: Total number of students in high school or higher
education German classes after the second year of taking the language, including A.P. German,
300-level, 400-level or 500-level German classes
24
Wiley, Terrence. Learning from History. UCLA Center for World Languages. 1,
http://www.international.ucla.edu/languages/article.asp?parentid=3898
25
Wasley, Paula. “Is German Necessary? Nein, Says One University. The Chronicle of Higher Education 54 no33 1
April 25, 2008. The H.W. Wilson Company/WilsonWeb
http://vnwebhwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml
26
Tatlock, Lynne. USA: German in the Changing Landscape of Postsecondary Education. Washington University.
Unterrichtspraxis 43 no1 Spr 2010
27
Berman, Russell A. Our predicament, our prospects. The German Quarterly 73 no1 Wint 2000. WN:
0035003110031. (1) 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company
7
lower-level German language program: Total number of students in high school or higher
education German classes within the first or second year of taking the language, including
Introductory courses, 100-level, and 200-level German classes
stabile: A growth or decline of less than or equal to 3%
successful: programs that experienced stabile or an increase in enrollments over the last five years
I used the first definition as the criterion for choosing my random sample. Referring to the second
definition, lower-level German language programs experience more fluctuation in enrollments
and may not reflect the actual number of committed German learners, as many are simply
fulfilling language requirements. I chose to only focus on advanced German language programs
because they are a more accurate representation of the overall health of the German program. The
third definition is based on the literature defining stability of enrollments in programs. I realize by
using such a small percentage as a threshold to define stability might categorize smaller programs
that only lose 2 enrollments over the course of four years as unsuccessful. However, even the loss
of 1 or 2 enrollments for these smaller programs could lead to cancellation as funding relies so
heavily upon enrollment numbers. For the fourth definition, success is defined as programs that
experienced stabile or increased percent enrollments over a given period of time. The literature
points to enrollment percentages as a bottom-line indicator of whether or not a program receives
funding and continues. Although the MLA study showed an increase in German language
enrollments at institutions of higher education, looking at the success of advanced German
language programs at high schools can also indicate the level of serious interest from students
likely to continue pursuing the language. I plan to look at the data over the past five years to get a
more accurate picture of the current state of German.
Dependent and independent variables

To answer my research questions, I formulated two hypotheses. My first hypothesis is that there
are fewer successful advanced German language programs than unsuccessful programs over the
past five years. I will test this hypothesis by comparing the number of successful programs with
unsuccessful programs. My second hypothesis is that the dependent variable (DV) of success
(stability or percent increase of growth in enrollments over the last five years) is predicted by
other independent variables (IVs), listed in section V. Statistical Methods, Hypothesis 2. The
independent variables found within questions on the survey (see Appendix A) as possible
predictors of program success were based on the findings from previous studies’ survey questions
and the literature review.28
Descriptive variables
In addition to testing the variables above, I will also take a qualitative approach, analyzing the
data by looking at responses from questions #7, #15, #16, #18 and #25 in the survey. Question
#7 asks for reasons why students drop out, and I look into whether these reasons are within the
program’s control, if these reasons are particular to each program, or if they are common across
programs. Question #15 asks what makes an advanced German language program successful.
Question #16 asks what problems exist for these programs. Question #18 asks programs to
explain the current trend in their own German programs. For these four questions I will
summarize what seems to contribute to program success as well as problems that hinder it. I look
for similarities and differences across responses, and posit how this information might be used to
28
Please see the survey for advanced German language programs Appendix A for a complete description of each
question for the variables above.
8
inform stakeholders and benefit advanced German programs. Finally, question #25 asks about the
location of the program. I will map out the programs across the U.S. to see if location is related to
success. These questions are more descriptive in nature and offer a richer picture from different
programs’ experiences of what other factors might influence the success of advanced German
language programs.
IV. Data Collection
For my study I have laid out a data collection plan that includes project planning priorities and
activities over a period of seven months (see Appendix B for a detailed timeline of the data
collection plan). An outline of the process of finding the total population of German language
programs with which to draw a random sample and to collect data can found in Appendix C:
Methodology. I had originally anticipated finishing the study by December but had
underestimated the amount of time it would take to collect the survey responses and analyze the
data.
To compiling a comprehensive list of all German language programs, I used the Encyclopedia of
Associations and found the Modern Language Association (MLA) and the American Association
of Teachers of German (AATG), which yielded extremely helpful information including studies
of German language enrollment trends and best practices for successful German language
programs. I then reviewed the Encyclopedia of Cultural Organizations for a list of possible
organizations that offered German classes. After some Internet research and phone calls, I found
out that most of the organizations (see organizations in grey, Appendix C) do not offer any
German classes except for the Goethe Institute. All but one of the Goethe Institute’s offices
offered German language classes. I called the Goethe Institute in San Francisco and received
information on several places that offered German classes, including the German Institute of
Silicon Valley, and Saturday schools in San Jose, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Fremont and Marin.
I then spoke with someone at the Goethe Institute in Chicago, and was pointed to the German
Language Opportunity Website (GLOW). The website contained a list of 8,587 German language
programs, including those from Saturday schools, universities, high schools, middle schools,
private German schools, German tutors and job seekers. The Goethe Institute in Chicago had
used GLOW to send out a survey to all German language programs in the Midwest (about 1800
schools) getting a response rate of 58%. Using GLOW as the population for my study sounded
promising but I wanted to be sure it was as complete as possible. I crosschecked a hundred
universities from a list of 580 universities29 with the GLOW website and found that all 100 of
them were there and assumed that the website contained most if not all the universities. I
crosschecked all German private schools in the U.S, 30 which included German Saturday schools,
with the GLOW website and discovered that programs from 20 schools were missing. I could not
find a complete list of German high school and middle school programs anywhere else, but
noticed that the GLOW website contained an extensive, if not complete list of them. I first
created a list of all 8,587 German programs in excel using numbers 1- 8,587, and then added the
missing programs I had found to bring the list to a total of 8,835. I then randomized this list in
excel and selected my random sample of 148.
I then went back to the GLOW website and located the information it had on each of the 148
programs, including contact information. When the contact information was outdated, I looked on
the program websites to find contact information of Department Chairs and German teachers. For
29
German Programs in the USA http://www.germanistik.net/universities-us.htm
30
German Language School Conference List (GLSC) www.Germanschools.org
9
every program, I called to find out if the school had an advanced German language program with
at least once a week classes. I then inquired about the best person to contact about the program, to
whom I could distribute the survey. I
left messages and sent emails to one
contact person per program. The figure
to the left details the selection process. I
randomly sample a total of 148
programs from the total population of
8,835 German language programs, all
of which turned out to be from the list I
made for the GLOW website. Of the
programs selected, 93 programs fit my
criteria of having and advanced German
program with classes meeting at least
once a week. The 55 programs that did
not meet the criteria included tutors, job
seekers, German language programs
located outside the United States, and
middle schools and/or schools with no advanced German language program. Overall, teachers
proved extremely difficult to reach and had little time to take the survey over the phone.
Therefore, I relied on email as the best way to inform teachers of my study and to get them to fill
out my survey. Of the 93 advanced German language programs contacted, 63 were non-
responsive or promised to respond and did not, amounting to a 32.3% response rate. Of the 30
responses, 11 programs had recently been cancelled and 19 programs were still active. Due to
time constraints, I was not able to randomly sample and contact more programs.
Implementation of the Survey

