Correspondence_Match_FY_2014-2015_Strategic_Plan

Connecting the World:

Modernizing the Paul D. Coverdell World Wise Schools Correspondence Match Program to Increase Cultural

Understanding in the 21st Century

Strategic Plan and Research

Fiscal Years 2014-‐2015

Leadership Development Academy, Cohort MMXII ! April 17, 2013

Connecting the World | 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4

Overview of Strategic Planning Development ...................................................................................... 6 The Correspondence Match Program Overview ............................................................................... 6

Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services ....................................................................... 6 Details of Correspondence Match ....................................................................................................... 7

Correspondence Match Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2014 – 2015 .......................................................... 9 Organizational Values, Vision, and Mission ...................................................................................... 9

The Correspondence Match Program Values ..................................................................................... 9 The Correspondence Match Program Vision .................................................................................... 10 The Correspondence Match Program Mission .................................................................................. 11

Strategic Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 12

Recommendations for Further Consideration ..................................................................................... 17

Strategic Planning Methodology ........................................................................................................ 19 Past Strategic Guiding Documents, Studies, and Recommendations ............................................... 19

Correspondence Match’s Historical Strategic Documents ................................................................ 19 External Environmental Factors ..................................................................................................... 21

Table 1: Comparing other cultural learning programs ...................................................................... 24 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ...................................................................... 25

Strengths ........................................................................................................................................... 25 Weaknesses ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Opportunities .................................................................................................................................... 27 Threats .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................................................... 28 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 28 Table 2: Numbers of responses from fieldwork survey .................................................................... 29 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................................... 32 Data Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 33 Data Sources .................................................................................................................................. 34

Table 3: Summary of survey respondents ......................................................................................... 34 Diagram 1: Summary of fieldwork countries and activities .............................................................. 34

Barriers to Participation in Correspondence Match ........................................................................ 35 Table 4: Barriers to active participation in Correspondence Match ................................................. 35

Reasons Volunteers Do Not Enroll in Correspondence Match ......................................................... 36 Table 5: Volunteer explanation of why they are not enrolled in Correspondence Match (categorized open responses) ................................................................................................................................ 36

Utilization of Various Technologies ................................................................................................ 37 Table 6: 2012 Educator responses to survey question: “How do you communicate with your current Correspondence Match Peace Corps Volunteer”? ............................................................................ 37 Table 7: Volunteer responses to fieldwork survey question: “Please identify the methods you use to share information with your Correspondence Match educator.” .................................................... 38


Table 10: Frequency of Volunteer communication with their Correspondence Match educator .... 38 Graph 1: Post Internet connectivity relative to the percentage of Volunteers who are actively participating in Correspondence Match from 2012 survey results ................................................... 39 Graph 2: Trends in recent Peace Corps Volunteer responses on the AVS regarding the distance they have to travel to have Internet access .............................................................................................. 39

Matching Process ........................................................................................................................... 40 Table 11: Global and fieldwork survey question: “How were you matched with your U.S. educator?” .......................................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 12: Global and Fieldwork Survey: “How long did it take to match you with a U.S. educator?” .......................................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 13: Global and fieldwork survey responses to the question: “Did you and your Correspondence Match educator discuss a plan or schedule at the beginning of your correspondence?” ............................................................................................................................. 41 Table 14: Global and fieldwork survey responses to prompt: “Please provide any comments or suggestions on the match process.” ................................................................................................. 42

Challenges for Educators ................................................................................................................ 47 Table 15: Ways that educators use Correspondence Match to achieve their educational goals ..... 47

Standards Alignment ..................................................................................................................... 48 Table 16: For educators who identified meeting standards as a challenge to participating in Correspondence Match, the number of additional challenges they also named ............................. 48 Table 16: For educators who identified meeting standards as a challenge the length of time they have participated in Correspondence Match .................................................................................... 48 Table 17: Responses from 2012 Educator Survey to Question: “After Corresponding with a Peace Corps Volunteer, my students showed the following” ..................................................................... 49

Goal 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 50 Table 17: Responses from fieldwork survey to question: “Do you facilitate communication between your host country community and U.S. students?” .......................................................................... 50 Table 18: Responses from global survey to question: “Do you facilitate communication between your host country community and U.S. students?” .......................................................................... 50 Table 19: Responses from the fieldwork survey to question: “How frequently (number of times per month) do you and your host country community communicate with U.S. students using the methods below?” .............................................................................................................................. 51 Table 20: Responses from both the fieldwork survey to Question: “Which method do you most prefer to exchange information between your community and U.S. students?” ............................. 51 Table 21: Categorized responses to the question, “How can the Correspondence Match program be improved?” from both the Fieldwork and Global Surveys. ............................................................... 52

Appendix B – Survey Instruments ....................................................................................................... 55 Questions for External Organizations ............................................................................................. 55 Peace Corps Volunteer Focus Group: Enrolled in Correspondence Match Program Survey Questions ...................................................................................................................................................... 55 Peace Corps Volunteer Focus Group: Not Enrolled in Correspondence Match Program .................. 56 Peace Corps Staff Interview ........................................................................................................... 56 Returned Peace Corps Volunteer Focus Group: RPCV Questions .................................................... 63


Executive Summary

The Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services (3GL), established in February 2012, promotes a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans and counsels returned Peace Corps Volunteers (RPCVs) about opportunities for further education and employment. 3GL leads the Paul D. Coverdell World Wise Schools Correspondence Match program (Correspondence Match), founded in 1989 to help U.S. schoolchildren better understand and appreciate the diverse cultures and issues of the world. The program targets kindergarten through twelfth grade students in all 50 states and the District of Columbia for a two-‐year cultural learning experience with the Peace Corps Volunteer. In July of 2012, the director of 3GL requested that the Peace Corps’ Leadership Development Academy (LDA) research Correspondence Match and identify mechanisms for the program to reach its full potential. The office cited specific barriers to the success of the program, including an antiquated database management system, lack of structure and scope for participants, and supply and demand fluctuations between the number of Volunteer and educators enrolled. 3GL requested a two-‐year strategic plan to modernize Correspondence Match for the 21st century. Organizational Values, Vision, Mission, and Strategic Goals Correspondence Match aims to promote world peace and friendship by granting opportunities for U.S. learners to develop an awareness of unique places in the world, building on the grassroots presence of Volunteers who travel where typical aid programs do not reach. 3GL envisions a renewed Correspondence Match that inspires educators, Volunteers, and students to participate in an accessible, measurable, and meaningful cross-‐cultural learning platform. The following table illustrates the new vision, mission, and strategic goals that provide the pathway to creating a Correspondence Match for the 21st century.

Vision: The World Wise Schools Correspondence Match Program will connect Peace Corps Volunteers with U.S. learners to engage learners in an inquiry about the world, themselves, and

others to broaden perspeceves and promote cultural awareness.

Mission: To culevate cultural understanding between U.S. learners and internaeonal communiees through Peace Corps Volunteers.

Management Goal:

Inefficiencies in the program are eliminated to maximize the Third Goal.

Strategic Goal One:

Diverse U.S. learners have an

increased awareness of Peace Corps host country communiees.

Strategic Goal Two:

U.S. learners are more engaged ciezens through

increased service learning

Recommended Strategic Goal for Future Inclusion: Volunteers' host

country communiees have

an increased awareness of diverse U.S. culture.


Recommendations for Further Consideration Accomplishing the strategic goals relies on identifying a technological platform to connect interested Volunteers and U.S. educators. By utilizing a technological platform for the entire Correspondence Match experience, from program registration, to identifying potential matches, to capturing the full exchange between U.S. educators and teachers, 3GL staff can utilize their time to developing standard business process, promoting the program, and highlighting the successes. The Peace Corps identified other cultural learning programs that deliver a similar program to Correspondence Match and could be used as a model for best practices. The team recommends 3GL explore partnering with International Education and Resource Network (iEARN) or ePals to learn from these organizations and potentially utilize their platforms to deliver Correspondence Match. Once 3GL addresses the overall constraints with the program and begins to implement the strategic plan, the office can dedicate time to truly creating a Correspondence Match for the 21st Century. Correspondence Match of the future shrinks the world and disintegrates borders, uses technology to create a worldwide window, and connects the U.S. to Peace Corps communities. Since Volunteers participating in Correspondence Match already encourage exchanges between host country nationals and U.S. learners, the team recommends a strategic goal for further consideration: Volunteer host country communities have a better understanding of U.S. populations, representing the diversity of America, through increased awareness of U.S. culture. Finally, Correspondence Match’s 25th Anniversary offers the opportunity to reintroduce Correspondence Match and motivate Volunteers and U.S. educators to participate. 3GL can capitalize on this opportunity and rollout the proposed changes to the program along with a new name.


Overview of Strategic Planning Development The Leadership Development Academy (LDA) is a 12-‐month professional development program designed to ensure the Peace Corps has a "source of well-‐prepared managers and leaders." It develops a member's leadership skills to contribute to the future success of the Peace Corps by engaging members to identify organizational problems, research those issues, and recommend solutions.1 LDA members bring an outside perspective to certain agency problems, and the agency taps into the diverse backgrounds of LDA participants for creative solutions to ensure the Peace Corps continues to make a difference around the world. Since LDA's inception in 2006, it has consisted of one team of 10-‐12 members each year; however, in 2012, Peace Corps selected 13 members for LDA, dividing the group into two teams that focused on distinct projects. At the request of the Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services (3GL), one team elected to focus on the World Wise Schools Correspondence Match program (Correspondence Match). After conducting research, the team identified the barriers that hinder Correspondence Match from reaching its full potential. The final product from the team’s yearlong efforts is this strategic plan for Correspondence Match, which includes a new strategic vision and mission, goals, objectives, and recommendations for further consideration. Key findings and survey tools are in the appendices of this strategic plan.

The Correspondence Match Program Overview The Peace Corps’ Paul D. Coverdell Correspondence Match Program is a component of the World Wise Schools (WWS) program that aims to help U.S. learners better understand and appreciate the diverse cultures and issues of the world. 3GL leads Correspondence Match to further accomplish the Peace Corps’ Third Goal, defined as “helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans.”2

Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services The establishment of WWS in 1989 was the agency’s first substantive dedication of resources to achieve the Third Goal.3 Since its inception in 1989, Correspondence Match has been a component of WWS, though the organizational structure changed various times. Previously, Correspondence Match had been located in the Office of Volunteer Support, the Office of Domestic Programs (within the larger office of Volunteer, Recruitment, and Selection), and the Office of Public

1 LDA Peace Corps intranet: https://inside.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?branch=1076 2 Peace Corps website: http://www.peacecorps.gov/about/mission/ 3 Inspector General’s Report 2004

“I was thrilled when the Peace Corps announced the establishment of this office and selected me to lead it. While Peace Corps service may only be two years, being a returned Peace Corps Volunteer is a status – and more importantly, a commitment – that we carry for life. Having an office that focuses on RPCVs and the Third Goal is helping us elevate and enhance our Third Goal efforts.” Eileen Conoboy


Engagement.4 Currently, Correspondence Match resides within 3GL, established in February 2012, which is comprised of WWS and Returned Volunteer Services. The creation of this office came as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Agency Assessment’s recommendation to “elevate” the Third Goal. The office’s mission is “to promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans – and to counsel returned Peace Corps Volunteers (RPCVs) about opportunities for further education and employment.”5 World Wise Schools Programs6 WWS includes two match programs and resources for U.S. educators to teach subjects such as geography, social studies, language arts, environmental education, and international economics.

Although the research and strategic plan solely focus on Correspondence Match, the following is a short summary of WWS programs.

1) Correspondence Match. The Peace Corps matches Peace

Corps Volunteers in the field with U.S. educators to correspond with individual classrooms through an exchange of emails, letters, videos and tapes, photographs, and telephone calls. Correspondence Match is available to every state in the U.S. and the District of Columbia.

2) Speakers Match. The Speakers Match program connects U.S. classrooms and other audiences with returned Peace Corps Volunteers.

3) Classroom Resources. On its website, WWS offers free lesson plans, activities, and readings to help students learn about geography and culture to become more culturally aware. The educational resources are standards-‐based7 and free to the public. The Peace Corps has a searchable database of Peace Corps Volunteer stories that educators can use to reinforce certain education topics. WWS also provides multimedia programs and other resources to help U.S. educators bring global issues to life.

