LOTE Working Groups — Participant Survey Dashboard

At a Glance

22

Total Respondents

9.8

Avg. Recommend Score (1–10)

100%

Agree or Strongly Agree on all 4 Likert items

82%

Gave a perfect 10 recommendation

Agreement Snapshot

Participants rating Strongly Agree or Agree on each survey item

Work created feedback to improve rubric

95% Strongly Agree 5% Agree

I understand the purpose of IMRA working groups

100% Strongly Agree

Working in LOTE curricula improved understanding

100% Strongly Agree

Collaboration structure was successful

100% Strongly Agree

I had the resources I needed

77% Strongly Agree 23% Agree

Recommendation Distribution

Willingness to recommend colleagues join IMRA working groups (1–10 scale)

+95

Net Promoter Score

21

Promoters (9–10)

1

Passives (7–8)

0

Detractors (0–6)

NPS = % Promoters − % Detractors = 95% − 0% = +95. Scores above +70 are considered world-class.

Key Themes at a Glance

Most cited topics across open-ended responses

Collaboration & community: Peers praised the opportunity to connect with LOTE educators statewide and exchange diverse perspectives.

Time & pacing: The top improvement suggestion across all groups was more time—for small-group discussion, section review, and homework planning.

Structure & facilitation: Organization, advance materials, and facilitator quality (Allison & Harrison) were widely cited as key success factors.

Likert Agreement Ratings

Perception of Rubric Feedback Quality

"The work of myself and my colleagues in working groups created feedback that can improve the IMRA Quality Rubric in LOTE."

N = 22 respondents

95% Strongly Agree 5% Agree

21 of 22 (95%) Strongly Agreed; 1 (5%) Agreed. Zero disagreement.

Understanding of IMRA Working Group Purpose

"I understand the purpose of IMRA working groups."

N = 22 respondents

100% Strongly Agree

22 of 22 (100%) Strongly Agreed. Universal agreement.

Deepened Understanding Through LOTE Curriculum Review

"Working in LOTE curricula gave me a better understanding of the strengths and areas to prioritize for revision of the IMRA Quality Rubric in LOTE."

N = 22 respondents

100% Strongly Agree

22 of 22 (100%) Strongly Agreed. Universal agreement.

Effectiveness of Collaboration Structure

"The structure of collaboration with my curriculum was successful in helping the group develop insights into the strengths and areas to prioritize for revision for the IMRA Quality Rubric in LOTE."

N = 22 respondents

100% Strongly Agree

22 of 22 (100%) Strongly Agreed. Universal agreement.

Resource Availability During Working Groups

"I had the resources I needed to effectively collaborate and generate insight during IMRA working group meetings."

N = 22 respondents

77% Strongly Agree 23% Agree

17 of 22 (77%) Strongly Agreed; 5 of 22 (23%) Agreed. All respondents agreed; none disagreed.

Net Promoter Score (NPS)

"How likely would you be to recommend colleagues join the IMRA working group process?" · N = 22

+95

Net Promoter Score

21

Promoters (scores 9–10)

95%

1

Passives (scores 7–8)

5%

0

Detractors (scores 0–6)

0%

NPS = % Promoters − % Detractors = 95% − 0% = +95. Scores above +50 are considered excellent; above +70 are world-class. A score of +95 is near the theoretical maximum of +100.

Score-by-Score Distribution

Individual ratings from all 22 respondents

10 ★

18 (82%)

9 ★

3 (14%)

8

1 (5%)

0–7

0 (0%)

9.8

Mean Score

10

Median Score

8

Minimum Score

Why Respondents Would Recommend

Selected themes from recommendation explanations

"The work itself is incredibly important and will have a lasting impact on education in Texas. On a personal level, I was able to identify what I value most in a resource.
"It is a great feeling to be HEARD and valued for our expertise and to be part of the process that overtly helps students and LOTE staff!
"I feel that this process should be experienced by all language educators to ensure that there is a common understanding of our needs and the rationales associated with them.
"It's important to 'have a seat at the table', especially when less-commonly taught languages often don't get to have a say in the decision making process.
"Although it requires prep time outside the collaborative meetings, it is definitely worth it. To be part of something that will help teachers in the future is rewarding and educational.