I created a survey (see Appendix A) with questions based on findings in the literature review to
look for current trends in language enrollments and possible reasons why advanced German
programs have or have not been successful. The survey was distributed primarily via email, with
two given over the phone. Of those who received the survey via email, one respondent sent
answers via mail due to technical difficulties emailing back the survey. The survey contained a
confidentiality statement, ensuring that all programs and persons participating in the survey
remained anonymous. It consisted of twenty-four questions, which were a mix of yes/no, close-
ended, and open-ended questions, as well as questions using a 1 to 10 point Likert Scale, so that a
variety of information could be obtained. Some of the questions should have been worded
differently to increase clarity, or eliminated for redundancy. Making some questions multiple
choice or close-ended may have resulted in more useable data. Shortening the survey to around
15 questions might have resulted in a higher survey participation rate.
Challenges
For my analysis, I was selective in looking only at questions that contained the most reliable and
complete data. Therefore, I did not include data from a total of 10 survey questions. The first part
of question #1 asks if they currently have advanced German classes. If the answer is no, the
second part asks if they had an advanced German program in the past. If this response is also no,
this means that the criteria were not met and they are not qualified to participate in the study. If
the answer is yes, and they did at one point have an advanced German program, they qualify for
the survey and would have been asked to answer when the program ended and why (two very
important questions for my study). Unfortunately, because the programs were cancelled, there
was no one who could/would fill out the rest of the survey, therefore the date of and reasons for
cancellation were obtained over the phone. Using information on the school website I was able to
10
determine the size of the school and location. Since no further information could be provided, the
data for the cancelled programs that could be tested was limited.
Almost all programs supplied data for the first part of question #3, which asks for the number of
students enrolled at the school or the size of the school. In the first copy of the survey that I had
sent out to half of the programs, question #4 asked for the “number of enrollments in 2009, in
2008, etc. any other information for years past.” Respondents only gave enrollment numbers for
these two years, but did not provide any further information for other years past. I decided to edit
the question to ask specifically for “enrollments in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, etc. any
other information for years past.” I contacted those to whom I sent the first draft of the survey,
clarifying question #4. This resulted in more complete data, although many of the programs
commented that they did not have the data from so many years back. Some of the enrollment
numbers over the past five years remained exactly the same, suggesting the teachers may have
been estimating enrollments, which may have made my data less reliable.
Question #8, which asked if students have ever been turned away because classes were full, it was
unclear whether a “no” meant that the classes were never full and thus students were never turned
away, or that the class was full but extra students were not turned away. A “yes” response
suggests that although the program is succeeding, it is not showing room for growth. Instead of
using the data from question #8, I used the data from question #13, which asked simply if the
classes were full, which delivered more usable data.
Question #10, which asked, “How much money is allotted to the advanced German program? Or
for the German program in general, or for all foreign languages?” yielded many different types of
responses. The responses ranged from the annual budget for the entire German Department, the
annual budget for the Foreign Language Department, the dollar allotment per student in the
program, allotment in the form of the number of courses able to be offered per year, and other
responses such as, “unknown,” and “allotment was the same as other programs.”
For question #11, which asks, “How many times a week do you hold classes? And how many
hours per week is the class?” a handful of respondents had a difficult time answering because not
all of the classes within the program met for equal amounts of time. To address this issue, I took
the average of these numbers and decided to keep the data. Question #19, which asked for a list of
methods of assessments, elicited many different responses as well as some confusion over exactly
what entailed a method of assessment. A multiple-choice question would have resulted in better
data. Finally, question #24 asked if the program has a teaching assistant, and if there is money
set-aside for it. Since most of the programs were high schools, this question was not applicable.
V. Statistical Methods
Upon reviewing the data collected on enrollment numbers in advanced German programs over
the past five years, I found that there was only data from nine programs that went all the way
back five years. I decided to compare the data collected from 15 active advanced German
language programs over the last two years, with the data collected from active 10 advanced
German language programs over the past four years and also included some data from 9 programs
that had been cancelled in the last four years. This led me to refine my initial research questions:
To what extent have advanced German language programs been successful in increasing and
maintaining enrollments over the last two or four years, and why?
11
Hypothesis 1:
My first hypothesis is that there are fewer successful advanced German language programs than
unsuccessful programs over the last two and four years. I will code successful programs
(programs with stable, or + or – 3% change in enrollments) with a 1, and unsuccessful programs
that have experienced an overall negative growth of more than 3%, with a 0 (this includes
cancelled programs as well). A comparison of the data over the last two and four years will be
shown in Appendix D. I will analyze this data to test my first hypothesis and will also look at
location as a variable to see if it relates to program success.
Data set 1
Although I did not have a particular hypothesis to test differences between cancelled and active
programs, I created data set 1 (refer to Appendix E for all information regarding data set 1) and
ran a t-test to see if the size of the school related to program success or cancellation over the last
four years. The data set included the size of the school in numbers of students. Active programs
were coded “1” and cancelled programs were coded “0.” Two programs were missing data for the
size of the school and were omitted from the data set.
Different analytical methods can be used depending upon what is being tested. Since I am
examining the relationship between the two variables of status (active or cancelled) and size of
school, I will run an independent samples t-test on data set 1 to test for the significance of their
correlation. For my descriptive analysis, I will plot on a map of the U.S active programs with
light blue triangles and cancelled programs with red triangles (see Figure 1 under section IV:
Outputs and Results) to see if location is related to status.
Null hypothesis:
There is no difference between the size of the school for active programs and cancelled programs
Alternative hypothesis:
There is a difference between the size of the school for active programs and cancelled programs
Hypothesis 2:
My second hypothesis is that the DV (success as defined by stability, + or – 3% change in

enrollments over the last two or four years) is significantly predicted by other IVs. I will test each
of the IVs listed below to see if they are significant predictors of program success.
IV 1: the number of hours a class meets/week (question #11)

IV 2: the number of times a class meets/week (question #11)
IV 3: if the classes are full (question #13)
IV 4: the priority of the German program in terms of replacing a teacher (question #14)
IV 5: how active recruiting or promoting is for the program (question #20)
IV 6: the presence of a German club (question #21)
IV 7: how active the German club is (question #21)
IV 8: the presence of an outside opportunity such as an exchange program or study abroad
(question #22)
IV 9: if there are or have been collaborative teaching efforts (question #23)
IV 10: size of school (question #3)
12
For the DV, I converted the number of enrollments for each year into a percentage of overall
change in enrollments over the last two and last four years in order to compare the programs. I
omitted data from question #12, that asked if German is offered next year 2011/2010 academic
year, because the responses did not vary. For IV 1 and IV 2, I used decimals for the number of
hours and number of times a class meets per week, as I need to take averages in some cases. IV 3,
IV 4, IV 6, IV 8, IV 9, I coded “yes” with a “1,” and “no” with a “0.” For IV 5 and IV 7, the
Likert scale responses were coded “1” for “not active” up to “10” for “very active.” IV 10 is
coded in number of students at the school. In the descriptive analysis, I will refer to the map of
the U.S. and will compare the location of the programs from question #25 to see if it seems to
correlate with program success.
Datasets 2 and 3
Data set two (see Appendix F for all information regarding data set 2) consists of the data
collected from 15 advanced German language programs over the last two years. Data set three
(refer to Appendix G for all information regarding data set 3) consists of the data collected from
10 advanced German language programs over the past four years. Since I am examining the
relationship between more than two variables, I will run a linear regression on data sets 2 and 3 to
determine whether or not the presence of IVs significantly predict success over the past two or
four years. I will be looking for the best model, or combination of IVs, for significantly predicting
success.
I specified the starting model and stated the null hypotheses and alternative hypotheses for each
independent variable. In the model below, the DV of success is dependent upon: IV 1 class hours
per week, IV 2 the number times a class meets per week, IV 3 if classes are full, IV 4 if a new
German teacher will be hired should a teacher leave or retire, IV 5 how active the German
program recruits/advocates, IV 6 if there is a German club, IV 7 how active the German club is,
IV 8 if there is an outside opportunity such as study abroad or exchange program, IV 9 if there
are collaborative teaching efforts and IV10 size of the school. Linear regressions will be run on
the data sets until the best model is found.
Starting Model
Success=
α +b1(classes/week) + b2(hours/week) +b3(full classes) + b4(hire a new teacher) +
b5(activeness in recruiting/advocating) + b6(German club) + b7(activeness of
German club) + b8(outside opportunity) + b9(collaborative teaching efforts) + b10
(size of school)
13
Alternative hypothesis
Active recruiting/advocacy predicts the success
of a program
Hypotheses (Data sets 2 and 3)
IV1: IV6:
Null hypothesis Null hypothesis
The number of classes/week has no predictive A German club has no predictive power over
power over the success of a program the success of a program
Alternative hypothesis Alternative hypothesis

The number of classes/week predicts the success A German club predicts the success of a
of a program program
IV2: IV7:
The hours of class/week have no predictive An active German club has no predictive
power over the success of a program power over the success of a program

The hours of class/week predicts the success of a An active German club predicts the success of
program a program
IV3: IV8:
Full classes have no predictive An outside opportunity has no predictive
power over the success of a program power over the success of a program