Details of Correspondence Match Former Peace Corps Director Paul D. Coverdell established Correspondence Match as a mechanism for Peace Corps Volunteers and U.S. classrooms to communicate. Correspondence Match matches Peace Corps Volunteers with U.S. classroom teachers for a “vibrant two-‐year exchange of ideas, stories, pictures, and artifacts that helps U.S. students in the classroom learn about the people, geography, and cultures of the world from the direct experience of Volunteers living in other countries.”8 Correspondence Match’s mission, while not explicitly defined in Peace Corps documents, has been

4 Past Integrated Planning and Budget System submissions, 1997 – 2005. 5 3GL’s 2012 IPBS submission 6 WWS Peace Corps webpage: http://wws.peacecorps.gov/wws/index.cfm? 7 The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn. http://www.corestandards.org/; para.1. 8 http://wws.peacecorps.gov/wws/correspond/about.cfm

“World Wise Schools is the most important link between students throughout the U.S. and Peace Corps Volunteers and their host communities. Shared stories and experiences personally shared between students and communities living thousands of miles apart celebrate the differences and share the common themes of growing up anywhere in the world.” Jody Olsen


described by 3GL as the same as WWS’s mission: to help U.S. schoolchildren better understand and appreciate the diverse cultures and issues of the world. The program, targeted towards U.S. classrooms (Kindergarten through twelfth grade), does not exclude informal groups of learners, such as a Girls Scouts group or community group. Correspondence Match encourages participants to correspond once a month. According to the Peace Corps’ 2012 Annual Volunteer Survey (AVS) completed by 6,380 Volunteers, 15 percent of Volunteers actively participated in Correspondence Match, and 35 percent were enrolled and not actively participating in Correspondence Match. Correspondence Match supports the participation of any Peace Corps Volunteer, regardless of his or her primary assignment. Volunteers can sign up for the program at any point: pre-‐departure, staging, pre-‐service training, or anytime throughout their service. Volunteers and teachers sign up for the program through an online or print application. A 3GL staff member manually matches Volunteers to U.S. educators using a Microsoft Access database. Volunteers and teachers can also establish their own matches, based on personal connections. For example, Volunteers may match with former primary or secondary school teachers or with teachers within their network of families and friends. According to a 2012 educator survey given to U.S. educators participating in Correspondence Match, 43 percent of educators reported previously knowing the Volunteer with whom they were matched. Though Correspondence Match is not intended as a “pen pal program” with direct correspondence between the host country communities and U.S. learners, pen pal correspondences is an important aspect to the program for some participants. A 2012 survey for U.S. educators enrolled in Correspondence Match did not ask specifically about pen pals; however, 10 percent of the educators, who chose to make a recommendation to improve Correspondence Match listed pen pals as a desired addition. On that same survey 40 percent of educators responded that participation in Correspondence Match supports writing and literacy goals. From two worldwide surveys conducted by the team in 2013 to current Volunteers, 38 percent of Volunteers connected host country community members with U.S. learners through some sort of correspondence. Volunteers and teachers may correspond informally without enrolling in Correspondence Match. These types of communications still accomplish the agency’s Third Goal, and Volunteers who integrate host country nationals in such correspondence also accomplish the Second Goal. 3GL does not track activities outside of Correspondence Match, though in 2012, 34 percent of Volunteers reported doing a letter exchange with family, friends, or acquaintances outside of Correspondence Match.9

9 2012 AVS Survey


Correspondence Match Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2014 – 2015

Organizational Values, Vision, and Mission Peace Corps’ mission, “to promote world peace and friendship,” relies mostly on cross-‐cultural learning occurring through Peace Corps’ Goals Two and Three. The agency places a high value on successful implementation of cultural learning, with two-‐thirds of the goals in Peace Corps’ mission emphasizing culture. As stated in the program overview, to accomplish the Peace Corps’ Third Goal, 3GL’s mission is “to promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans – and to counsel RPCVs about opportunities for further education and employment.” Additionally, Correspondence Match’s purpose is described on their website10:

The Correspondence Match Program Values

Cross-‐cultural learning directly relates to the Peace Corps’ overall mission of “promoting world peace and friendship” by helping participants learn about other people, cultures, and countries. Correspondence Match provides a structured method for facilitating this learning experience. It builds personal relationships across borders and, through this unique form of sharing, encourages Correspondence Match learners to understand and empathize with others. Correspondence Match differs from other cultural learning programs by granting opportunities for U.S. learners to develop an awareness of unique places in the world. Its participants travel where no other programs reach; Volunteers are the niche in this experience.

10 http://wws.peacecorps.gov/wws/correspond/about.cfm

To match Peace Corps Volunteers in the field with U.S. classroom teachers so that U.S. students in the classroom learn about the people, geography, environment and cultures of the world from the direct experience of Volunteers living in other countries.

“It’s the teacher’s job to touch the future of a child; it’s Peace Corps’ job to touch the future of the world.” U.S. Educator

Friendship

Understanding Empathy Curiosity Inspiration Peace

EfDiciency


Correspondence Match showcases Peace Corps’ grassroots efforts by sharing stories about development on the ground, partnered with global communities. It sparks curiosity and hopes to inspire others to change the future – to follow in the footsteps of Volunteers before them. A quote from a teacher best captures the hopes of the Peace Corps: “It’s the teacher’s job to touch the future of a child; it’s Peace Corps’ job to touch the future of the world.”11 Through this cultural learning, Correspondence Match best promotes world peace and friendship.

The Correspondence Match Program Vision Previous 3GL and WWS strategic plans reveal that Correspondence Match lacks its own vision. In collaboration with 3GL, the team reflected on the future of Correspondence Match and how to inspire educators, Volunteers, and learners to participate. Using the program’s values and goals for its future, the vision statement of Correspondence Match now reads:

To achieve this vision, Correspondence Match will be an accessible, measurable, and meaningful cross-‐cultural learning platform where Volunteers can use its technologies to easily connect with educators before and during service through a self-‐guided, online system. The technological platform will come from a partnership with an organization that can provide the Peace Corps the ability to personalize its program to fit the needs of its participants. Upon invitation to the Peace Corps, all future Volunteers learn about Correspondence Match and are encouraged to come to service already subscribed, matched to an educator, and with a plan for communicating with the educator. All Volunteers, whether subscribed to Correspondence Match or not, will be able to access the platform, subscribe at any point during service, connect with educators, and contribute. Any educator can also subscribe with Correspondence Match at any point. The platform will include technological advances and will provide tools to train its users to collaborate globally. Participants will be able to share content on the platform through private connections or in a public forum – accessible to participants with and without a matched educator or Volunteer. This method of sharing, whether with a match or not, will provide educators with content that aligns with Common Core standards of education. Correspondence Match will have clear, defined expectations for all learners and will provide educators with learning resources – creating global awareness. Through its unique access to the world, Correspondence Match will serve as the world’s most authentic grassroots, cross-‐cultural experience where learners are exposed to a myriad of communities, geography, challenges, projects, and opportunities for service learning. As an online platform, Correspondence Match will have plans available when the participants subscribe and automatic evaluations of the experience. The program will ensure increased awareness of cultures when the participants unsubscribe after completion. Each month, when the participants “log in” to

11 From the WWS naming bill. 106th Congress, 2D session, H.R. 5357

The World Wise Schools Correspondence Match Program will connect Peace Corps Volunteers with U.S. learners to engage learners in an inquiry about the world, themselves, and others to broaden perspectives and promote cultural awareness.


Correspondence Match, a prompt will generate monthly themes, highlighted projects, and suggestions for activities. Additionally, the team envisions the Peace Corps’ Second Goal, “helping to promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served,”12 as an area to explore to capture how Correspondence Match meets this goal. Correspondence Match of the future shrinks the world and disintegrates borders, uses technology to create a worldwide window, and connects the U.S. to Peace Corps communities. In addition to three goals to accomplish during FY 2014 and 2015, the team suggests a goal for future inclusion.

The Correspondence Match Program Mission Using the values and vision of Correspondence Match, 3GL and the team crafted a new mission:

12 http://www.peacecorps.gov/about/mission/

To cultivate cultural understanding between U.S. learners and international communities through Peace Corps Volunteers.


Strategic Goals and Objectives

The strategic goals and objectives in the FY 2014 – 2015 Strategic Plan define “how” the Correspondence Match program can achieve its mission. 13 It provides measurable goals and aligns the program activities to the mission. Where goals indicate targets for improvements, 3GL will determine the appropriate number based on their capacity.

Assumptions: • Inclusion of host communities in Correspondence Match leads to U.S. learners’ better

understanding of host country cultures. • Community groups such as Girl and Boy Scouts, church groups, youth groups, and others can

participate in Correspondence Match with similar outcomes to U.S. classrooms.

13“Learners” refers to anyone who is obtaining knowledge or skills as a result of Correspondence Match, and “educators” refers to anyone guiding, teaching, or leading a group of “learners.”

Vision: The World Wise Schools Correspondence Match Program will connect Peace Corps Volunteers with U.S. learners to engage learners in an inquiry about the world, themselves, and others to broaden perspeceves

and promote cultural awareness.


Management Goal:

Inefficiencies in the program are eliminated while maximizing the Third Goal.

Strategic Goal One: Diverse U.S. learners have an

increased awareness of

Peace Corps host country

communiees.

Strategic Goal Two:

U.S. learners are more engaged ciezens through

increased Volunteerism and service-‐learning.

Recommended Strategic Goal for Future Inclusion: Volunteers' host

country communiees have

an increased awareness of diverse U.S. culture.


Management Goal: Inefficiencies in the program are eliminated while maximizing the Third Goal.

To eliminate inefficiencies in Correspondence Match, 3GL must first adopt new technologies to maximize the ability to connect its participants and capture their use of the program. This goal is in direct alignment with the Comprehensive Agency Assessment strategy six: “strengthen management and operations by using updated technology, innovative approaches, and improved business processes that will enable the agency to effectively carry out this new strategic vision.”14 To do this, 3GL must identify requirements for the platform, such as the ability for its participants to search for Volunteers or educators through an online tool. Once 3GL decides on these parameters, it must examine whether this should be done through partnering with an organization or whether Peace Corps should create the platform. While adopting the new technological platform for Correspondence Match, 3GL must develop marketing, communication, monitoring and evaluation plans, and business processes to support the newly launched program. To capitalize on the 25th anniversary of Correspondence Match, 3GL must identify a

14 Comprehensive Agency Assessment to Congress in June 2010.


Management Goal: Inefficiencies in the program are eliminated while maximizing the Third Goal.

By the end of FY 2014, the Peace Corps (a) adopts technologies that

allow U.S. educators and Volunteers to connect and (b)

tracks communicaeon between U.S. educators and Volunteers.

By the end of FY 2014, 3GL provides

materials to support

Correspondence Match

parecipants.

By the end of FY 2015, 3GL will

establish processes and

business praceces to expand

Correspondence Match's

outcomes and consider how to

include an increased

understanding of Americans by host country communiees.

By the end of FY 2015, an increased

percentage of posts will

provide training and disseminate informaeon

about Correspond-‐ence

Match.

By the end of FY 2015, an increased

percentage of Volunteers report use of

Correspond-‐ence Match through

the AVS.

By the end of Quarter 2 of FY

2014, 3GL develops requisite strategic guiding

documents (markeeng,

communicaeon, and monitoring and evaluaeon plans) and

idenefies business processes that will lead to increased parecipaeon in Correspondence

Match.


date to announce the start of its new program. In conjunction with this target date, 3GL must create a communication plan for building participants’ awareness of the new program as well as clearly articulating its vision and mission. To strengthen its business processes, 3GL must identify incentives to promote participation such as contests, prizes, badges, certificates, and other motivation for Volunteers and U.S. educators. Additionally, 3GL must create a plan for communication with Correspondence Match participants, which include expectations for participation, proposed activities, and ways to feature projects or

postings on the platform. 3GL should build in opportunities for recognition by both Peace Corps country directors and the Peace Corps Director. To incorporate a Goal Two component in the program’s next strategic plan (FY 2016 – 2017), 3GL must begin to identify the business processes required to include host country communities in the program. To align with U.S. education curriculum, 3GL must determine whether Common Core State Standards of education will assist Correspondence Match participation and aligning its resources to these standards is possible. To support Correspondence Match participants, 3GL must create and provide (a) templates for educators and Volunteers to develop a working plan together, (b) monthly “themes” to prompt correspondence, and (c) guidelines for Volunteers on communicating with young U.S. audiences. Additionally, 3GL must provide support to Peace Corps posts by offering suggestions for training Volunteers on Correspondence Match and emphasizing its potential contribution during all stages of a Volunteers’ service. To use existing agency tools for monitoring and evaluation of its program, 3GL must work in conjunction with the Volunteer Reporting Tool (VRT) working group to capture more information on Correspondence Match. After adopting the new technologies, 3GL must pilot this program with select posts and educators before launching the new platform to all Correspondence Match participants. Finally, to support this transition to a new Correspondence Match program, the agency must consider the addition of staff members to 3GL. Currently, one full-‐time employee manages Correspondence Match while also attending to other job duties. This is a significant reduction from the six full-‐time employees dedicated to the WWS programs in 2010, which included an assistant director, education specialists, and other supporting staff. According to an Inspector General’s report, in 2004 the WWS program had seven staff dedicated to the program. 15 A transition to adopt new technologies requires a period of time where participants work in the old system while 3GL establishes systems to eliminate inefficiencies in the program while maximizing the Third Goal. The team suggests best accomplished by increasing the number of employees to support Correspondence Match.