Qualitative Themes

Representative responses drawn from all 22 participants across open-ended survey items. Select quotes have been lightly condensed for clarity.

Team Collaboration

What was most successful in helping you collaborate with your colleagues?

“Having a structure to review our individual points, then moving into rationale by each guidance statement allowed us to focus our conversations on the points that needed more clarity.”
“The team was focused and highly engaged and invested in this work. As personalities, we connected easily and almost immediately, which provided a great platform for us to be vulnerable, ask questions, and brainstorm without fear.”
“The combination of clear organization, knowledgeable colleagues and a shared understanding of the purpose of the task. The variety of perspectives was very helpful.”
“Open discussion, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to understanding the criteria were the most helpful factors. Hearing different perspectives helped us reach stronger, more consistent decisions.”
“We had a common goal and we all worked together to achieve it. The consensus model—with its gradient approach—allowed for some disagreement, while still coming together in a decision.”
“Everything was well communicated. We knew ahead of time what was expected from us. It was great to have a lead person and a diverse group with different experiences and roles in our field.”

Collaboration Improvement

What is one thing you would suggest to improve collaboration in future IMRA working groups?

“Provide more time for group discussion, so members can share ideas, compare feedback, and reach a clearer understanding together.”
“Having one extra day for the ASL group would be beneficial. Section 8 has a very large amount of information to go through and it is a very important part of the rubric specifically for ASL.”
“Provide reviewers with a more detailed glossary and examples of acceptable evidence before the review process begins.”
“I feel there should be a place where—if there is a disagreement—it is noted, so reviewers can record dissenting thoughts.”
“Provide coaching for team leads about soliciting feedback from all group members. We had one team member who seemed to get drowned out.”
“There were a lot of different documents and forms to be filled out—it would be nice if that could be reduced and more streamlined.”

Overall Successes

What was the most successful part(s) of your experience in IMRA working groups?

“Collaboration with colleagues in LOTE from across the state—would love to see more of that honestly. Creating better systems and the idea of continuous improvement is an excellent opportunity!”
“Deep conversations, learning from each other and with each other, and feeling successful and impactful when coming to a consensus in a creative process that everyone deeply cares about.”
“The most successful part was the breakout discussions. Seeing the variety of viewpoints and having time to discuss the language of the rubrics and how it applied to a specific resource.”
“Through this process, I was able to develop a systematic approach to evaluating resources with a critical eye towards what is most important in my day-to-day teaching.”
“Collaborating with experienced language educators and engaging in meaningful discussions around the criteria was the most valuable part. The exchange of perspectives helped strengthen our recommendations.”
“The most successful part of my experience was collaborating with other ASL teachers across the state. Sharing perspectives and engaging in discussions about the material helped broaden my understanding.”

Overall Improvements

What would you suggest to improve the future experience of those in IMRA working groups?

“Build in dedicated time at the beginning of the process for working groups to review and discuss key terms before scoring begins. Terms such as interleaved practice, explanatory feedback, and authentic texts can be interpreted in different ways.”
“Future working groups would benefit from having more discussion time overall and an initial discussion before rating begins to confirm whether the assigned proficiency level matches the actual difficulty level of the instructional materials.”
“Provide additional calibration opportunities before the formal review begins. A brief practice activity using a sample instructional material and rubric indicator could help reviewers develop more consistent understanding.”
“Shorter meeting times but more sessions. Allow participants to score smaller sessions when there's a shorter turnaround time.”
“Restructuring the meeting schedule: 5:00–5:10 debriefing of last meeting, 5:15–7:45 individual groups, 7:45–8:00 debrief.”
“I would reduce the number of documents and streamline them. It would also be nice to have glossary terms hyperlinked in the rating tool.”

All Responses

Individual Response Records

All 22 survey submissions · Scroll horizontally on small screens

#	Rubric Feedback	Purpose	Subject Area	Structure	Resources	Rec.	What Worked in Collaboration	Improvement Suggestion