Full classes predicts the success of a program An outside opportunity predicts the success of a
program
IV4:
Null hypothesis IV9:
Hiring a German teacher has no predictive Null hypothesis
power over the success of a program Collaborative teaching efforts have no
predictive power over the success of a program
Hiring a German teacher predicts the success of Alternative hypothesis
a program Collaborative teaching efforts predicts the
success of a program
IV5:
Null hypothesis IV10:
Active recruiting/advocacy has no predictive Null hypothesis
power over the success of a program The size of the school has no predictive power
over the success of a program
The size of the school has predictive power
over the success of a program
14
VI. Output and Results
Hypothesis 1
Appendix D compares the data over the past two and four years. Over the past two years
(academic year 2008/2009 and 2009/2010) using 24 data points, there were 10 successful
programs or 42%, and 14 unsuccessful programs or 58.3%, the latter including 9 cancelled
programs. Over the past four years (academic year 2006/2007-2009/2010) using 19 data points,
there were 7 successful programs or 36.8%, and 12 unsuccessful programs or 63%, the latter
including 9 cancelled programs. Looking at the data for the past two years and four years, my
hypothesis was correct: there were fewer successful advanced German language programs than
unsuccessful programs. Keeping in mind there are fewer data points for the past four years, the
percent of successful programs over the past four years was slightly lower than over the last two
years. There were more unsuccessful active programs over the last two years totaling 5, than over
the last four years with just 3. The percent change in enrollments over the past two years ranged
from -53.85% to 17.65%. The average percent change in enrollments over this time period was
-2.8%. The percent change in enrollments over the past four years ranged from -92.31% to
52.17%, with an average percent change of 6.5%. Program 4 that was represented during both
time periods was the only program that was successful over the last four years, with a 27.91%
growth in enrollments, but was unsuccessful over the past two years, with -18.6% growth. 6 out
of the 10 or 60% of programs with data over both time periods experienced a decline in growth
over the last two years. Although it is difficult to determine to what extent the location of a
program influences success, Maryland and Wisconsin only had unsuccessful programs, of which
2 were active and 2 were cancelled programs.
Data set 1
Upon reviewing data set 1 (Appendix E), there were two major outliers in the active programs,
with school sizes of 23,000 and 40,000. These two schools were the only universities in my
random sample and were so big, they were outliers and might have skewed the results and
therefore were taken out. There were 26 total programs, 17 active and 9 cancelled programs. The
size of the schools for the programs ranged from 140 to 3,000 students. The alpha-level was set at
.05, and the data satisfied the initial assumptions in Step 3 for a t-test. The data were independent
observations because they were randomly sampled. There were two groups with one continuous
variable, the school size in number of students, and one categorical variable, status of program
either active or cancelled. Looking at the boxplot graph for data set 1, I found the data to be
normally distributed skewed slightly left, with the mean and the median somewhat close together.
I could assume variances were equal and did not reject the null hypothesis using Levene’s Test
for Homogeneity of Variance, since the p-value was .7582 > .05.
I ran an independent samples t-test (two-tailed) to determine whether or not there is a difference
in the size of the school between active and cancelled programs. With a 95 % C.I. (-
840.2051, 584.2966), the average size of the school in numbers of students in the two types of
programs in my sample (Active programs=1539, Cancelled programs=1,667) were not
significantly different (t=.9069, df=61, p=.3728). I therefore fail to reject the null hypothesis that
there is no difference between active and cancelled programs and conclude that there is no
difference between the size of the school for active programs and cancelled programs. There were
higher numbers of total students in schools with cancelled German language programs as there
were in schools with active ones.
15
Figure 131
In Figure 1 (above), used data set 1 to plot active programs with light blue triangles and cancelled
programs with red triangles on a map of the United States. Active advanced language programs
are represented by blue triangles; those that have been cancelled are red triangles. For a closer
look, click this link. Whether or not location significantly increases success of a program cannot
be determined. In Figure 1, there is a mix of active and cancelled programs within each region;
however, a large percentage of the random sample appears to be close to the Canadian border as
the literature review reflected. Many come from the heritage regions near Michigan, Indiana and
Pennsylvania indicating large populations of German programs.
Hypothesis 2
Data Set 2
After specifying the hypotheses, I set the confidence interval 95% to test for significance. I will
test to see if the data from data sets 2 and 3 satisfy initial assumptions: if the outcome variable,
success, is continuous, the observations are independent, if there is a linear relationship between
the dependent variable, success, and each independent variable by using a scatter plot and
Pearson’s product-moment correlation and seeing if r, the correlation between independent
variables, is greater than .60 to rule out any variables that might be measuring the same thing
twice. I will look at the p-values and will eliminate any independent variables that have a p-value
greater than .05 and will run the regression again to find the best model, and will then interpret
the model. I will compare the output and results from data sets 2 and 3.
In referring to Appendix F: Data set 2, Last 2 years, I could satisfy the initial assumptions. I
verified that the dependant/outcome variable, success, is continuous as it is measured as a rate of
percentage change ranging from a minimum of -53.85% to a maximum of 17.65%. For
independent variables, the size of the school ranged from 140 to 40,000 with an average of 5499
31
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=38.61687,-
67.5&spn=46.832543,146.337891&z=4&msid=208385644335739424188.00049cb0bff66e6294fe2
16
(this is likely skewed due to an outlier of 40,000). The rest of the independent variables were
categorical. On average, .73 or 73% of programs had outside opportunities for their students, and
on average .2667 or 27% have or were involved in collaborative teaching efforts. The average
school size was 1663. Looking at the mean and the median for each of the variables in the
Summary of Data set 2, the data appears to be normal. Reviewing the variables in the summary of
Data set 2, the average percent change in enrollments over the past two years was -2.8%, the
average time classes met per week was 4.011 hours, the average hours of German class per week
was 4.313, the average class tended to be .4 or 40% full. An average of .57 or 57% of programs
feel that the school would hire a new teacher if the current teacher retires or leaves, on a scale of
1-10 on how active the programs are recruiting/promoting the average was 4.533, on average .73
or 73% of programs had German clubs, of which scored a 5.133 on average in being active on a
scale of 1-10. An average of 73% of programs offered an Outside opportunity, and 26.7% are or
were engaged in collaborative teaching.
The observations are independent, as they were randomly sampled. To see if there is a linear
relationship between the independent variables, I looked at a scatter plot matrix and Pearson’s
product-moment correlation matrix. Looking at the least-squares line in the scatterplot, the
relationship between IV1 class hrs/week, IV2 class times/week, IV3 classes full, IV4 Hire new
teacher, and IV5 active recruiting or promoting were all positive relationships. IV10 size of
school, IV6 German club, IV7 Active German club, IV8 Outside opportunity and IV9
collaborative teaching all had negative relationships to the dependent variable, success. Looking
at the relationships between independent variables in the Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Matrix for Data set 2, the correlation or r, was greater than .60 between IV7 active German club
and IV6 German club, and IV1 class hrs/week and IV8 outside opportunity. This means, that the
same thing is somehow being measured twice, so to rule this out I threw out IV6 German club
and IV1 class hrs/week. I then ran the regression for data set 2 of the adjusted model:
Linear Regression 1:
Success=
α +b1(classes times/week) + b2(classes full) + b3(hire a new teacher) + b4(activeness in
recruiting/advocating) + b5(active German club) + b6(outside opportunity) +
b7(collaborative teaching efforts) +b8 (size of school)
In looking at the p-value to see whether or not the model is significant at the .05 level or less of
predicting success, it was not significant at .1570. However, four of the variables were significant
at or the .1 level, so I decided to run the regression again only with the following four variables to
find the best model: IV8 Outside opportunity with a p-value of .0638, IV9 Collaborative teaching
with a p-value of .0984, IV4 Hire a new teacher with a p-value of .1173 and IV5 Active
recruiting/promoting with a p-value of .1323 (see Linear Regression 2 of Data set 2).
Success=
α +b1(hire new teacher)+ b2(active recruiting/promoting) + b3(outside opportunity) +
b4(collaborative teaching efforts)
Looking at the p-value of the model, the model is now significant with a p-value of .0268 . Only
independent variables IV8 Outside opportunity and IV9 collaborative teaching were
significant with p-values of .0348 and .0462 respectively. The best model revised is:
Best Model
17
Success= -.7821+ -21.83(outside opportunity) + -17.2588(collaborative teaching efforts)
Looking at the results, the p-value for the model is .02681, which means the model is significant
for predicting program success. The two individual variables both had significant p-values,
IV8 Outside opportunity being the most significant. The R-squared value for this model is .
6716, which is not particularly high, meaning that this model is not strong enough to explain
other potential variables. The model tells me that success is actually decreased by the presence
of these variables, which goes directly against findings in the literature review. 32
Data set 3
In referring to Appendix G: Data set 3, Last 4 years, I satisfied all the assumptions. I verified that
the dependant/outcome variable, success, is continuous as it is measured as a rate of percentage
change ranging from a minimum of -92.31% to a maximum of 52.17%. Referring to the
Summary of Data set 3, the school size ranged from 140 to 23,000 and was 3679 on average (this
is likely to be somewhat skewed due to 23,000 as an outlier). The other independent variables are
categorical. Looking at the mean and the median for each of the variables, the data appears to be
normal with the mean and median for the percent change in enrollments fairly close. The average
change in the last two years was 6.486%, the average time classes met per week was 4.05 hours,
the average hours of German class per week was 4.578, the average class tended to be .5 or 50%
full. An average of .7 or 70% of programs feel that the school would hire a new teacher if the
current teacher retires or leaves, on a scale of 1-10 on how active the programs are
recruiting/promoting the average was 3.6. On average .7 or 70% of programs had German clubs,
of which scored a 5 on average in being active on a scale of 1-10. On average, .8 or 80% of
programs had outside opportunities for their students, and on average .3 or 30% have been or are
involved in collaborative teaching efforts. The observations are independent, as they were
randomly sampled. To see if there are linear relationships between the independent variables, I
looked at a scatter plot matrix and Pearson’s product-moment correlation matrix. Looking at the
least-squares line in the scatterplot matrix, the relationship between all of the independent
variables with the dependent variable had a positive direct relationship, except for outside
opportunity. Looking at the relationships between independent variables in the Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Matrix for Data set 3, the correlation or r, was greater than .60 between IV7
active German club and IV6 German club, and IV1 class hrs/week and IV8 outside opportunity.
This means, that the same thing is being measured twice, so to rule this out I threw out IV6
German club and IV 2 class hrs/week. I ran a linear regression for Data set 3 and tested the model
below:
Success=
α +b1(classes times/week) + b2(full classes) + b3(hire a new teacher) + b4(activeness in
recruiting/promoting) + b5(active German club) + b6(outside opportunity) +
b7(collaborative teaching efforts) + b8 (size of school)
In looking at the results, I checked the p-value to see whether or not the model is significant at the
.05 level or less of predicting success, and determined that the model was not significant. Since
none of the independent variables had p-values that were even close to being significant, I did not
run any further linear regressions.
32
Due to an extremely small random sample, the results from this linear regression cannot be generalized to be
representative of the population. Please go to Section X on Validity and Reliability and Section Discussion for a more
detailed explanation of possible implications from the results.
18
VII. Validity and Reliability
In terms of validity, the sample method I chose for my tests was random sampling, meaning that
each member of the population had a chance of being included in the sample and each sample of
the same size is equally likely to be selected. I did the best job I could creating the population of
German programs with which to apply my criteria and draw the random sample from. The
population of German programs in which the random sample was drawn from was made up of
programs at high schools, language schools and higher education institutions. Most of the
German programs in the sample were at high schools, leaving other institutions of much larger
school sizes to stand out as outliers. Regarding external validity, the sample size randomly
sampled for this test was less than 30, which limits the applicability of both the Independent
Samples t-test and Linear Regressions to draw conclusions about the general population. This
includes results from the Linear Regression for Data set 2 that were contrary to the literature
review, which showed the independent variables, outside opportunity and collaborative teaching
negatively affect success. I also acknowledge that including the programs that were cancelled
recently in the last four years might have biased my sample, as it was easier to receive an
immediate response regarding these programs (although none had answered the survey
questions), and was far more difficult to receive responses from active programs (64 did not
respond). These programs had only a 33% response rate in comparison to the 100% response rate
from cancelled programs. Since I was limited to using the sample I could get given the short
period of time and minimal resources, I used my analysis to make some inferential leaps that have
a higher margin of error. Using this method means that there is a chance I may not see an effect
when it is actually there, a Type II error. Because the sample size was small with a higher margin
of error, a relationship between cause and the effect of the independent variables on the
dependent variables cannot be determined. Therefore, causation was not assessed.
Many questions in the survey collected information to test the effects of other independent
variables on program success or the status of a program, however several were not included
because of a lack of response, incomplete data, confusion over what the question was asking, or
they did not lend themselves to the analysis. My results may also have been limited by only using
the data for the most recent school size instead of factoring in changes in school size with
changes in enrollments over the years tested. Regarding possible issues with reliability, in an
effort to save time, many completed the survey on their own as best they could and sent their
responses back to me via email and did not ask clarifying questions. One positive aspect of this
was that almost all of the answers came to me in written form, and were not subject to
interpretation avoiding a biasing of the results. If the survey had been designed with fewer
questions, more responses might have been possible. Questions that generated answers that did
not vary much could have been eliminated. The survey questions could have been more direct,
including more multiple-choice answers to generate better data.
VIII. Discussion
The results from testing hypothesis 1, that there are fewer successful advanced German language
programs vs. unsuccessful programs at maintaining and increasing the number of German
language speakers over the past two years compared to the last four years, cannot be generalized
given the small sample size and limited and missing data from past years. Since there are actually
more successful programs over the last two years than in the last four years, keeping in mind
there were more data points for the past two years, it looks like these German programs overall
19
were better off in the last two years than they were four years ago. However, the average percent
change in enrollments over the last two years was negative at -2.8%, in comparison to four years
ago, when the average percent change in enrollments was actually positive at 6.5%. Both of these
trends that seem conflicting, can be explained. A -2.8% change in enrollments is likely the result
of a decline in enrollments from 6 out of the 10 or 60% of programs with data for both these
timeframes. Since success is defined as stabile or +/- 3% change in enrollments, even though
-2.8% signifies a decline in enrollments, it actually represents stabile enrollments and therefore,
programs could be more successful in the last two years than over the past four. The threshold of
+ or – 3% might seem too low for smaller programs, as losing one or two students can already
result in -8%. However, this accurately reflects the difficult reality for small programs, where
even a loss of one or two enrollments for a small program could result in its cancellation since
funding depends so heavily on program success. Even though programs with 0% change in
enrollment is considered “successful,” the results from this are misleading and are not
meaningful, because the number of enrollments did not experience any change. Repeating the
number of enrollments from past years to fill out the survey might suggest that the numbers were
not known. The results from the independent samples t-test that concluded that the size of the
school was not a significant factor in determining whether or not a program is active or cancelled,
seems to debunk a myth that larger schools have better chances of keeping their advanced
German programs alive.
In Data set 1, of the 30 advanced German language programs in the sample, 11 programs had
cancelled their advanced German language programs in the last three years. 8 out of the 30 or
approximately 27% had their advanced German program cancelled in the past two years since
2009. Since most institutions in the sample were high schools, and seems to parallel the declining
trend of German in the results from the study done by the Mapping and Enhancing Language
Learning (MELL) project in Washington State. This finding seems even more astonishing since
the MLA study saw German making a comeback at Institutions of Higher Education from
previous years, because high school advanced German programs act as feeder programs for
University German programs. One could argue that students taking advanced German in high
school might be more likely to continue taking their language at the University level instead of
starting a new language. Looking at the qualitative answers to why the 11 programs were
cancelled in Appendix: H The Answers to Descriptive Questions, many reasons were based on
budget-cuts or low-enrollment. However, it was more helpful to find out what was causing
programs to cancel. A change in requirements, for example, resulted in a drop in enrollments for
many languages, including German. As the literature supports, competition among languages
resulted in an increase in demand for Spanish and addition of Chinese, decreasing enrollment.
Other reasons for cancelling programs included an unsupportive principle and school, and retired
teacher. Looking at some of the reasons listed for dropouts in advanced language programs,
several respondents listed scheduling conflicts and requirement issues, which reflects the decline
in enrollments. Another popular reason listed for the dropouts was the workload and that German
was too challenging; which supports findings in the literature review. Other reasons included that
no interest, changing language level, moving and leaving for college.
Looking at the answers to question #16 and #18 on the survey in Appendix: H, which ask about
the problems associated with the trend of decline in enrollments some programs are facing,
several responses pinpoint scheduling conflicts and restrictive district policies and the prevention
of programs from recruiting students, especially directly from the middle school, as major
obstacles to success. Surprisingly, these afore mentioned obstacles were not mentioned in the
literature review. Respondents saw that over emphasizing grammar instead of speaking the
language, as well as unpopular/bad teachers at the intro levels caused German to get a bad
reputation, reflecting the importance of good teachers and quality of instruction of the MELL
20
survey in the literature review. Also mentioned was the fact that there were few opportunities to
use German outside the classroom and that the fear that many people do not see German as a
“useful” or important language. Contrary to one of the articles in the literature review, none of the
teachers felt that the decline was directly due to the decrease of importance of German but rather
people’s false perception of it. Low enrollment numbers and budget cuts along with the
underfunding of smaller programs has led to the combining of German sections with students of
varying language abilities, leading to a further decline in enrollments. Low enrollment at the
lower levels in high schools and the delay of students taking a language until sophomore or junior
year has led to fewer prepared students for advanced level/ college level German. In contrast to
the literature review, none of the survey respondents mentioned wearing too many hats, the lack
of assistants, materials, and diverse learning styles as current challenges for success programs.
In answers to question #15 and #18 from the survey in Appendix: H, which ask about what makes
a program successful in maintaining and increasing enrollments, several responses mentioned the
importance of an active German club and making German more attractive than other languages.
Philosophies of teaching, such as allowing kids to have fun focusing on culture and practical
language use such as speaking, reading, writing and listening instead of teaching every grammar
rule and being “textbook driven,” has made the language more useful and meaningful to students.
It is also important that the language environment be challenging and engaging, with educated,
motivated and well-paid teachers, motivated students who know each other, good rapport
between teachers and students and between students. Support of and increasing numbers for
lower levels, specifically increasing students confidence in lower levels, introducing German to
gifted 8th graders for high school credit and having a solid feeder program in the middle school,
has resulted in growth at the advanced level. Support for advanced German programs has also
been in the form of supportive teachers who tutor and give afterschool help, active German clubs
and a principle that talks to incoming freshman about language options. Informing parents,
counselors and school representatives that German is a “useful language to learn,” and even
offering ways to promote a German program’s study abroad options, flexible classes that meet
student and parent needs through commercials, events and collaborative teaching efforts and
exchanges are said to have made positive impacts on enrollment numbers. These approaches echo
Dr. Bailey’s emphasis on setting the right expectations at the very beginning of the program
during the publicity and recruiting, to ensure future success.
In comparing problems with successful solutions to maintaining and increasing enrollment