15 Inspector General’s Report 2004

“We can do pretty well with motivation, [to get PCVs to enroll] but first it has to be an effective program and then word would spread among PCVs, an effective program is the best motivation.” Peace Corps Staff, 2013


Strategic Goal One: Diverse U.S. learners have an increased awareness of Peace Corps host country communities.

For diverse U.S. learners to have an increased awareness of Peace Corps’ host country communities through Correspondence Match, 3GL must identify a mechanism to measure cultural awareness. 3GL must also increase the participation of a diverse representation of the U.S. to the program. To accomplish this, 3GL must leverage Peace Corps’ existing partnerships with Teach for America and City Year, and target Title I schools to increase the number and diversity of classrooms participating in Correspondence Match. A more diverse representation of the U.S. will use the tools developed to prompt correspondence and sharing about culturally relevant topics that can be measured through pre and post-‐tests included in the new technologies.


Strategic Goal One: Diverse U.S. learners have an increased awareness of Peace Corps host country communiees.

By the end of FY 2015, there is an X percent increase in the number of U.S.

classrooms or groups parecipaeng in Correspondence Match that report

increased understanding of host country communiees.

By the end of FY 2015, there is an increase of X percent in the diversity of U.S. classrooms

parecipaeng in Correspondence

Match.

By the end of FY 2015, there is an increase of X percent in the number of

Volunteers who uelize

Correspondence Match to

implement Goal Three aceviees.

By the end of FY 2015, an

increased number of U.S. educators or groups report

acevely parecipaeng in Correspondence

Match.


Strategic Goal Two: U.S. learners are more engaged citizens through increased service-‐learning.

For participation in Correspondence Match to lead to more engaged citizens through increased service-‐learning, U.S. learners and Volunteers must implement service-‐learning activities as part of Correspondence Match. To encourage this, 3GL must capitalize on international days of service, such as Global Youth Service Day and Earth Day, to encourage service activities through its monthly themes and prompts. The benefits to increased service through Correspondence Match are multi-‐faceted given the fact that many states’ graduation requirements include community service hours, and U.S. educators will recognize this as an incentive to participate in the program. Additionally, through a deeper understanding of issues faced in Volunteers’ host country communities, U.S. learners will recognize the importance of grassroots development and support Peace Corps projects through PCPP. As Correspondence Match begins to incorporate greater host country community participation the program in future years, host country communities may also begin participating in service-‐learning activities.


Strategic Goal Two: U.S. learners are more engaged ciezens through increased service-‐learning.


classrooms or groups that implement

service aceviees as part of

Correspond-‐ence Match.


service-‐learning hours completed

by Correspondence

Match parecipants.

By the end of FY 2015, there is an

X percent increase in the number of Peace Corps Partnership Program (PCPP)

projects supported by U.S. Correspondence

Match classrooms.

By the end of FY 2015, there is an

increase of X percent in the number of Correspondence Match parecipants that post videos, photos, service

hours, and success stories on the service-‐learning

landing page within the Correspondence Match plarorm.


Recommendations for Further Consideration 3GL should update its procedures to better capitalize on cultural learning experiences already happening in Peace Corps service. Leveraging Correspondence Match’s strengths and opportunities help to fill the gaps present in current programmatic weaknesses. The Peace Corps’ name and the Volunteers’ linking U.S. learners to different cultures are Correspondence Match’s niches. Throughout this assessment, external organizations facilitating cultural learning expressed an eagerness to partner with the Peace Corps to capitalize on the Peace Corps brand and Volunteers’ experiences. These organizations identify value in connecting with Volunteers, given their work in rural, hard-‐to-‐reach communities throughout the developing world. The external organizations utilize modern methods for their customers to connect; leveraging partnerships with organizations could assist in updating the program without having to recreate an already established system for matching and exchanging. Through the team’s research on external organizations’ matching and platforms capabilities, the team recommends Correspondence Match explore partnership opportunities with ePals or iEARN. Both organizations offer dynamic learning platforms fostering cultural learning between U.S. and global classrooms. iEARN expressed an interest in working with the Peace Corps and offered to discuss a low-‐cost opportunity for the Peace Corps to partner and use its technologies. Although ePals did not respond to inquiries, the team recommends exploring its online tools and matching solution due to its thorough ability to search for classrooms by language, region, country, classroom size and ages, as well as methods for an exchange (i.e. email, Skype, and/or video). U.S. participants in Correspondence Match can be leveraged to build a successful program, and serve as a great audience for the Peace Corps’ recruitment of future Volunteers. Therefore the team recommends establishing a relationship for future collaboration with the Office of Volunteer Recruitment and Selection – highlighting that Correspondence Match could be used as a recruitment tool for the Peace Corps. Additionally the team recommends 3GL utilize the information it collects online regarding RPCV occupations. This information provides 3GL a roster of RPCVs who are teachers and could participate in Correspondence Match. Correspondence Match of the future shrinks the world and disintegrates borders, uses technology to create a worldwide window, and connects the U.S. to Peace Corps communities. Since Volunteers participating in Correspondence Match already encourage cultural learning between host country communities and U.S. learners, the team recommends a strategic goal for further consideration: Volunteer host country communities have a better understanding of U.S. populations, representing the diversity of America, through increased awareness of U.S. culture. This goal and its objectives are outlined following this section. Finally, an opportunity for Correspondence Match modernization includes marketing and communications plans reintroducing Correspondence Match with its changes. To motivate participation in Correspondence Match, the team suggests 3GL share its revised vision and strategic plan with its participants. To highlight and celebrate changes made to Correspondence Match, the team proposes 3GL consider changing the program’s name and adopt a plan to introduce the updated program by its 25th anniversary in 2014.


Recommended Strategic Goal for Future Inclusion: Volunteers' host country communities

have an increased awareness of diverse U.S. culture.


Future Strategic Goal: Volunteers' host country communiees have an increased awareness of diverse U.S. culture.

By the end of FY 2018,there is an increase of X percent of Volunteers that report host

country communiees parecipaeng in

Correspondence Match have a beser understanding of

U.S. populaeons.

By the end of FY 2018, there is an increase of X percent of

Volunteers that uelize Correspondence Match to

implement Goal Two aceviees.

By the end of FY 2018, an increased percentage of Volunteers report aceve parecipaeon by their host country communiees in Correspondence Match.


Strategic Planning Methodology Before developing this strategic plan, the team developed a project charter, stakeholder analysis, and project management plan, as well as a timeframe for execution. As a measure for best practices and information sharing, the team met with the director of 3GL and the program analyst for Correspondence Match on a weekly basis. The team identified internal and external resources, developed a plan for gathering background information, including historical documents and reports related to Correspondence Match, and conducted a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. The team also secured an advisory panel made up of experts from the following Peace Corps offices: Office of Global Operations, Office of Innovation, Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Additionally, the advisory panel included three experts external to the organization: a former acting Peace Corps Director, currently at the University of Maryland, a former LDA participant who is currently at the Brookings Institution, and a former Peace Corps staff currently an independent consultant. The team then identified knowledge gaps and determined where new information would strengthen the team’s understanding of Correspondence Match. The team developed a list of standard questions related to the themes around key areas for improvement. The team designed a plan to gather this information and better understand the experience of the Correspondence Match end user. The team used surveys, interviews, and focus groups to gather information from Volunteers, educators, Peace Corps overseas staff, and RPCVs. The team identified three posts to visit based on current Correspondence Match participation and post availability. Once the team collected and analyzed the data from the surveys, interviews, and focus groups, it developed recommendations and then mapped the recommendations into a strategic plan to support their implementation.

Past Strategic Guiding Documents, Studies, and Recommendations

Correspondence Match’s Historical Strategic Documents Prior to the development of this strategic plan, Correspondence Match did not operate under its own strategic plan, and agency documents did not define a specific vision, mission, goals, or objectives for the program. 3GL’s Integrated Planning and Budget System (IPBS) submission identified high-‐level goals for the office, which include Correspondence Match and other WWS components. In 3GL’s 2012 IPBS submission, the office identified the functions related to Correspondence Match as follows: 16

• Connect American classroom teachers and their students with current and returned Peace Corps Volunteers through matching programs, web-‐based curriculum publications, and instructional resources

• Help Americans learn about the world’s diverse people, cultures, and geography through the Peace Corps Volunteer experience

• Maintain databases of RPCVs and educators and encourage their interactions to foster cross-‐cultural understanding

16 Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services FY 2013 – 2015 Integrated Planning and Budget System.


• Provide ongoing support and resources to teachers, Volunteers, RPCVs and staff in the promotion of the Peace Corps’s Third Goal

Additionally, the office identified “active participation in the Coverdell World Wise Schools Correspondence Match Program” as an indicator in the agency’s FY 2012 – 2014 performance plan. 3GL established a target of a one percent increase in active participation over the fiscal years (FY) 2012, 2013, and 2014 averages. For fiscal year 2013, 3GL has established a target of 27 percent of active Volunteer participation, a significant increase from the reported 15 percent from the 2012 AVS. In response to some of the issues identified above, the Peace Corps has undertaken various studies related to Correspondence Match, mostly in the broader context of the agency’s Third Goal. Of the studies, three offered specific recommendations related to improving Correspondence Match. These studies and prior recommendations informed the team’s research and the development of the strategic plan. Comprehensive Agency Assessment (2010) In 2010, the Peace Corps completed a Congressionally-‐mandated Comprehensive Agency Assessment, required as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act17, to create a vision for the agency as it entered its fiftieth year. The then-‐director of the Peace Corps, Aaron S. Williams, also asked the assessment team to address how the Peace Corps could strengthen Third Goal activities. The agency assessment team found “the Coverdell program and its three operations to be reactionary, largely due to limited financial resources”. The assessment noted that the number of interested schools exceeded the number of participating Volunteers. The assessment team recommended that the Peace Corps analyze the reasons for low Volunteer participation within Correspondence Match taking into account input from overseas staff and current Volunteers. Additionally, the assessment team recommended the agency continue investigating potential incentives for Volunteer participation in Third Goal activities.

LDA Cohort III Jamaica Study (2008) The LDA Cohort III conducted a case study in Jamaica to research the impact of the Third Goal during Volunteer service. The cohort noted how technological advances contributed to improved Third Goal outcomes by currently serving Volunteers. The research project recommended that the Peace Corps begin training on the Third Goal during pre-‐service training, encouraging Peace Corps posts to emphasize the Third Goal during Peace Corps Volunteer service by increasing Volunteer participation in WWS or other Peace Corps programs. The cohort also recommended that the Peace Corps develop incentives to encourage currently serving Peace Corps Volunteers and Peace Corps staff to fulfill the Third Goal. Inspector General (IG) Report (2004) An IG report found that the Peace Corps historically devoted minimal attention and resources to promoting the Third Goal. Leadership vacancies and restricted financial resources hindered the effectiveness of WWS programs, including Correspondence Match, though U.S. educators found the

17 Public Law 111-‐117


content unique and valuable to improving students’ learning. The report noted WWS lacked a strategic plan to guide activities and support decision-‐making in allocating resources. The IG recommended WWS revisit its goals and strategies, assess resource needs, and create a monitoring and evaluation plan. Additionally, the report noted that the number of U.S. beneficiaries is small given the vast potential market of U.S. educators. In response to these studies, the Peace Corps provided promotional bags as an incentive to participation, though did not see increased rates of participation. In developing this strategic plan, the team took note that prior studies recommended developing incentives for Volunteer participation, and included the IG’s recommendation to provide more structure and develop a monitoring and evaluation plan. The team incorporated these two recommendations into the FY 2014 – 2015 strategic plan.

External Environmental Factors

Correspondence Match has potential to align with the changing U.S. and international education systems. In a recent report from its international task force on U.S. education reform and national security, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) finds, “the United States’ failure to educate its students [on global awareness] leaves them unprepared to compete and threatens the country’s ability to thrive in a global economy and maintain its leadership role.”19 In addition to this threat, CFR also suggests the failure to educate poses a threat on U.S. global awareness, among four other national security threats.20

In collaboration with CFR, the U.S. Department of Education built its international strategy for 2012 – 2016 with two strategic goals: “strengthening U.S. education” and “advancing our nation’s international priorities.”21 This strategy highlights the need for quality education, global competencies, comparisons between U.S. education and other top international education performers, and cultural exchanges with other countries.22 “The international strategy for 2012-‐2016 affirms the Department of Education’s commitment to preparing today’s youth, and our country more broadly, for a globalized world, and to engaging with the international community to improve education.”23 Through the Department’s international strategy, learners develop economic competitiveness, awareness of global challenges, national security and diplomacy, and an understanding of U.S. society. Other Cultural Learning Programs To better understand the competitive environment and identify programs from which to learn best practices, the team reviewed techniques used by other organizations to match participants and share cultural experiences. Programs similar to Correspondence Match generally use travelers to

18 Bennett, M.J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10 (2), 179-‐95. 19 http://www.cfr.org/united-‐states/us-‐education-‐reform-‐national-‐security/p27618; para.1 20 http://www.cfr.org/united-‐states/us-‐education-‐reform-‐national-‐security/p27618; para.5 21 http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/international-‐strategy-‐2012-‐16.pdf; page 1 22 http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/international-‐strategy-‐2012-‐16.pdf; page 1 23 http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/international-‐strategy-‐2012-‐16.pdf; page 1

“As one’s experience of cultural difference becomes more complex and sophisticated, one’s competence in intercultural relations increases.”18

M. Bennett, RPCV, 1986


communicate with U.S. classrooms and consider the needs of educators when implementing their programs. These programs match travelers with educators based on curriculum and lesson plans, employing online matching systems. They also leverage dynamic media tools, which improve students’ technological skills. Five of these programs warrant further notation: ePals, International and Resource Network (iEARN), the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), OneWorld Classroom, and Reach the World (RTW). Other organizations offer similar cultural learning programs to Correspondence Match through a modern method of use. Rather than creating new techniques to improve Correspondence Match, it may consider adopting similar techniques used by programs such as ePals, iEarn, IIP, OneWorld Classroom, and RTW, or partnering with some of these organizations to address gaps in Correspondence Match’s current efforts. While these organizations are similar to Correspondence Match, a key difference sets Correspondence Match apart: Volunteers and their unique two-‐year experience in grassroots development. External organizations recognize this difference; therefore, Volunteers’ experiences, in parts of the world rarely traveled and for a length of time that offers a deeper cultural understanding, become a key factor to leverage when considering a partnership.

1) ePals: ePals is a corporation that aims to support learning through collaborative connections to international classrooms. ePals answers the modern needs of educators through an easy and active matching forum online.24 ePals matches U.S. classrooms with international classrooms. Its international technological platform assists in building educational communities through a dynamic tool where educators post and search for classrooms by language, region, country, classroom size and ages, as well as methods for sharing (i.e. email, Skype, and/or video). Through its corporate sponsors such as IBM, Dell, and Microsoft, ePals offers a free Global Community of “the world’s largest network of K-‐12 classrooms, enabling students and teachers to safely connect and collaborate with classrooms in more than 200 countries and territories.”25 Membership in the Global Community includes the use of a secure email platform and access to its collaborative, worldwide projects. For a membership fee, ePals provides its users additional access to a virtual collaborative workspace, the ePals platform, and a program designed for increasing literacy.

2) International Education and Resource Network (iEARN): Created in 1988, the non-‐profit organization iEARN uses the Internet and other technologies to facilitate sharing between classrooms. iEARN empowers teachers and young people to engage in “meaningful educational projects with peers in their countries and around the world.”26 iEARN’s contributors can share through one-‐to-‐one matches, similar to a pen pal exchange, but the organization promotes the use of their Collaboration Center, where teachers and students design projects using iEARN templates, discussion board, and online tools for collaboration. iEARN has a dynamic search criteria based on projects by language, subject, ages of students, key words, and group titles. Ideas for using iEARN are generated through communication with other educators through the Teacher’s Forum, through online templates on the project database, in a bi-‐monthly newsletter, through online courses and webinars, and in iEARN’s Facebook group. In addition to the online tools provided, iEARN also provides an annual project book in print. iEARN provides this

24 www.epals.com 25 http://www.corp.epals.com/products/epals-‐global-‐community.php; para.1 26 http://www.iearn.org/about; para. 3


service to U.S. classrooms for a membership fee per classroom and a reduced cost for the school as a whole.

3) Department of State/Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP): Under the jurisdiction of the Department of State, IIP coordinates educational exchanges between U.S. and international schools and/or communities. Through its mission, IIP engages overseas audiences in fostering understanding and good will between nations. IIP matches international classrooms and communities with U.S. classrooms and communities. IIP’s matches occur when the State Department’s Public Affairs sections in an embassy or consulate identify students across the world studying human rights. Meeting the needs of educators in the U.S. as well as internationally, the program aligns with curriculum related to human rights. Educators overseas and in the U.S. express interest in a collaborative exchange, then IIP facilitates the exchange where the students can visually interact and share ideas as it relates to the subject of study. To support the recruitment of U.S. classrooms, the Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs helps locate educators and coordinates the stateside activities in this exchange.27

4) OneWorld Classroom: OneWorld Classroom’s mission is “to foster global awareness and cross-‐cultural understanding in the context of the K-‐12 curriculum to prepare young people for local and global citizenship in culturally diverse settings.”28 OneWorld Classroom is similar to Correspondence Match in that the experience is between U.S. classrooms and people all over the world. In an effort to engage U.S. educators and assist teachers in meeting the needs of standardized tests, OneWorld Classroom provides a forum for educators to express needs and request tools to meet these standards. OneWorld Classroom maps its curriculum, or projects, with these standards to show the educators how their programs can align with what needs to be taught.29 Similar to other organizations of this nature, OneWorld Classroom provides this service to U.S. classrooms for a membership fee.

5) Reach the World (RTW): Founded in 1998, RTW matches U.S. educators with “travelers” in

order to help “students and teachers to develop the knowledge, attitudes, values and thinking skills needed for responsible citizenship in a complex, culturally diverse and rapidly changing world.”30 RTW actively provides materials for teachers that meet the Department of Education’s international education strategy of 2012 -‐ 2016. Educators use evolving lesson plans that align with curricula aimed at global awareness and shift to different countries and topics every month. Its primary U.S. participants come from Title I31 schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods from New York City. RTW offers its constituents an interactive and modern forum where travelers post video content and journal entries, and connect through web-‐based chats and video sites. “RTW identifies and trains volunteer travelers, manages web-‐based journalistic content posted weekly…and delivers training and support to the schools in its programs.”32 Through this program, educators report finding value in learning how to use 27 personal communication; J. Wetzler, senior producer; IIP, January 3, 2013. 28 http://www.oneworldclassrooms.org/about-‐us/mission-‐values/; para.2. 29 personal communication; P. Hurteau, executive director; OneWorld Classroom, February 26, 2013. 30 http://www.reachtheworld.org/about/mission; para.4. 31 Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA) provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-‐income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards. Schools in which children from low-‐income families make up at least 40 percent of registration are eligible to use Title I funds for school-‐wide programs that serve all children in the school. (Elementary and Secondary Education, 2011) 32 http://www.reachtheworld.org/about/mission; para.4.


the online tools and, for this reason, are willing to pay the membership per classroom or reduced fee for the whole school to use RTW in classrooms.33 Additionally, for monitoring and evaluation, RTW provides a tool for measuring learners’ global awareness both before and after using the program.

Table 1: Comparing other cultural learning programs

33 personal communication; H. Halstead, founder and T. Lovejoy, director of strategic partnerships; RTW, October 25, 2012.

Program Type of Organization

Constituents Goals Promising Practices Difference in Programs

ePals Corporation U.S. classrooms/ International classrooms

Teachers, students, and parents interact on a safe and secure digital platform to collaborate and learn from each other.

• Matching by customized criteria

• Varied technologies • Collaborative workspace

• Projects align with curriculum

• Classroom to classroom matches (aligns more with Peace Corps’ Second Goal)

• Shorter termed commitment

iEARN Non-‐profit International schools and youth groups

Participants collaborate on 3-‐6 month long projects and answer the question: How will this project improve the quality of life on the planet?

• Collaborative workspace

• Project-‐based service emphasis

• Dynamic matching by customized criteria


• Project based collaboration


International Information Programs

Federal program: Department of State

International classrooms and communities/ U.S. classrooms and communities

The program coordinates education exchanges between U.S. and international schools and/or communities to foster understanding and good will between nations.

• Program aligned with human rights curriculum

• Single “exchange” rather than long-‐term

• Classroom to classroom exchanges (aligns more with Peace Corps’ Second Goal)

OneWorld Classroom

Non-‐profit U.S. classrooms/ people all over the world

Foster global awareness and cross-‐cultural understanding in the context of the K-‐12 curriculum to prepare young people for local and global citizenship.

• No minimum time period for exchanges


• Project based collaboration

Reach the World

Non-‐profit US classrooms/ International travelers

Classrooms communicate with overseas travelers to explore cultural diversity and develop skills and attitudes needed for citizenry in a diverse world.

• Strong, built in monitoring and evaluation plan

• Works with Title I schools



• Active educator recruitment and support in the U.S.


Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats As part of the research phase, the team completed a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis exercise to identify the current strategic position of Correspondence Match and identify factors that may affect the program over the long term. In preparation, the team reviewed information gleaned from stakeholder interviews and prior surveys and conducted a review of literature. After brainstorming potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, the team identified the primary strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for Correspondence Match. The team revisited the original analysis after completing additional data collection and made adjustments to it. The SWOT analysis includes perspectives from Peace Corps staff (current and former), U.S. educators, an advisory panel, RPCVs, and Peace Corps Volunteers. The SWOT analysis informed the development of the strategic plan and the recommendations for further consideration.

Strengths

Headquarters’ level support for Third Goal initiatives. Senior leadership prioritizes “elevating the Third Goal”, and the director of 3GL requested the support of the LDA program to modernize Correspondence Match for the 21st century. 3GL included “Overhaul[ing] Correspondence Match…to eliminate inefficiencies while maximizing Third Goal impact” as a point in its 2012 IPBS Strategic Analysis Narrative – Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services submission. The agency collects data on Correspondence Match participation through the AVS.

Unique perspective of Peace Corps Volunteers. Correspondence Match capitalizes on the

grassroots presence of Volunteers around the world to share their Peace Corps experience with U.S. learners, providing U.S. audiences with a unique perspective for increased cultural understanding. The Peace Corps’ Second and Third Goals focus on promoting a cultural understanding between the U.S. and host countries.

Educators’ satisfaction. Educators are pleased with Correspondence

Match, and they use it to address a variety of curricular goals including geography, literacy, and cultural sensitivity. In 2012, 72 percent of educators who participate in Correspondence Match said that their students' understanding of cultural diversity increased. A majority of teachers also reported increases in students' understanding of global issues, finding commonalities across cultures. Educators also reported their students better understood that geographic origin often impacts how someone lives.

The Peace Corps brand. The Peace Corps has been operating globally for 52 years. Domestically

and internationally, the Peace Corps name is positively associated with images of young Americans living in host country communities and giving two years of their lives to service. A cultural learning program that capitalizes on the Peace Corps’ name recognition can elevate Correspondence Match, and ultimately contribute to Peace Corps’ broader mission of world peace and friendship.

Weaknesses

“I love my Peace Corps Match. She sends activities for [the students] to do, teaches them some of the Swahili language, and communicates with us on a regular basis.” U.S. Educator 2012


Lack of strategic guiding documents. The Peace Corps has not formally established Correspondence Match’s vision, mission, goals or objectives, or created a monitoring and evaluation system. The program does not have a communications or marketing plan to raise awareness amongst its stakeholders. Though 3GL includes a performance indicator in its IPBS strategic plan for fiscal years 2013 – 2016 related to the number of active participants in Correspondence Match, this is the only mention of Correspondence Match in the office’s strategic documents. This lack of strategic guiding documents contributes to an overall lack of structure in the program. A recurring theme in survey and focus group responses was appreciation for the flexibility that the program offered, but near universal recognition by both Volunteers and educators that the program needs more structure.