numbers in advanced German programs, one can see that some programs have successfully
overcome these problems. The difference seems to be not directly due to budget cuts, but more
favorable school policies and support. Although low-enrollment numbers continue to be
problematic for programs that are under pressure to please cost-driven administrators and keep
their numbers up, the reason for the low enrollment numbers might not be because of low interest
in the program, but due to restrictive policies on recruiting, or even scheduling and requirement
conflicts. In this way, schools that pressure programs to increase numbers might not be giving
programs the right tools or making the necessary changes in policy to do so. Policy is often
difficult to change, but not impossible as some programs have mentioned in this study.
The results from the two linear regression tests of data sets 2 and 3 that tested used 15 data points
over the past two years and 10 data points over the past four years to see if independent variables
cannot be generalized to reflect the state of German programs due to the small sample size, and
because unsuccessful programs included data from cancelled programs that could not be tested
because the survey was not completed for these programs. In addition to the differences between
the percent change in enrollments over the two time frames previously discussed, it was also
interesting to see a sizable difference between the two timeframes in the average percent of
21
respondents who said that if the German teacher were to retire or leave, he or she would be
replaced, with just 57% over the past two years and 70% over the past four years. It could be that
the level of optimism for keeping German programs has changed quite a bit and has gone down
over the past two years. In both data set 2 and 3, around 70% of programs had German clubs, but
on average they were not very active scoring around 4.5 on the Likert scale. Overall, there was
little variation in terms of how successful programs answered the survey vs. unsuccessful
programs, which might help to explain the results of the linear regressions. It is unclear whether
or not this was due to the small sample size, or if successful and unsuccessful programs have a lot
in common in the variables tested. This would mean perhaps the variables outside opportunity
and collaborative teaching do not correlate as strong nowadays than they did before because there
are different variables to consider. As policy restrictions and conflicting schedules, requirement
and support issues were mentioned as significant factors that hinder enrollment, questions
designed to specifically ask about the differences in policies at the schools might have shown
more differences in how policies and support affect success. Although the literature review and
respondents themselves stressed the presence of a German club and having an active German club
as significant factors of program success, having an active German club did not show up as a
significant factor of program success in my study. I was not surprised to see that the linear
regression model for data set 3 that looked at the change in rate of enrollment over the past four
years did not have any independent variables that significantly could predict program success, as
there were only 10 data points. Looking at answers to the descriptive questions mentioned in the
first section of the discussion seems to offer a better understanding of what factors seem to be
actually influencing program success.
Location in terms of where the program was located in the U.S. did not seem to be a factor in
program success or status in my study, however it was interesting to see that of the four programs
randomly sampled in both Maryland and Wisconsin, none of them were successful with two
cancelled programs each. A good number of advanced German language programs were close to
the Canadian border, reflecting areas of German heritage and immigration outlined in the
literature review. Location in terms of local area seemed to be important, as one teacher attributed
her success specifically to location because of its military community, and strong German
business presence.
IX. Conclusion and Recommendations
In conclusion, the data I collected showed an overall slowing of enrollment growth in 60% of the
programs from the past four years to the past two years, which could mean that German as a
language is either no longer on rise, and is in other words, starting to stabilize or is actually on the
decline. More data needs to be collected from more programs over a longer period of time in
order to determine if German truly is on the decline, to what extent, and why. Given the tight time
and resource constraints of the project, it took more time than anticipated to create the population
with which to draw my random sample from and to collect an ample sample size with which to
run my tests. I therefore recommend more funding and time to put together a more
comprehensive study that looks at the differences between successful and unsuccessful advanced
German programs. This would include calling many more schools and even sending out the
survey via mail to schools chosen in the random sample to elicit more responses. I also
recommend that the survey must be filled out for cancelled German programs, so that this
valuable data can also be tested against successful programs to offer greater variation and create a
better picture the differences between programs. This might be a great challenge, as those
teaching or running the program are likely not there anymore, however, they could be contacted
should the school provide the information. I would recommend that the survey be cut down to
around 15 questions and contain more multiple choice questions to increase the response rate and
22
sample size. Feeder programs, competition of languages offered at schools, conflicting schedules,
requirements, restrictive recruiting policies and lack of support for a variety of stakeholders were
extremely important factors determining program success and should be tested in a more
quantitative manner in future studies. A study testing the correlation of German programs in
heritage areas vs. cancelled programs as well as determining the role local politics play in success
might also be interesting to consider. Although I have heard that enrollment numbers at Saturday
schools are on the rise, there were no Saturday schools in my random sample to test. I would
recommend looking into why Saturday schools might be more successful than other German
programs in increasing or maintaining enrollments, as they might be more likely to be flexible in
solving schedule and requirement conflicts and are overall less affected by school policy.
23
XI. References
American Association of Teachers of German http://www.aatg.org/resources/tool-kit-for-german-advocacy/sus-the-