Lack of modern technology. When the Peace Corps established Correspondence Match, the Internet was not widely available. The program was predicated on letter writing and the use of postal services. Many stakeholders believe Correspondence Match has not appropriately evolved since its inception and that the agency has not capitalized on the technological advances of the 21st century. As a result, this has limited the reach of the program with U.S. audiences and reduced the opportunity to engage tech-‐savvy Volunteers. Additionally, Correspondence Match technology currently requires a Peace Corps staff member to manually match one U.S. educator with a Volunteer. This process is time-‐consuming and puts an unnecessary middle-‐man between the

educator and Volunteer.

In surveys of both Volunteers and Educators, clear obstacles to participation emerge. Educators identified challenges with the method of communication: either letters or Internet as one of the top obstacles to participation in Correspondence Match. Both Volunteers and educators felt that one or both parties in the correspondence were too busy.

Lack of agency priority for Correspondence Match. Though

the agency prioritizes Third Goal initiatives, as evidenced by the creation of 3GL, the Peace Corps has reduced the number of staff supporting Correspondence Match to one analyst. Additionally, as a result of re-‐structuring and limited Peace Corps resources, the Peace Corps reduced the number of staff in 3GL dedicated to WWS (which includes Correspondence Match) from six staff members in 2011 to only one WWS staff person in 2013. Due to the time requirement of manually matching Volunteers and U.S. educators, the reduction of staff directly affects the level of customer service that 3GL can offer. It leaves no time for other program improvement initiatives or the development of structures to support the program. 3GL identified the staff reduction as a weakness in its IPBS strategic analysis narrative for fiscal years 2013 – 2016.

Dissatisfaction at the field level. The inefficient process and lack of structure in Correspondence Match lead to dissatisfaction amongst Volunteer and post staff. Through a global survey and individual interviews, Peace Corps Volunteers expressed frustration with the length of time it took to be matched

On the CM Handbook: “Twenty pages? You must be kidding, I only read about 1 -‐2 pages of anything at any time – I don’t have time to read more.” PCV, 2013

“Provide matches sooner. It took over a year for me to get a match and when I finally got a match, my match was not responsive.” PCV, 2013

“…if [CM] was set at a higher standard by our administration and if it were just as important as other Goal One activities, [if it] were something that we learned in our training….a lot of us would include it in our activities. But instead…it would be nice if I had time…it seems like that the reputation is not there in my mind.” PCV, 2013


with an educator and the perceived lack of response from the educator. In focus groups Volunteers also noted a lack of responsiveness and accountability from the educator and Correspondence Match itself. During the team’s field research, they heard multiple times that Volunteers did not realize they had been matched through Correspondence Match until receiving letters or emails from a U.S. educator.

Additionally, post staff generally do not prioritize activities outside of the Goal One, with some citing the agency’s implementation of its Focus In, Train Up strategy34 as a factor. Because of the agency’s current focus on technical training and reporting, staff at post tend to prioritize the technical activities (Goal One) that a Volunteer may implement, oftentimes at the expense of Goal Two or Goal Three emphasis. During stakeholder interviews, various Peace Corps staff member stated that if the Peace Corps included Correspondence Match in its core training materials, more Volunteers would participate.

Opportunities

Technological advances. As Correspondence Match enters its 24th year, technology has advanced considerably from letter-‐writing that was the initial backbone of the program. Today’s Peace Corps Volunteers write blogs and use social media sites such as Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter. Fifty-‐one percent of Volunteers usually or always have access to the Internet at their residence35. To accomplish the agency’s Third Goal, 96 percent of Volunteers use email to communicate with friends and family, 74 percent use Skype or other video/online calling, and 72 percent utilize social media.36 Though Internet access is not yet ubiquitous, 3GL should create a Correspondence Match program that can capitalize on technological

advances and greater Internet access to reach broader audiences.

External organizations: communities of practice and partnerships. As described in the external environmental factors section, various organizations implement international cross-‐cultural educational programs. The Peace Corps can learn from the best practices of other organizations through informational interviews or lead a community of practice. The Peace Corps could also partner or contract with organizations that deliver cross-‐cultural educational programs that meet the needs of the Peace Corps. Finally, the Peace Corps may leverage its existing partnerships with organizations like Teach for

34 The Focus In, Train Up strategy is a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Agency Assessment, which recommended the agency reduce the number of distinct project areas and train Volunteers in specific interventions designed to enhance the results of the Peace Corps. 35 FY 2012 AVS survey data 36 FY 2012 AVS survey data

“I feel like in my region the program itself is not popular, you know word travels fast in a PCV community, and if they hear something bad, even if someone has an interest, they will still leave the program alone.” PC Staff, 2013

“Cell phones, Skype, texting, Facebook, Twitter (not as huge, but catching on) – you can tweet from simple Nokia phones from the bush. Google video. Everyone has access to Wi-‐Fi – at least once a month. More and more of them have Internet keys, so they can have Internet in their hut.” PCV, 2013

“I think the best exchange programs are most successful when there is a personal connection between the Volunteer and US learners. I was excited about the World Wise program, but when the educator I was matched with didn't respond after a few exchanges, I refocused on sharing my experience with current students at the schools I attended.” PCV, 2013


America or City Year to establish new relationships with Title I schools to reach diverse U.S. audiences that may not be included in traditional Peace Corps outreach. Such early exposure may reap recruitment benefits as these U.S. learners contemplate Peace Corps service in the future. The Peace Corps can also capitalize on the RPCV network to reach new domestic audiences.

Federal education strategy. As stated in the external environmental factors, the U.S.

Department of Education’s international strategy (2012 – 2016) includes global awareness as a critical skill to improve international competitiveness. Correspondence Match offers a way for educators to meet this federal requirement if the Peace Corps appropriately defines its space and markets to the needs of U.S. educators.

Correspondence Match’s 25th anniversary. In 2014, Correspondence Match will enter its 25th

year of existence. The Peace Corps can utilize this opportunity to re-‐brand the program, roll out changes, and raise awareness of the program and its benefits.

Threats

Educational climate and competing priorities. U.S. educators may have limited time to participate in Correspondence Match, depending on other priorities. U.S. educators are under pressure to teach to standards and provide learning opportunities for their students. They are bombarded with opportunities and options in which to do this. Correspondence Match may be viewed as an extra activity in an already packed school day.

External programs may deliver a better product. Various organizations that deliver similar

cross-‐cultural programs exist. If Correspondence Match does not innovate to meet the needs of both Peace Corps Volunteers and U.S. educators, Correspondence Match could become obsolete. Currently Volunteers and teachers often correspond informally without officially signing up through Correspondence Match, or communicate through other available cultural learning programs.

Uncertainty of federal budget. Though the Peace Corps’ appropriations have remained steady

in recent years, the overall federal budget is subject to uncertainties. While fluctuations in the overall appropriations of the agency may not target Correspondence Match, they can impact the amount of resources dedicated to implementing Correspondence Match, or the resources available to buy appropriate technology to create a successful Correspondence Match.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data Collection All survey instruments can be found in Appendix B. Data came from the following sources:

• Fieldwork: The team used a web-‐based survey to collect information from currently serving Volunteers in three countries: Costa Rica, Senegal, and Ukraine. One hundred and seventy-‐one Volunteers completed the survey. Team members utilized the results of these surveys prior to traveling to the selected countries to determine trends and challenges regarding Correspondence Match. Two team members traveled to each country to conduct focus

“Our administration has our time very strictly-‐ down to the minute-‐ engaged in core curricular work.” U.S. Educator, 2012


groups and interviews with Volunteers and staff. Three types of participants participated in the focus groups: Volunteers enrolled in Correspondence Match and actively participating; Volunteers enrolled but not actively participating; and Volunteers not enrolled. The focus group questions included separate questions for the enrolled and not enrolled Volunteers. In total, team members conducted 14 Volunteer focus groups, 4 staff focus groups, 9 interviews with Volunteers, and 5 interviews with staff, reaching 105 individuals.

• Global Survey: The Office of Global Operations sent a global survey to all Peace Corps posts for distribution to Volunteer leaders and third-‐year Volunteers. Volunteers in Costa Rica, Senegal, and Ukraine did not complete this global survey. Two hundred and sixty-‐three Volunteers completed the global survey.

• Educators: The team used results from Correspondence Match’s 2012 U.S. educator survey, in which 506 U.S. educators enrolled in Correspondence Match responded.

• RPCVs: The team conducted a focus group with seven RPCVs. 3GL convened the groups by individually contacting returned Volunteers who participated in the 2013 Peace Corps Week or previous Peace Corps’ career service activities.

Table 2: Numbers of responses from fieldwork survey Fieldwork Survey Post Region No. of

Volunteers No. of Respondents

Costa Rica IAP 104 42 Senegal AFR 246 35 Ukraine EMA 323 75 Respondent did not list post 19 Total Responses 171

Data Analysis Survey and focus group findings influenced the team’s recommendations. Appendix A outlines these findings, as well as the limitations of the research. The team's research identified the following barriers to active participation in Correspondence Match as the most common barriers mentioned: lack of response from educator, lack of response from Volunteer, lack of Internet access, challenges with postal delays and expense, and discrepancies in either school schedules or program expectations. Additional data pointed to the lack of interest in the program due to delays in time for Volunteers to obtain a match; more than one quarter of Correspondence Match participants wait over four months to receive a match. Volunteers and overseas staff expressed more dissatisfaction with Correspondence Match than the educators. Volunteers and staff frequently mentioned the need for a more structured program.


Acknowledgements

Six members of the Peace Corps’ Leadership Development Program contributed to this document. The team recognizes the support and guidance of the Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services. Eileen Conoboy, director, and Jocelyn Sarmiento, program analyst, dedicated significant time in identifying issues with the current Correspondence Match program, providing information, and working with the team to ensure the final deliverable largely reflects the preferences of the office.

The team would also like to acknowledge the members’ immediate offices, such as supervisors and colleagues that supported the team’s efforts and recognized the time required to participate in the program. An advisory panel, comprised of representatives inside and outside of the Peace Corps, provided feedback and input, often participating in retreats and reviewing documents. Members of the advisory panel included Soletia Christie, Elizabeth Danter, Jane Gore, Cynthia McVay, Jack Merklein, Jody Olsen, and David Smith.

The team extends its gratitude to the following Peace Corps offices that the team consulted during its research and writing of the strategic plan: Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services, Office of Global Operations, Office of Strategic Information, Research, and Planning, Volunteer Recruitment and Selection/Office of Diversity and National Outreach, Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support, Office of Strategic Partnerships/Gifts and Grants Management and Intergovernmental Affairs and Global Partnerships, Peace Corps/Costa Rica, Peace Corps/Senegal, Peace Corps/Ukraine, Africa Region, Inter-‐America and Pacific Region, and Europe, Mediterranean, and Asia Region.

Finally, the team expresses its sincerest appreciation for Sheran Jackson, director of the LDA from the Office of Management/Human Resources, and her tireless efforts in improving the LDA program.

The following is a biography of each LDA team member.

Kimberly Helm served as the fieldwork lead and data support for this project. Kimberly started with the Peace Corps as a regional recruiter for the Northeast office in September 2010. She served with the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic (2005 – 2008) as a basic and special education teacher trainer where she concentrated on training teachers in the use of non-‐traditional teaching methodologies, use of didactic materials to serve all learners, identification and evaluation of special needs children, and parent-‐teacher communication. Before joining the Peace Corps as a Volunteer, Kimberly worked at Reading Area Community College (2002-‐2005) as the coordinator of recruitment, an academic counselor, and adjunct faculty member. Kimberly earned an M.A. from American University in International Education Development with a focus on child protection and an M.A. in Counseling Psychology at Kutztown University.

Karen Heys served as the data lead for this project. Karen joined the Peace Corps as a Volunteer after graduating from the University of Virginia with a degree in Biology. She served as a high school math and science teacher in Samoa (1994 – 1996). While pursuing a M.A. in Teaching at University of San Francisco, she helped design and found an environmental charter high school, joining the school’s teaching staff and Board in its opening year. Karen also worked as a national trainer and training director for the Youth Leadership Institute, designing trainings and curricula on youth development and public health. In 2008, Karen moved to the DC area and joined the National Environmental Education Foundation, directing a new national initiative to increase high school environmental literacy. Karen became a Peace Corps staff member in November 2010 as a placement and assessment specialist, and


she transitioned to a new role as a technical training specialist in the Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support.