mo/maintaining-a-strengthing-german-programs.html, http://www.aatg.org/resources/tool-kit-for-german-
advocacy/sus-the-mo/success-stories-from-german-programs.html
Ancestry Web site: www.census.gov/population/www/ancestry/index.html
Berman, Russell A. Our predicament, our prospects. The German Quarterly 73 no1 Wint 2000. WN: 0035003110031.
(1) 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company
Confidential interviews 9/28/2010
Confidential Survey Results
Deutsche Welle “German Dying as a Scholarly Language, Culture Council Warns. 31.01.2009. http://www.dw-
world.de/popups/popup_printcontent/0,,3979371,00.html
Encyclopedia of Associations 45th Edition National Organizations of the U.S. Part 2 (sec. 7-18) Entries 10950-24421;
Section IV: Fraternal, Nationality, Ethnic Orgs.
Encyclopedia of Organizations 1-10979; Volume 1, Part 1, Sections 1-6 Cultural Organizations: German pg. 1212
Fanning the Flames: Best Practices for Ensuring the Survival of Small German Programs. Unterrichtspraxis 42 no1
Spring 2009
Furman, Nelly, David Goldberg, and Natalia Lusin. Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in the United States
Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2006. Web publication, 13 November 2007.
www.germanistik/universities-us.htm List of 580 universities in the U.S. offering German
German Language Opportunity Website GLOW List of 8, 587
German Language School Conference List, Germanschools.org: List of German private schools
Part 1,Profession 2001
Lalande, John F., and Ana Djukic-Cocks. “Sharing Ideas for Growth in German Language Enrollment.” Language
Association Journal 58.1 (2007)
Modern Language Association of America 2007. www.mla.org, www.mla.org/2006_flenrollmentsurvey
Shin, Hyon B. and Robert A. Kominski. 2010. Language Use in the United States: 2007, American Community Survey
Reports, ACS-12. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
Tatlock, Lynne. USA: German in the Changing Landscape of Postsecondary Education. Washington University.
Unterrichtspraxis 43 no1 Spr 2010
Wiley, Terrence. Learning from History. UCLA Center for World Languages. 1,
http://www.international.ucla.edu/languages/article.asp?parentid=3898
Wasley, Paula. “Is German Necessary? Nein, Says One University. The Chronicle of Higher Education 54 no33 1 April
25, 2008. The H.W. Wilson Company/WilsonWeb
http://vnwebhwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml
24
XII. Appendices
Appendix A: Survey
Purpose:
This survey will collect data from a random sample of forty advanced German language programs
to help me answer the following questions: to what extent have advanced German language
programs within the United States been successful in increasing and maintaining the number of
German language speakers? Why?
Statement of confidentiality:
Your responses in this survey will remain anonymous. Your name and contact information,
along with the German program and school will all remain strictly confidential. I only intend to
use and interpret the data collected in order to further my study of the German language.
Your prompt response to this survey is much appreciated, as it will allow me to collect
enough data from a random sample to run my study. Although I cannot offer any
monetary incentive upon its completion, I look forward to sharing the results with you
and hope that your program can benefit from them.
Should you have any questions, or would like to set up a time we can discuss the survey
please don’t hesitate to contact me at:
Alyssa Geiger
alyssageiger@gmail.com
978.380.2135
Thank you so much!
Sincerely,
Alyssa Geiger
Graduate Student
Monterey Institute of International Studies
25
Questions
1) Do you currently have an advanced German Program? Advanced=any German classes after
the second year (no beginner courses).
a) If no, did you have an advanced German Program in the past?
i) if yes, when did the program end?
(1) Why?
2) What kind of institution are you? (private/public)
3) How many students are enrolled at your school?
a) How many students are enrolled in a foreign language?
4) How many students were enrolled in the advanced German program in 2009?
a) In 2008
b) 2007
c) 2006
d) 2005
e) 2004
f) etc. any other information for years past.
5) 4.) What was the student to teacher ratio for 2009?
a) 2008
b) 2007
c) 2006
d) 2005
e) 2004
f) etc. (any data possible for each year mentioned in question #4)
6) How many faculty were in the program in 2009?
a) In 2008
b) 2007
c) 2006
d) 2005
e) 2004
f) etc. (any data possible for each year mentioned in question #4)
26
7) How many drop outs have you had in 2009?
a) Why?
b) 2008?
8) What is the minimum enrollment needed for your program to run?
a) Were students ever turned away because it was full?
9) Is there a maximum enrollment number for your program?
10) How much money is allotted to the advanced German program? Or for the German program
in general, or for all foreign languages?
a) Has this changed much?
11) How many times a week do you hold classes?
a) How many hours per week is the class?
12) Will you offer German next year (2010/2011) 33*
13) Are the classes full (2009/2010)*
14) If a current teacher retires or leaves the program, will your school hire a new teacher for
German? *
15) What makes an advanced German language program successful*?
16) What problems are there for an advanced German program?
17) Do you see any advantages for a program with the reduced enrollment numbers or only
disadvantages? (pressure to please cost-driven administrators, higher quality?)
18) Why are the enrollments in the program on the decline/or why is your program enrollment
going against the current trend of declining?
Factors contributing to this could included: decline of German as a scholarly language, a
greater offering of different languages, decline of interest in German culture, politics,
world power etc., funding and materials availability, the economic crisis/hard economic
times.
19) What kinds of assessment of the students’ language ability do you use, and when/who often?
(formal tests, testing student attitudes, informal-self assessment such as a portfolio or something
else?)
20) On a scale of 1-10, (1 not active, and 10 very active) how active is the program in advocating
and recruiting for German?34
33
Mapping and Enhancing Language Learning (MELL) in Washington State. Policy Brief #5 Fall,
2008.
34
AATG
27
21) Is there an active German club? On a scale of 1-10 (1 not active, and 10 very active), how
active is it?
22) Does your program offer the opportunity to participate in an exchange program or study
abroad program?
23) Have their been any attempts to collaborate with other departments through the use of
innovative teaching forms in order to increase interest in the German program?
24) Does your program offer students the possibility to TA? Is there money set aside for this?
28
Appendix B: Data Collection Plan
P r o j e c t T i m e l i n e
P r i o r i t i e s & P r o j e c t M o n t h
A c t i v i t i e s
Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.-
March
Priority 1: Planning
-literature review x
-compile list of all x x
German programs in the
U.S.
-randomly select sample x
Priority 2: Implementation
-call and screen random

sample with criteria
-collect data (via x x
interview or email)
Priority 3: Evaluation
- data analysis x
- write-up of
findings
29
Appendix C: Methodology
30
Appendix D: Data from programs over the past two and four years
Appendix E: Data Set 1
Data set 1 Boxplot
# of
students
1=active programs, enrolled at
0=cancelled programs school
1 2900
1 775
1 1200
1 3000
1 140
1 23000
1 1959
1 1900
1 490
1 1663 Summary Data set 1
1 1858
1 1800 # of Programs
1 1200 Active Programs:
1 40000 17
1 2150 Cancelled
1 1300 Programs: 9
1 1100
0 2682
Total # of students
0 2076
0 2026 Active Programs:
0 1467 629,965
0 2116 Cancelled
1 2085 Programs:
0 230 842,534
0 368
0 2784
0 1252
1 640
Data set 1: Levene's Test for

Homogeneity of Variance
Null hypothesis
Variances are equal (Run the t-test assuming
equal variance)
P-value or Pr(>F)
Variances are not equal 0.7582
Data set 1: Independent Samples T-
Test
Program Mean
Active Program 1538.824
Cancelled Program 1666.778
t = -0.3708 df = 24 p-value =
0.714
Null hypothesis:
There is no difference between the size of the
school for active programs and cancelled
programs
Alternative hypothesis:
There is a difference between the size of the
school for active programs and cancelled
programs
Appendix F: Data set 2, % change in enrollments in past 2 years
Summary of Data set 2
% Change in last 2 yrs Classes times/week Class hrs/week Classes Full Hire new teacher
Min. :-53.850 Min. :2.500 Min. : 2.500 Min. :0.0 Min. :0.0000
1st Qu.: -11.85 1st Qu.:3.000 1st Qu.: 3.335 1st Qu.:0.0 1st Qu.:0.0000
Median : 0.00 Median :4.000 Median : 4.000 Median :0.0 Median :1.0000
Mean : -2.801 Mean :4.011 Mean : 4.313 Mean :0.4 Mean :0.5714
3rd Qu.: 10.195 3rd Qu.:5.000 3rd Qu.: 4.540 3rd Qu.:1.0 3rd Qu.:1.0000
Max. : 17.6 Max. :5.000 Max. :10.000 Max. :1.0 Max. :1.0000 NA's :1.0000
Active German Club Active German Outside Opportunities Collaborative Size of School
recruiting/promoting Club teaching
Min. :1.000 Min. :0.0000 Min. : 0.000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :140
1st Qu.:3.000 1st Qu.:0.5000 1st Qu.: 0.000 1st Qu.:0.5000 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.:
1150
Median :4.000 Median :1.0000 Median : 7.000 Median :1.0000 Median :0.0000 Median :
1663
Mean :4.533 Mean :0.7333 Mean : 5.133 Mean :0.7333 Mean :0.2667 Mean :5499
3rd Qu.:7.000 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.: 8.000 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.:0.5000 3rd Qu.:
2525
Max. :9.000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :10.000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :40000
Data set 2: Pearson Product Moment correlation matrix
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs 1.00000000
IV1.classes.hrs.week 0.44055002
IV10.size.of.school -0.10992402
IV2.classes.times.week 0.08691852
IV3.Classes.full 0.19322562
IV4.Hire.new.teacher 0.44435024
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting 0.23039250
IV6.German.club -0.14911288
IV7.active.German.club -0.16386490
IV8.Outside.opportunity -0.38516543
IV9.collaborative.teaching -0.50395057
IV1.classes.hrs.week IV10.size.of.school
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs 0.4405500 -0.10992402
IV1.classes.hrs.week 1.0000000 -0.39504169
IV10.size.of.school -0.3950417 1.00000000
IV2.classes.times.week 0.5130515 -0.37567919
IV3.Classes.full 0.5089299 -0.31494403
IV4.Hire.new.teacher 0.3719875 -0.48291456
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting -0.3645880 0.19574965
IV6.German.club -0.4374571 -0.13591849
IV7.active.German.club -0.4712038 -0.04576706
IV8.Outside.opportunity -0.6417699 0.21140825
IV9.collaborative.teaching 0.0982843 0.27533389
IV2.classes.times.week IV3.Classes.full
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs 0.08691852 0.1932256
IV1.classes.hrs.week 0.51305153 0.5089299
IV10.size.of.school -0.37567919 -0.3149440
IV2.classes.times.week 1.00000000 0.2006908
IV3.Classes.full 0.20069084 1.0000000
IV4.Hire.new.teacher -0.00380657 0.1666667
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting -0.29646249 -0.5158770
IV6.German.club -0.03175370 -0.2512595
IV8.Outside.opportunity -0.56735829 -0.2512595
IV9.collaborative.teaching -0.04262553 -0.2282177
IV4.Hire.new.teacher
IV2.classes.times.week -0.00380657
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting -0.03126527
IV6.German.club 0.25125945
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting
IV1.classes.hrs.week -0.36458800
IV10.size.of.school 0.19574965
IV3.Classes.full -0.51587695
IV4.Hire.new.teacher -0.03126527
IV7.active.German.club 0.31411458
IV8.Outside.opportunity 0.37707334
IV6.German.club IV7.active.German.club
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs -0.14911288 -0.16386490
IV1.classes.hrs.week -0.43745713 -0.47120383
IV10.size.of.school -0.13591849 -0.04576706
IV2.classes.times.week -0.03175370 -0.15651583
IV3.Classes.full -0.25125945 -0.23920850
IV5.Active.recruiting/promoting 0.37707334 0.31411458
IV6.German.club 1.00000000 0.79336485
IV7.active.German.club 0.79336485 1.00000000
IV8.Outside.opportunity 0.15151515 0.02404136
IV9.collaborative.teaching -0.05504819 0.08734660
IV8.Outside.opportunity
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs -0.38516543
IV9.collaborative.teaching
IV9.collaborative.teaching 1.00000000
Scatterplot of Data Set 2
Linear Regression 1 of Data set 2
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 4.892e+00 3.114e+01 0.157 0.8813
IV10.size.of.school 4.372e-04 4.380e-04 0.998 0.3640
IV2.classes.times.week -1.751e+00 4.846e+00 -0.361 0.7327
IV3.Classes.full 5.792e+00 8.887e+00 0.652 0.5433
IV4.Hire.new.teacher 1.595e+01 8.437e+00 1.890 0.1173
IV5.Active.recruiting/promoting 3.167e+00 1.762e+00 1.797 0.1323
IV7.active.German.club -9.877e-01 1.071e+00 -0.923 0.3985
IV8.Outside.opportunity -2.602e+01 1.097e+01 -2.372 0.0638 .
IV9.collaborative.teaching -1.754e+01 8.652e+00 -2.027 0.0984 .
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Residual standard error: 12.89 on 5 degrees of freedom

(1 observation deleted due to missingness)
Multiple R-squared: 0.8042, Adjusted R-squared: 0.4908
F-statistic: 2.566 on 8 and 5 DF, p-value: 0.1570