Sara Lopez served as the project management lead and strategic plan support for this project. Sara works in Peace Corps’ Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Global Partnerships. She manages interagency agreements and global partnerships between the Peace Corps and other U.S. government agencies and multilateral organizations. Sara served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in El Salvador from 2003 -‐ 2006 where she worked with the local municipality to increase citizen participation. After her Peace Corps service, Sara remained in El Salvador and worked as the service-‐learning coordinator for a private high school in San Salvador where she leveraged the programming of Peace Corps/El Salvador and other organizations to introduce service to her students. Sara holds a B.A. in Business and Spanish from Southwestern University and a Masters in Public Affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University where she studied economics and public policy and received a certificate in urban policy.

Monica Suber served as the research lead and project management and presentation support for this project. In 2009, Monica joined the Peace Corps in the Inter-‐America and Pacific region and has worked as an administrative specialist and country desk officer for the Pacific desk and now Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Monica also is a former member of the agency’s Women in Development/Gender and Development (WID-‐GAD) Committee and the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group. An RPCV from El Salvador (2007-‐2009), Monica worked with the municipal city hall to strengthen a community development association and spearhead efforts to create a five-‐year strategic plan. She holds an M.A. from George Mason University in International Commerce and Policy and a B.A. in Journalism from the Pennsylvania State University.

Angel Velarde served as the presentation lead and fieldwork support for this project. Angel is a management analyst for the Office of Strategic Information, Research and Planning. He helps to improve agency performance by measuring and analyzing information that helps meet the Peace Corps’ mission. Angel started the American Association for the Development of Bangou during his service in Cameroon from 2007-‐2009. He graduated with a B.S. in Marketing from the University of Texas at Arlington Jessica Wilt served as the strategic plan lead and research support for this project. Jessy has worked as a regional recruiter for the Peace Corps within the Midwest Regional Office since 2010. She is an RPCV from Niger (2004 to 2007) as a Community Youth Education Volunteer, mostly working on girls' education, HIV/AIDS awareness, and developing resources for education. Before and after the Peace Corps Jessy worked in the field of social work and completed her Master’s in Social Work at Loyola University Chicago in 2010 specializing in NGO development and management. In addition to working with the Peace Corps, Jessy also serves as the President of a non-‐profit called Expanding Lives, working to support and provide leadership opportunities to women in West Africa.


Appendix A

Summary of Key Findings

• Data limitations: Budget and time constraints limited the number of Peace Corps Volunteers that the team consulted worldwide during the research phase. The data collected provides a snapshot of a sample of Volunteers and staff’ perceptions and offers perspectives on issues and opportunities for Correspondence Match.

• Barriers to active participation: The top reasons for low or inactive participation in

Correspondence Match are a lack of Internet access and either the Volunteer or the educator failed to respond to communication.

• Reasons why Volunteers do not enroll: The vast majority of Volunteers who are not enrolled in Correspondence Match are interested in it. Volunteers stated the top reason they have not enrolled is that Correspondence Match is not a high priority and is easily forgotten. Additionally, some of the Volunteers have determined that Correspondence Match, although it is open to all Volunteers, is somehow not appropriate for their assignment.

• Utilization of technology: Volunteers and educators use a variety of ways to communicate with

each other with letters, emails, and blogs as the most frequently used.

• Matching: The current structure of Volunteers selecting a match with someone they know, or the agency matching the Volunteer with an educator, works for some participants; however many other Volunteers wait months to be matched by the Peace Corps. The program has a reputation for delays in time from enrollment to being matched. There is a gap between the perceived length of time to be matched and the actual length of time. This reputation may affect enrollment rates.

• Structure: Most Volunteers recognized a need for more structure in the program. The most

commonly mentioned ideas included sending prompts for content and ideas for sharing. Volunteers also mentioned providing lesson plans, which indicates that constituents are not using the WWS educational materials or do not know they exist.

• Low Priority: An underlying theme was that Correspondence Match was not a high priority at

posts.

• Challenges for educators: In today’s educational climate, educators face pressures on what they teach. Still, teachers are generally pleased with the program and appreciate what it has to offer. Aligning standards is a challenge, but not a main concern, of the majority of teachers.

• Ideas for program improvement: Volunteers had many ideas to improve the program. The most popular theme was technology, followed by inclusion of host country community members in the program, improving the matching experience, and finally program structure.

• Goal Two integration: Correspondence Match participants utilized their match to educate their community members about the United States.


Data Limitations Any conclusions to this data were subject to the limitations of the team’s research, including the use of a web-‐based survey, the size of the posts selected for fieldwork, the type of Volunteer that completed the survey, and the educator survey including responses from Volunteers. There was also confusion regarding program terminology. First, the team sent two web-‐based surveys to Volunteers, giving them three to six weeks depending on the survey to complete them. Because of a shorter window of opportunity to reply, it was probable that Volunteers with limited Internet access, who may have had to leave their community to complete the survey, were underrepresented. Additionally, the team selected relatively large posts for fieldwork, and two of the three, Ukraine and Costa Rica, had better than average access to the Internet in their community. In Senegal, the vast majority of Volunteers must leave their community to use the Internet. Based on results to other researched themes, the team did not conduct a detailed analysis about the connectivity of our sample relative to the larger pool of Volunteers globally. The global survey was sent to third year Volunteers, Peace Corps Volunteer Leaders, and Volunteer Advisory Committee members. The team found that this subset of the Volunteer population was already in a leadership position with a workload that may exceed that of the average Volunteer. It became clear that many of them were too busy for Correspondence Match, or their responsibilities had changed such that it did not make sense to continue corresponding with their match. Finally the 2012 educator survey was sent to educators who had signed up to receive the World Wise Schools newsletter. This population also included Volunteers. The team eliminated responses that were obviously Volunteers, but some of the remaining responses may still part of the responses that were analyzed. The team additionally attempted to contact a random group of educators to conduct interviews to gain a greater understanding of the program. There was only one response out of fifty emails sent to educators, and that responder declined to participate. Because Correspondence Match had a greater supply of Volunteers than teachers, the terms “enrolled” and “matched” were not synonyms, though at times Volunteers used the terms interchangeably. Similarly, the Volunteer at times confused the terms “not enrolled” and “enrolled, but unmatched”, and at times correctly decoupled them. The team also decided to leave survey open responses by Volunteers and educators unedited for grammar and syntax.


Data Sources The team’s data research plan included surveys sent to Peace Corps Volunteers and U.S. educators, as summarized in the table 3. The team also conducted on the ground research in four Peace Corps countries as summarized in Diagram 1 below.

Table 3: Summary of survey respondents Survey Date Target Distribution Response Response

Rate Fieldwork Survey

January 2013

Volunteers in Costa Rica, Senegal, and Ukraine

673 171 23%

Global Survey

February 2013

Volunteer Advisory Committee members, third-‐ year Volunteers and Volunteer Leaders in Peace Corps countries with the exception of the fieldwork countries

11801 263 22%

Educator Survey

April 2012

Educators who participated in Correspondence Match2

17,000 506 3%

1 The team asked posts to share the number of Volunteers to whom the survey was sent. However, in some cases post staff only provided an estimate. 2 3GL inadvertently sent this survey to Volunteers who participate in Correspondence Match. The team attempted to eliminate all Volunteer responses, however a few may remain.

Diagram 1: Summary of fieldwork countries and activities

Costa Rica Survey to all PCVs 4 focus groups (26 PCVs) 1 PCVs interviewed 9 staff interviewed

Ukraine Survey to all PCVs 6 focus groups (24 PCVs) 3 PCVs interviewed 8 staff interviewed

Senegal Survey to all PCVs 4 focus groups (24 PCVs) 3 PCVs interviewed 1 staff interviewed

Uganda 2 PCVs interviewed 3 staff


Barriers to Participation in Correspondence Match

Table 4: Barriers to active participation in Correspondence Match Barrier1 Total Responses2 Responses from Educator is too busy/No response from educator

284 Volunteers and educators

Limited Internet access by Volunteers 257 Volunteers and educators No response from Volunteer or sporadic responses/Volunteer is too busy/Volunteer lost interest


Postal challenges (delays or missing) 162 Volunteers and educators Postal expense 106 Volunteers and educators Mismatch (school year, time zone, expectations)


No challenges 64 only educators Curricular restrictions, standards 52 only educators Lack of support from Peace Corps headquarters including match delay and no match

29 only Volunteers

Lack of support from post staff 21 only Volunteers 1 Responses were combined from the educator and fieldwork surveys to get a sense of shared barriers and to compare them. The options to answer the question on each survey were slightly different, so each party was not able to choose each option. Both questions had an open-‐response “Other” option, and the results were categorized and incorporated where appropriate. 2The “n” for the educator survey was 501, and there were 970 total responses to the question, meaning each respondent chose on average 1.9 options. For the Volunteer survey n =79, and Volunteers gave 134 responses or on average 1.7 responses. Representative quotes from fieldwork focus groups identifying barriers to active participation: “The classroom I worked with in the U.S wanted to Skype but I didn’t have the ability to do that. I got busy with other things eventually and just didn’t explore other options.” Costa Rica focus group participant “I believe the biggest problem is the match. Mine did not occur fast or really well. I could have been corresponding if I had a good match. If you had many matches and different types of interest-‐groups then another match could work. Or if a classroom had questions and any PCV from the same country could answer those questions.” Costa Rica focus group participant “Perhaps an email to ask if we need help to support our work. After you get your match there is no follow up. Communicating some of the really good experiences people have had in goals Two and Three. Maybe have a breakout session at MS [Mid-‐Service Training]. Staff can share these with all PCVs.” Costa Rica focus group participant “I was matched with two classrooms. One of the teachers never heard from headquarters. I tried to even match with a friend who was a teacher in the U.S. Without steady internet, I wasn’t able to get to it. I wasn’t invested enough to get it started. Other projects were my priorities.” Costa Rica focus group participant


“Kids were so excited to get mail. It was fun while it lasted. I would have continued to do it had my teacher continued but she had checked out because she left teaching to start grad school”. Costa Rica focus group participant “When my work load became intense that Correspondence Match fell down the list with no accountability. I think there should be some system of accountability and incentives or some kind of follow up”. Costa Rica focus group participant

Reasons Volunteers Do Not Enroll in Correspondence Match

Table 5: Volunteer explanation of why they are not enrolled in Correspondence Match (categorized open responses) Barrier Responses

n=53 Percent of Total

Responses Commitment/Too busy/Forgot 20 32% Misunderstanding of program – respondents believe the program is only for education Volunteers

12 19%

No school connection1 5 8% Doing Correspondence Match outside of program 5 8% Internet/Phone Access unsure or too hard 5 8% Not interested 4 6% Mismatch 4 6% Enrolled, no match2 4 6% Program Reputation/format 3 5% Not eligible 1 2% 1 This was a repeated response, but it was not clear if respondents meant in the U.S. or in their host country community. 2 As a result of confusion in terminology, Volunteers who earlier in the survey identified as not enrolled, revealed later that they are actually enrolled in the program, but unmatched. Representative quotes from fieldwork focus groups offering explanation for non-‐enrollment: “Seemed like a great idea but as a Community Development PCV it didn’t seem to fit.” Ukraine focus group participant “In my case, I contacted a lot of teachers and a lot of them didn’t have time and weren’t for whatever reason interested in participating in an exchange.” Senegal focus group participant Representative quotes from fieldwork focus groups identifying solutions to improve enrollment: “Good to know about Correspondence Match during staging, but may be better to learn about it later. You realize in pre-‐service training you can’t do much without language, and after months go by you may want to engage. Maybe learn about it more than once through PCV service.” Senegal focus group participant “If it was more a part of core training packages, it would encourage participation. If PCVs feel like they get credit, it would motivate them. More recognition at All-‐Volunteer Conferences – PCVs who


correspond get recognition for example. It would highlight the program as important.” Senegal focus group participant “I want to do it, but I need support: do this by this date.” Ukraine focus group participant “In trying to figure out my community, I realized that Correspondence Match wasn’t where I wanted to put my energy. I wanted to invest in Ukrainians solely. That was selfish on my part, but if my students could participate, instead of me, that would be great.” Ukraine focus group participant

Utilization of Various Technologies Five hundred and six educators responded to a 2012 survey of those participating in Correspondence Match. Educators responded to the question: “How do you communicate with your current Correspondence Match Peace Corps Volunteer?” with an average of 1.9 methods per person, indicating educators are willing to use a variety of ways to contact Volunteers. Emails were by far the most frequent method of communication; however letters remain a significant portion of the communication methods. It is interesting to note that while letters were used by more than half of educators, 84% of them use email to communicate. So in other words, it was possible that educators and Volunteers email in addition to letter writing exchanges.