(Intercept) -0.7821 9.8150 -0.080 0.9382
IV4.Hire.new.teacher 12.7882 6.7875 1.884 0.0922 .
IV5.Active.recruiting/promoting 2.4711 1.3722 1.801 0.1052
IV8.Outside.opportunity -21.8300 8.7929 -2.483 0.0348 *
IV9.collaborative.teaching -17.2588 7.4679 -2.311 0.0462 *
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Appendix G: Data set 3, % change in enrollments over past 4 years
Summary of Data set 3
% Change over the Classes times/week Class hrs/week Classes Full Hire new teacher
last 4 yrs
Min. :-92.31 Min. :2.50 Min. : 3.000 Min. :0.0 Min. :0.0000
1st Qu.:-6.428 1st Qu.:3.000 1st Qu.: 3.188 1st Qu.:0.0 1st Qu.:0.2500
Median : 8.335 Median :4.500 Median : 4.475 Median :0.5 Median :1.0000
Mean : 6.486 Mean :4.05 Mean : 4.578 Mean :0.5 Mean :0.7
3rd Qu.: 32.447 3rd Qu.:5.000 3rd Qu.: 4.560 3rd Qu.:1.0 3rd Qu.:1.0000
Max. : 52.17 Max. :5.000 Max. :10.000 Max. :1.0 Max. :1.0000 NA's :1.0000
Active German Club Active German Outside Opportunities Collaborative Size of School
recruiting/promoting Club teaching
Min. :1.000 Min. :0.0000 Min. : 0.000 Min. :0.0000 Min. : Min. :140
0.0000
1st Qu.:1.500 1st Qu.:0.250 1st Qu.: 1.25 1st Qu.:1.00 1st 1st Qu.:1200
Qu.:0.0000
Median :4.000 Median :1.0000 Median : 7.000 Median :1.0000 Median : Median :
0.0000 1550
Mean :3.6 Mean :0.7 Mean : 5.00 Mean :0.8 Mean :0.3 Mean :3679
3rd Qu.:5.5 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.: 7.750 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd 3rd Qu.:2088
Qu.:0.750
Max. :7.000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :8.000 Max. :1.0000 Max. : Max. :23000
1.0000
DV...change.in.enrollments.over.the.past.4.years
DV...change.in.enrollments.over.the.past.4.years 1.00000000
IV1.classes.hrs.week
IV10.size.of.school
DV...change.in.enrollments.over.the.past.4.years -0.06860979
IV2.classes.times.week
IV3.Classes.full
IV6.German.club
IV7.active.German.club
Data set 3 Scatterplot
Linear Regression of Data set 3

(Intercept) 6.527e+01 1.204e+02 0.542 0.684
IV4.Hire.new.teacher -7.208e+00 6.199e+01 -0.116 0.926
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting 1.037e+01 9.552e+00 1.086 0.474
IV8.Outside.opportunity -9.185e+01 6.732e+01 -1.364 0.403
IV9.collaborative.teaching -2.731e+01 3.333e+01 -0.819 0.563

Appendix H: Answers to Descriptive Questions
Appendix H: Bibliography
Sources: AATG (Association of American Teachers of German) www.aatg.org (Martha)
Appendix I: Script Window
Data set 1:
Dataset1 <- read.table("/Users/alyssageiger/Desktop/Data set #1 active & cancelled programs.csv", header=TRUE, sep=",", na.strings="NA", dec=".", strip.white=TRUE)
> fix(Dataset1)
> summary(Dataset1)
Program X
Active Program :17 Min. : 140
Cancelled Program: 9 1st Qu.:1125
Median :1732
Mean :1583
3rd Qu.:2083
Max. :3000
> numSummary(Dataset1[,"X"], statistics=c("mean", "sd"), quantiles=c( 0,.25,.5,.75,1 ))
mean sd n
1583.115 822.5827 26
> boxplot(Dataset1$X, ylab="X")
> tapply(Dataset1$X, Dataset1$Program, var, na.rm=TRUE)
Active Program Cancelled Program
629965 842534
> levene.test(Dataset1$X, Dataset1$Program)
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Variance
Df F value Pr(>F)
group 1 0.0969 0.7582
24
> t.test(X~Program, alternative='two.sided', conf.level=.95, var.equal=TRUE, data=Dataset1)
Two Sample t-test
data: X by Program
t = -0.3708, df = 24, p-value = 0.714
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-840.2051 584.2966
sample estimates:
mean in group Active Program mean in group Cancelled Program
1538.824 1666.778
Data set 2:
> Dataset <- read.table("/Users/alyssageiger/Desktop/Big Data Analysis Project/Data set 2 2yrs.csv", header=TRUE, sep=",", na.strings="NA", dec=".", strip.white=TRUE)
> showData(Dataset, placement='-20+200', font=getRcmdr('logFont'), maxwidth=80, maxheight=30)
> summary(Dataset)
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs IV1.classes.hrs.week IV2.classes.times.week
Min. :-53.850 Min. : 2.500 Min. :2.500
1st Qu.:-11.850 1st Qu.: 3.335 1st Qu.:3.000
Median : 0.000 Median : 4.000 Median :4.000
Mean : -2.801 Mean : 4.313 Mean :4.011
3rd Qu.: 10.195 3rd Qu.: 4.540 3rd Qu.:5.000
Max. : 17.650 Max. :10.000 Max. :5.000
IV3.Classes.full IV4.Hire.new.teacher IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting

Min. :0.0 Min. :0.0000 Min. :1.000
1st Qu.:0.0 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.:3.000
Median :0.0 Median :1.0000 Median :4.000
Mean :0.4 Mean :0.5714 Mean :4.533
3rd Qu.:1.0 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.:7.000
Max. :1.0 Max. :1.0000 Max. :9.000
NA's :1.0000
IV6.German.club IV7.active.German.club IV8.Outside.opportunity
Min. :0.0000 Min. : 0.000 Min. :0.0000
1st Qu.:0.5000 1st Qu.: 0.000 1st Qu.:0.5000
Median :1.0000 Median : 7.000 Median :1.0000
Mean :0.7333 Mean : 5.133 Mean :0.7333
3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.: 8.000 3rd Qu.:1.0000
Max. :1.0000 Max. :10.000 Max. :1.0000
IV9.collaborative.teaching IV10.size.of.school
Min. :0.0000 Min. : 140
1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.: 1150
Median :0.0000 Median : 1663
Mean :0.2667 Mean : 5499
3rd Qu.:0.5000 3rd Qu.: 2525
Max. :1.0000 Max. :40000
>
cor(Dataset[,c("DV...change.in.last.2.yrs","IV1.classes.hrs.week","IV10.size.of.school","IV2.classes.times.week","IV3.Classes.full","IV4.Hire.new.teacher","IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting","IV6.
German.club","IV7.active.German.club","IV8.Outside.opportunity","IV9.collaborative.teaching")], use="complete.obs")
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs
IV1.classes.hrs.week IV10.size.of.school
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs 0.4405500 -0.10992402
IV1.classes.hrs.week 1.0000000 -0.39504169
IV10.size.of.school -0.3950417 1.00000000
IV2.classes.times.week 0.5130515 -0.37567919
IV3.Classes.full 0.5089299 -0.31494403
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting -0.3645880 0.19574965
IV6.German.club -0.4374571 -0.13591849
IV8.Outside.opportunity -0.6417699 0.21140825
IV9.collaborative.teaching 0.0982843 0.27533389
IV2.classes.times.week IV3.Classes.full
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs 0.08691852 0.1932256
IV1.classes.hrs.week 0.51305153 0.5089299
IV10.size.of.school -0.37567919 -0.3149440
IV2.classes.times.week 1.00000000 0.2006908
IV3.Classes.full 0.20069084 1.0000000
IV4.Hire.new.teacher -0.00380657 0.1666667
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting -0.29646249 -0.5158770
IV6.German.club -0.03175370 -0.2512595
IV8.Outside.opportunity -0.56735829 -0.2512595
IV9.collaborative.teaching -0.04262553 -0.2282177
IV6.German.club IV7.active.German.club
DV...change.in.last.2.yrs -0.14911288 -0.16386490
IV1.classes.hrs.week -0.43745713 -0.47120383
IV10.size.of.school -0.13591849 -0.04576706
IV2.classes.times.week -0.03175370 -0.15651583
IV3.Classes.full -0.25125945 -0.23920850
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting 0.37707334 0.31411458
IV6.German.club 1.00000000 0.79336485
IV7.active.German.club 0.79336485 1.00000000
IV8.Outside.opportunity 0.15151515 0.02404136
IV9.collaborative.teaching -0.05504819 0.08734660
>
scatterplot.matrix(~DV...change.in.last.2.yrs+IV1.classes.hrs.week+IV10.size.of.school+IV2.classes.times.week+IV3.Classes.full+IV4.Hire.new.teacher+IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting+IV6.Germ
an.club+IV7.active.German.club+IV8.Outside.opportunity+IV9.collaborative.teaching, reg.line=lm, smooth=TRUE, span=0.5, diagonal = 'density', data=Dataset)
>
> RegModel.1 <-
lm(DV...change.in.last.2.yrs~IV10.size.of.school+IV2.classes.times.week+IV3.Classes.full+IV4.Hire.new.teacher+IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting+IV7.active.German.club+IV8.Outside.opportunit
y+IV9.collaborative.teaching, data=Dataset)
> summary(RegModel.1)
Call:
lm(formula = DV...change.in.last.2.yrs ~ IV10.size.of.school +
IV2.classes.times.week + IV3.Classes.full + IV4.Hire.new.teacher +
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting + IV7.active.German.club +
IV8.Outside.opportunity + IV9.collaborative.teaching, data = Dataset)
Residuals:
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11
-7.965 -1.510 -7.075 9.475 11.346 -9.067 11.229 5.220 10.618 -5.274
12 13 14 15
-10.273 -2.261 -1.941 -2.523
Coefficients:
(Intercept) 4.892e+00 3.114e+01 0.157 0.8813
IV4.Hire.new.teacher 1.595e+01 8.437e+00 1.890 0.1173
IV8.Outside.opportunity -2.602e+01 1.097e+01 -2.372 0.0638 .
IV9.collaborative.teaching -1.754e+01 8.652e+00 -2.027 0.0984 .
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