Table 6: 2012 Educator responses to survey question: “How do you communicate with your current Correspondence Match Peace Corps Volunteer”? Method Responses % of 963

Responses % of 499

Respondents

Email 425 44% 85% Postal letters 260 27% 52% Internet telephone (e.g., Skype, Vonage) 78 8% 16%

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blog) 71 7% 14%

No longer communicate with Volunteer 53 6% 11%

Telephone 29 3% 6% Instant messenger 14 1% 3% Other1 12 1% 2% Total2 963 1Other sources in addition to those listed above (with number of responses in parentheses): Classroom visits (9), Packages (7), Family member communication (3), Videos (3), Edmodo (social media for schools, 2), Text message (2), Pen Pal (2), Newsletter (1), online dropbox program (1), Podcast (1), Flash drive (1), WikiSpace (1). 2An average of 1.9 responses per respondent. When asked in the fieldwork survey, Volunteers’ preferred methods of communicating with the U.S. educators paralleled those of the educator. Volunteers used an average of 2.1 methods to communicate with Correspondence Match educators.


Table 7: Volunteer responses to fieldwork survey question: “Please identify the methods you use to share information with your Correspondence Match educator.” Method Responses % of 79

Responses % of 40

Respondents Emails 30 32% 75% Letters 23 24% 58% Blogs or personal web site 9 9% 23% Skype or other VoIP 6 6% 15% Facebook/Twitter 2 2% 5% YouTube or other video sharing site 4 4% 10% Phone call -‐ cell or landline 0 0% 0% Other1 5 5% 13% Total2 79 1These responses were specified in an Other category (with number of responses in parentheses): photo sharing (3), file sharing dropbox (1). 2An average of 2.0 responses per respondent.

Table 10: Frequency of Volunteer communication with their Correspondence Match educator Frequency # of Responses

n= 40 Percentage of

Responses Once or twice a year 3 8% Less than once a month but more than once or twice a year

20 50%

Once a month 12 30% 2-‐3 times a month 4 10% 4 or more times a month 1 3% Currently Correspondence Match expects that Volunteers and educators correspond monthly. As seen in the data above, 43% of Volunteers corresponded at least monthly.


Graph 1: Post Internet connectivity relative to the percentage of Volunteers who are actively participating in Correspondence Match from 2012 survey results

In examining the correlation between these two data points, the correlation coefficient is .19, showing there is a weak correlation between a country’s internet connectivity and Correspondence Match active participation. This suggests that Volunteers who want to participate will find a way to do so. Volunteer trends in connectivity Based on results from the 2012 AVS, 62 percent of Volunteers globally accessed the Internet in their home or work place.

Graph 2: Trends in recent Peace Corps Volunteer responses on the AVS regarding the distance they have to travel to have Internet access

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Percentage of Volunteers with

Internet in their Community at a

Post (n= 64)

Percentage of Volunteers at a Post who are Actively Participating in Correspondence Match

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2010 2011 2012

Percentage of Volunteers decribing how far

they go to access the Internet

AVS Years

Less than 1 hour of travel

No travel required


Matching Process

Table 11: Global and fieldwork survey question: “How were you matched with your U.S. educator?” Survey Type Number of

Respondents % of Respondents

Fieldwork, only; n= 40 Connection 14 35% Matched by Peace Corps 26 65% Global survey, n = 50 Connection 29 58% Matched by Peace Corps 21 42% Total Volunteers, f ieldwork and global surveys, n=90 Connection 43 48% Matched by Peace Corps 47 52% Educators , n = 495 Connection 213 43% Matched by Peace Corps 282 57%

Table 12: Global and Fieldwork Survey: “How long did it take to match you with a U.S. educator?” Length of Time for Match to Occur Active Inactive Total

Responses n = 119

Percentage of

Responses Less than 1 month after enrolling 17 25 42 35% 1 -‐ 3 months after enrolling 11 26 37 31% 4 -‐ 6 months after enrolling 4 4 8 7% Longer than 6 months after enrolling 8 8 16 13% "Never matched", actually 2nd match [option for inactive only]1 8 8 7% I was never matched/have not been matched yet. [option for inactive participants only]

8 8 7%

Total 40 79 119 1 Several respondents marked “never matched” but in later responses noted that their original match had never responded. At first glance, there appeared to be a very successful matching effort with 66 percent of Volunteers being matched within three months of enrolling. However those that were not matched within three months included over one quarter (27 percent) of Volunteers. Others were waiting long enough for their second match that it seems as if they have never been matched. Correspondence Match has a reputation that matches take a long time. Perhaps for Volunteers who are used to instant communication, anything over a month may be seen as delayed, and in this case 65 percent of Volunteers in our sample would fall into this category.


Feedback on the matching process from focus groups: “I signed up at staging, again after 2 months at site, and again 2 -‐3 months ago. I applied online and said anyone, anywhere, any subject letter. Maybe they lost my email.” Ukraine focus group participant “Applied and waited and waited, and in the meantime, set something up with a classroom stateside. Then was sent a packet of letters from a teacher through Correspondence Match, and I had to tell them he couldn’t do it anymore, he didn’t realize it would take so long to get matched.” Ukraine focus group participant “It took a long time to get matched. I emailed lots of people, including my regional manager who forwarded the email to the person running Correspondence Match. It took a long time, from six months to a year. Then they lost the registration twice.” Ukraine focus group participant Reputation: “Has heard from other PCVs that they applied to Correspondence Match and never heard back”. Ukraine Focus Group

Table 13: Global and fieldwork survey responses to the question: “Did you and your Correspondence Match educator discuss a plan or schedule at the beginning of your correspondence?”

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Yes

No

Number of Responses

Responses

Inactive

Active


Table 14: Global and fieldwork survey responses to prompt: “Please provide any comments or suggestions on the match process.” Theme Number of

Mentions in

Fieldwork Survey

Number of Mentions in Global Survey

Total Number of Mentions

n= 119

No suggestion because they brought the connection to the match

10 25 35

Unable to answer due to no response from educator

5 26 31

No suggestion – happy with program 2 15 17 Mismatches 4 10 14 Complaints 7 4 11 Timing Concerns 4 2 6 Suggestions 2 3 5 Total Responses 34 85 119 Representative quotes related to these matching themes from both focus group and survey open response answers: No Suggestion, brought a match “We did initially and I planned once a month. I had two different matches. The idea was once a month. I organized those on my own and I visited those classes before I left so they know I went to the same elementary, jr high and high school. I explained a little about Peace Corps. One group was first graders and sixth to eight graders was the other group.” Costa Rica focus group participant Mismatch “I never used my WWS match since my school really wanted to speak with American students that were their own age. My match was an adult ESL class from the Stans.” Fieldwork survey “I was matched with a woman who wanted someone to correspond to in French with her French class. I didn't speak French, even though I live in West Africa I am learning Pulaar. This was a bad match.” Fieldwork survey “I work at a school in Ukraine and was matched with a 1st grade class in New York. We exchanged emails maybe three times during my first four months at site. It really was not that good of match, because of the age difference. Six year olds to eleven year olds.” Fieldwork survey “I didn’t have work that was interesting to my match since she was a science teacher who only wanted to talk about water sanitation and that was not the work that I did. The match wasn’t made on interests at all, so it was not effective.” Senegal focus group participant


Complaints “I applied for the program before entering into my country of service and was not matched until almost the middle of my service. I had to reapply multiple times. Furthermore, by the time I reached my match, it was the end of the American school year, therefore proving to be an unrealistic time to start a correspondence program. After the school year ended this past June 2012 I have not kept in contact with anyone from the program.” Global survey “When connected to my educator back in the US I was unaware of whom my contact person was, I inquired back to the WWS representatives in the US without any success, I received the contact info after seeking assistance from my country director.” Global survey “I corresponded with my match soon after arriving at site. The teacher I was matched with seemed disappointed that I was unable to immediately get a correspondence organized. I told her I would need a month or two to get myself organized. The teacher stopped responding to my emails. So I corresponded with my brother's fifth grade class. He teaches in KY and is not enrolled in WWS.” Global survey “I enrolled initially with an interest in corresponding with someone from my old high school, or just a random match. When the people from the match program couldn't get a hold of the educator from my school, they did not contact me, nor did they match me with another teacher until I emailed them a couple of months later asking what the hold-‐up was.” Global survey “I felt uninformed the whole way through. One day, I got an email from a woman in Arizona saying that we had been matched. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just that I didn't know what was going on until then.” Fieldwork survey “I wasn't provided with address.” Fieldwork survey “It couldn't have been worse. The organization is completely disorganized and took weeks to respond to my request to work with a specific teacher in America. Then that teacher was sent incorrect information about where and how to send packages which resulted in his first package being returned months later. He was so discouraged he didn't want to continue working with me.” Fieldwork survey

“The first educator I was matched with was a part of a charter school that was asking me to provide information on the government branches, rights and responsibilities of the people, etc. I did not feel that it was the sharing experience I was looking forward to and I was doing research and putting together information rather than sharing my personal cultural experience and working on a more personal basis with the class.” Fieldwork survey “The teacher with whom I was matched did not maintain communication regularly. I have since tried to contact the organization to get a new teacher several times, with no results” Fieldwork survey


Timing Concerns “It took a very long time to get a match and the teacher took 1.5 months to respond.” Fieldwork survey “It took a while to get matched and it was with a mother who home schools her children. so it was not a typical American classroom situation.” Fieldwork survey “Matching could of been done quicker.” Fieldwork survey “It took a long time before the match was made. Once the match was made the educator was difficult to get a hold of and eventually attempted contact stopped.” Global survey “Process if at all possible, should be quicker. I believe my educator might not have responded because it took so long, and he lost interest.” Global survey Suggestions

“An email introduction of the two would help.” Fieldwork survey “My teacher match is a French teacher looking for correspondents for her children. The French level of the kids in my town is very low, so perhaps teachers who are looking more for cultural exchange would be more effective for rural volunteers.” Fieldwork survey “ask for matching grades/topics between partners” Fieldwork survey “There should be correspondence with the school administration as well so that if a teacher transfers the correspondence can continue.” Global survey “Very vague and impersonal, I would like to have more control over selection process. More details about the types of communities shared so successful correspondence is more likely.” Global survey “I think that would drastically improve the program. I believe the biggest problem is the match. Mine did not occur fast or really well. I could have been corresponding if I had a good match. If you had many matches and different types of groups then another match would work. Or if a classroom had questions and any PCV from the same country could answer those questions. Having some software to house that and platform for it.” Costa Rica focus group participant “The structure should change in how we define a match. Singular or to a group. And who you can match with. I think we should explain the group of who we can match -‐ sports groups, youth groups, 4-‐H club, boy scouts. the tools already exist.” Costa Rica focus group participant “Having a teacher who was RPCV was a big advantage. Technology wasn’t an issue for me. She was also very flexible on what and when to correspond.” Costa Rica focus group participant “The most effective experiences I have seen are with PCVs who have friends in the US who are teachers and can facilitate the process. Perhaps more structure, guidance for the program. The teacher I was


matched with really had no idea what it was about and wanted to teach about Europe. Not a good fit as I am in Guatemala.” Global survey “More interested in Goal 1. Had heard stories about long waits for matching. Was not excited about working with the school in my local community. Was concerned about language barriers.” Fieldwork survey Structure Representative quotes from Peace Corps overseas staff from fieldwork interviews: “That would be good to know. In the ideal world there needs to be a little more structure. We have found that out from the Diversity committee -‐ unless we provide structure nothing much happens. When we give them a manual of resources then it is different.” Costa Rica staff. “Correspondence Match in 2020? Hopefully there will be more than 2 staff people at HQ; considering the interest from American teachers, the timing now takes longer than they expect to get an answer.” Ukraine staff

Volunteers also had thoughts about the program structure: “More structured activities for PCVs, engaging community is very important. For example, what if there was a video exchange, like the kids in America make video, PCV can give the kids in your village your camera, and the kids do a video exchange, going out and engaging the community, getting them involved in correspondence, it’s not just you.” Senegal focus group participant “We need to get into more diverse classrooms. How to do that? Connecting with Teach For America since they are in more diverse populations. Rely also on diverse Volunteers to connect with classrooms in their hometowns also. Structured lesson plans are key because classrooms are somewhat hard to manage. Give a manual with 30 lesson plans.” Costa Rica focus group participant “I found the handbook helpful, but don’t think my teacher match read it.” Ukraine focus group participant “I started with two people – a friend doing TFA in inner city school in New Jersey. It was difficult after a few months because the teacher was switched to a new classroom, and it didn’t work out with her new class. With limited Internet access, it was hard. She didn’t work with kids, so she didn’t know after her first introductory letter what to say. There was no curriculum you could follow.” Senegal focus group participant “It would be good to get a regular communication with ideas and success stories.” Ukraine focus group participant “People are interested in enrolling but they forget about it. They should invite people to participate monthly.” Ukraine focus group participant