> RegModel.2 <- lm(DV...change.in.last.2.yrs~IV4.Hire.new.teacher+IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting+IV8.Outside.opportunity+IV9.collaborative.teaching, data=Dataset)

Call:
lm(formula = DV...change.in.last.2.yrs ~ IV4.Hire.new.teacher +
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting + IV8.Outside.opportunity +
IV9.collaborative.teaching, data = Dataset)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-16.450 -6.929 -3.953 5.093 20.418
Coefficients:
(Intercept) -0.7821 9.8150 -0.080 0.9382
IV4.Hire.new.teacher 12.7882 6.7875 1.884 0.0922 .
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting 2.4711 1.3722 1.801 0.1052
IV8.Outside.opportunity -21.8300 8.7929 -2.483 0.0348 *
IV9.collaborative.teaching -17.2588 7.4679 -2.311 0.0462 *
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Data set 3
> Dataset <- read.table("/Users/alyssageiger/Desktop/Big Data Analysis Project/Data set 2 Past 4 years.csv", header=TRUE, sep=",", na.strings="NA", dec=".", strip.white=TRUE)
> showData(Dataset, placement='-20+200', font=getRcmdr('logFont'), maxwidth=80, maxheight=30)
> summary(Dataset)
DV...change.in.enrollments.over.the.past.4.years IV1.classes.hrs.week
Min. :-92.310 Min. : 3.000
1st Qu.: -6.428 1st Qu.: 3.188
Median : 8.335 Median : 4.475
Mean : 6.486 Mean : 4.578
3rd Qu.: 32.447 3rd Qu.: 4.560
Max. : 52.170 Max. :10.000
IV2.classes.times.week IV3.Classes.full IV4.Hire.new.teacher
Min. :2.50 Min. :0.0 Min. :0.00
1st Qu.:3.00 1st Qu.:0.0 1st Qu.:0.25
Mean :4.05 Mean :0.5 Mean :0.70
3rd Qu.:5.00 3rd Qu.:1.0 3rd Qu.:1.00
Max. :5.00 Max. :1.0 Max. :1.00
IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting IV6.German.club IV7.active.German.club
Min. :1.0 Min. :0.00 Min. :0.00
1st Qu.:1.5 1st Qu.:0.25 1st Qu.:1.25
Mean :3.6 Mean :0.70 Mean :5.00
3rd Qu.:5.5 3rd Qu.:1.00 3rd Qu.:7.75
Max. :7.0 Max. :1.00 Max. :8.00
IV8.Outside.opportunity IV9.collaborative.teaching IV10.size.of.school
Min. :0.0 Min. :0.00 Min. : 140
1st Qu.:1.0 1st Qu.:0.00 1st Qu.: 1200
Median :1.0 Median :0.00 Median : 1550
Mean :0.8 Mean :0.30 Mean : 3679
3rd Qu.:1.0 3rd Qu.:0.75 3rd Qu.: 2088
Max. :1.0 Max. :1.00 Max. :23000
>
cor(Dataset[,c("DV...change.in.enrollments.over.the.past.4.years","IV1.classes.hrs.week","IV10.size.of.school","IV2.classes.times.week","IV3.Classes.full","IV4.Hire.new.teacher","IV5.Active.recruiti
ng.or.promoting","IV6.German.club","IV7.active.German.club","IV8.Outside.opportunity","IV9.collaborative.teaching")], use="complete.obs")
DV...change.in.enrollments.over.the.past.4.years
IV1.classes.hrs.week
IV10.size.of.school
IV2.classes.times.week
IV3.Classes.full
IV6.German.club
IV7.active.German.club
>
scatterplot.matrix(~DV...change.in.enrollments.over.the.past.4.years+IV1.classes.hrs.week+IV10.size.of.school+IV2.classes.times.week+IV3.Classes.full+IV4.Hire.new.teacher+IV5.Active.recruiting.o
r.promoting+IV6.German.club+IV7.active.German.club+IV8.Outside.opportunity+IV9.collaborative.teaching, reg.line=lm, smooth=TRUE, span=0.5, diagonal = 'density', data=Dataset)
> RegModel.1 <-
lm(DV...change.in.enrollments.over.the.past.4.years~IV10.size.of.school+IV2.classes.times.week+IV3.Classes.full+IV4.Hire.new.teacher+IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting+IV7.active.German.club+
IV8.Outside.opportunity+IV9.collaborative.teaching, data=Dataset)
Call:
lm(formula = DV...change.in.enrollments.over.the.past.4.years ~
IV10.size.of.school + IV2.classes.times.week + IV3.Classes.full +
IV4.Hire.new.teacher + IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting +
IV7.active.German.club + IV8.Outside.opportunity + IV9.collaborative.teaching,
data = Dataset)
Residuals:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-1.7420 5.5895 1.7420 0.2425 3.2416 20.1015 0.8181 -28.2512
9 10
-5.8320 4.0900
Coefficients:
(Intercept) 6.527e+01 1.204e+02 0.542 0.684
IV4.Hire.new.teacher -7.208e+00 6.199e+01 -0.116 0.926
IV8.Outside.opportunity -9.185e+01 6.732e+01 -1.364 0.403
IV9.collaborative.teaching -2.731e+01 3.333e+01 -0.819 0.563


What Is The State of The German Language in The American Education System?

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

What Is The State of The German Language in The American Education System?

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

What is the state of the

German language in the

II. Literature Review……………………………………………………………… 4-7

III. Project Scope…………………………………………………………………...7-9

IV. Data Collection…………………………………………………………………9-11

VI. Output and Results……………………………………………………………...15-18

VII. Validity & Reliability……………………………………………………….....19

IX. Conclusion & Recommendations……………………………………………….22-23

In 2010, administrators at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS), a Graduate

II. Literature Review

Best Practices of successful language programs

Unsuccessful language programs

German, a promising language

III. Project Scope

stabile: A growth or decline of less than or equal to 3%

Dependent and independent variables

IV. Data Collection

Implementation of the Survey

My second hypothesis is that the DV (success as defined by stability, + or – 3% change in

IV 1: the number of hours a class meets/week (question #11)

Hypotheses (Data sets 2 and 3)

Alternative hypothesis Alternative hypothesis

Alternative hypothesis Alternative hypothesis

Alternative hypothesis Alternative hypothesis

In comparing problems with successful solutions to maintaining and increasing enrollment

IX. Conclusion and Recommendations

American Association of Teachers of German http://www.aatg.org/resources/tool-kit-for-german-advocacy/sus-the-

Ancestry Web site: www.census.gov/population/www/ancestry/index.html

Confidential interviews 9/28/2010

Confidential Survey Results

www.germanistik/universities-us.htm List of 580 universities in the U.S. offering German

German Language Opportunity Website GLOW List of 8, 587

Modern Language Association of America 2007. www.mla.org, www.mla.org/2006_flenrollmentsurvey

Thank you so much!

-call and screen random

Data set 1: Levene's Test for

Residual standard error: 12.89 on 5 degrees of freedom

Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)

Residual standard error: 12.44 on 9 degrees of freedom

Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)

Residual standard error: 36.08 on 1 degrees of freedom

Two Sample t-test

IV3.Classes.full IV4.Hire.new.teacher IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting

Residual standard error: 12.89 on 5 degrees of freedom

> RegModel.2 <- lm(DV...change.in.last.2.yrs~IV4.Hire.new.teacher+IV5.Active.recruiting.or.promoting+IV8.Outside.opportunity+IV9.collaborative.teaching, data=Dataset)

Residual standard error: 12.44 on 9 degrees of freedom

Residual standard error: 36.08 on 1 degrees of freedom

Anda mungkin juga menyukai