Priority Comments in this area, though less frequently mentioned, should not be ignored. Representative quotes include:

“Correspondence Match is totally PCV driven – there’s no Peace Corps staff assigned to Correspondence Match. Staff don’t encourage the program, but are happy to respond when PCVs request information. The post hasn’t focused on Correspondence Match because they focus on Goal One.” Peace Corps staff Interview “I think that if it was set at a higher standard by our administration and if it were just as important as other Goal One activities, were something that we learned in our training….a lot of us would include it in our activities. But instead it was just that it would be nice if I had time…it seems like that the reputation is not there in my mind.” Senegal focus group participant “More time should be spent during PST to encourage this, so that it's more of a part of PC service.” Ukraine focus group participant “It surprised me that it is a big program because we do not manage it like that. We should bring it out more to help include goals 2 and 3. It is a great way to do Goals 2 and 3. We could emphasize it more and have it be a joint effort. We need to work together. Make it part of everything we do…why not?” Peace Corps staff “There is so much in PST, bringing volunteers in to discuss their experience and maybe programming staff encouraging PCVs to share those Goal 2 and Goal 3 projects. Perhaps put it in the cultural portion of training.” Costa Rica focus group participant “We haven’t been asked, I mean we are asked how things are going in the village, how are we integrating, they are concerned about those sorts of things, and concerned about your projects, but they never ask, ‘so how are you communicating with the American people?’ They have never ever asked anything like that.” [Do you think they should be?] “Well it is part of our goals! It’s part of what we are here for! I understand that one is Goal 1 and one is Goal 2 and one is Goal 3 and those are probably in that order for a reason, but they are all still three goals and they are three parts of our service.” Senegal focus group participant “Feedback: when leaving for installation from the training center, I saw the Correspondence Match sign-‐up sheet had fallen behind the water cooler and was collecting dust. I don't think that's acceptable.” Fieldwork survey “I think more importance should be placed on the WWS program. If I had knows more about it I would have signed up before staging.” Global survey


Challenges for Educators The educator survey asked educators how they use Correspondence Match, offering a variety of options (see table below). The 476 respondents who had been participating in Correspondence Match chose on average two ways of describing their activities. These responses are presented below in order of the highest frequency. Looking at the data, important trends emerge:

• That teachers use Correspondence Match in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons • That some teachers do not want a long term match: they use Correspondence Match for one

unit or one-‐time event • That although literacy and writing is the most popular way of using Correspondence Match,

other curricular themes include: o Service o Intercultural Learning o Social Studies o Foreign Language

Table 15: Ways that educators use Correspondence Match to achieve their educational goals How do you use the correspondence with your current Volunteer(s) in your teaching?

Number of Responses

Percentage of

Responses As a writ ing or l i teracy exercise 206 21%

As an extension exercise 168 18%

As a monthly component of ongoing learning 129 13%

As part of a service-learning component 126 13%

As an extracurricular activity 101 11%

As part of one learning unit 83 9% As an individual learning activity 73 8%

As a weekly component of ongoing learning 28 3%

Exposure to another culture* 14 1% Foreign Language* 9 1% General/mult iple uses* 6 1% Social Studies* 6 1% Inspirat ion/role model* 4 0% Visit the country* 3 0% Whole school sharing* 2 0% Environmental Science* 1 0% *These responses are categorizations of open responses specified in an Other option.


Standards Alignment Standards remain a significant component for determining what any classroom educator will teach. Linking curricula to national content standards can be challenging not only to identify ways to teach all the standards, but also how to assess students’ level of understanding. A closer look at the data may promote a better understanding of the challenge that standards pose to educators’ participation in Correspondence Match. When identifying barriers to active participation, educators had the option of identifying more than one challenge. Ten percent of responding educators (52) identified “Not easy to align with curriculum standards” as a challenge. In examining those 52 respondents, it became evident, that for nine educators it was the sole challenge.

Table 16: For educators who identified meeting standards as a challenge to participating in Correspondence Match, the number of additional challenges they also named

Number of addit ional

challenges indicated

Respondents

0 9 1 17 2 15 3 7 4 1 5 3

Total 52

That standards are a reality and a challenge for educators cannot be rejected out of hand, yet it does not seem to be the driving force for how educators develop curricular plans for Correspondence Match.

Table 16: For educators who identified meeting standards as a challenge the length of time they have participated in Correspondence Match How long have you participated in Correspondence Match?

Number of Responses Percentage of

responses Less than one year 3 33% 1-‐2 y 6 67% 2-‐5 y 0 5-‐10 y 0 It should be noted that these nine have only participated in the program less than two years. One way to interpret this is that over time educators become more familiar with the program and that helps them adapt it to their curricular needs. But it could also be that educators only participate if they can figure out how to work with Correspondence Match and their content standards.


Table 17: Responses from 2012 Educator Survey to Question: “After Corresponding with a Peace Corps Volunteer, my students showed the following” Increase

d % of teachers

Stayed the Same

% of teach-‐ers

Decreased % of teach-‐ers

No Response

% of teach-‐ers

Understanding of cultural diversity

364 72% 53 10% 2 0% 90 18%

Exposure to authentic applications of student learning

301 72% 111 27% 5 1% 92 18%

Seeing similarities between people of different backgrounds despite cultural or economic differences

353 69% 59 12% 3 1% 94 18%

Understanding of the correlation between where people live and how they live

338 66% 68 13% 5 1% 98 19%

Understanding of global issues

305 60% 100 20% 3 1% 101 20%

Interest in volunteering in their own community

168 33% 236 46% 2 0% 103 20%


Goal 2

Table 17: Responses from fieldwork survey to question: “Do you facilitate communication between your host country community and U.S. students?” Fieldwork Survey Not

Enrolled Enrolled Total

n = 170 Percentage

Yes, not a Correspondence Match enrollee

12 12 7%

Yes, with my Correspondence Match educator

32 32 19%

Yes, outside of Correspondence Match 29 29 17% Total Yes 73 42% No 57 40 97 56%

Table 18: Responses from global survey to question: “Do you facilitate communication between your host country community and U.S. students?” Global Survey Not

Enrolled Enrolled Total

n= 265 Percentage

Yes, not a Correspondence Match enrol lee

21 21 8%

Yes, with my Correspondence Match educator

38 38 14%

Yes, outside of Correspondence Match

36 36 14%

Total Yes 95 36% No 66 105 170 64%

Results from these two surveys, though limited in scope, show that Volunteers were already facilitating communication between host country community members and U.S. classrooms.


Table 19: Responses from the fieldwork survey to question: “How frequently (number of times per month) do you and your host country community communicate with U.S. students using the methods below?” Never Once

or twice a

year

Less than monthly but more than

1-2 t imes a year

Once a month

2-3 t imes

a month

4 or more

t imes a month

Letters 24 20 22 5 0 0 Emails 26 15 14 6 4 6 Facebook/Twitter 44 6 5 5 6 4 YouTube or other video sharing site

49 10 4 7 1 0

Blogs or personal Web site

39 7 10 5 3 7

Phone call - cel l or landline

63 5 1 1 1 0

Skype or other VoIP 42 14 8 4 2 1 Other method not l isted above

64 2 3 0 2 0

Totals of frequency of Communication that happens

79 67 33 19 18

Percentage of communication (any type)_ that happens at a given frequency1

37% 31% 15% 9% 8%

1n = 73

Table 20: Responses from both the fieldwork survey to Question: “Which method do you most prefer to exchange information between your community and U.S. students?” Preferred? Percentage

responses

Letters 21 29% Emails 27 37% Facebook/Twitter 3 4% YouTube or other video sharing site 0 0%

Blogs or personal Web site 5 7% Phone call - cel l or landline 1 1% Skype or other VoIP 6 8% Other method not l isted above 4 5% No Response1 6 8% 1n = 73


Representative quotes from focus groups: “I think it is a great opportunity for the kids to learn about where I am living in Senegal and especially here, the kids have so many ideas about how we live in the US and a lot of them are a little bit warped, but based on TV and music and it is interesting to see what each population thinks of the other and then to counteract those cultural boundaries and guide them to what the kids’ normal everyday lives entailed.” Senegal focus group participant “People have pre-‐conceived notions about what America is – cross-‐cultural experiences could promote a better understanding. Seeing discrepancies between how U.S. American classrooms are and how Ugandan classrooms are. Goal 2 would be more difficult for non-‐education PCVs. A lot of good could come out of Correspondence Match in terms of cross-‐cultural awareness.” Uganda focus group participant

Table 21: Categorized responses to the question, “How can the Correspondence Match program be improved?” from both the Fieldwork and Global Surveys.

Theme Responses n=473

Volunteer indicated that they had no recommendation1 199

Technology 89 Inclusion of host country community members 40 Content ideas 29 Matching 23

Prompts / structure 20

Visit ing the US classroom 13

Need more program information 12

Outreach for teachers 9 Reimbursement 9 HC visit 8 Priori ty 6 Challenges 5 Other cultural exchange program 4 Grants 4

1 The question required a response. While the responses all fell into these broad categories, there was also diversity in the responses. The quotes below are representative of the responses. Content ideas included:

• “A music exchange >> a process where music classes/groups/bands share traditional music and possibly play together.”

• “An Art Exchange program facilitated through the Peace Corps, similar to the one through OneWorld Classrooms.”

• “Have Host Country and US learners do a world map together.” • “I think it would be great to incorporate a cultural exchange in the TEFL program. Students

from the US and host countries could Skype together with their bilingual teachers & pcvs to


facilitate better communication. This could further incentivize language learning, travel, tolerance and cultural exchange.”

• “It's a good program, but it's just hard for volunteers in rural sites to communicate with the outside world. Maybe some outlines of packets would be useful. For example, Correspondence 1: Country Introduction (political system, demographics, geography, etc). Correspondence 2: Food (main dishes or ingredients, differences and similarities to American food, favorites and least favorites), and so on.”

• “My idea: a game -‐ some sort of online scavenger hunt to learn more about Ukraine (my country of service). Something light-‐hearted and fun (but educational).”

• “Perhaps a recipe exchange or Skyping during days there are festivals to talk about what takes place.”

• “Photo collage. Interesting stories of daily experiences that highlight life in my host country • “Students in the US compile interview questions for seniors in the host country to learn about

the past in each country. ‘An Oral history’". • “When I talk with people back at home the biggest things I notice are the assumptions they

make about life in Fiji, and in developing nations in general. I think that one of the most effective ways to promote cultural exchange is going to be to get people to reevaluate their assumptions and cultural biases by teaching them a little bit about other cultures then having them ask questions.”

Recommendations to change the structure included:

• “I think a lot of it depends on the motivation of the volunteer. Sometimes it's strong, other times it very much isn't. I think success stories, little reminders/updates, and ideas go a long way. Seeing "WorldWise" update in my inbox perhaps, with a little blip on '5 things you could do right this second to promote goal three and get that letter out.'

• “I think PCVs should be reimbursed for more than just mailing costs. In this day and age, the Internet is much more reliable, time/cost efficient and easier. I think PCVs should be reimbursed for Internet, scanning, printing, and other costs relating to communicating with U.S. learners digitally. The limit on only being reimbursed for mailing letters limits the number of PCVs that get involved in the program and they just communicate outside of WWS using their own living allowances”.

• “I had asked to be matched with my father that is a student and never heard back about it. I am active in World Wide Schools only because I write to his students and then went to meet with them when I was on home leave. But it would really be great to get a regular e-‐mail with ideas of ways to contact these schools.

• “Creating pen pal correspondence between Host Country students and US learners would benefit both groups of students, as opposed to the current system, which only benefits US learners.

• “Also recommend the program provide adequate funding for the volunteer's expenses and make it super easy to get started. I have heard from other PCVs that it took forever for them to get their school assignment once they applied”.

Match: • “Assist invitees in lining up connections before they leave for training.” • “Definitely start matches before hand. Sometimes it's difficult to facilitate exchanges between

“Classrooms because of the different start and end times of academic years.” • “Request information from PCVs on potential schools with interest”


Comments on a technological solution – that it cannot work for all:

• “Blog posts and other internet-‐based methods seem best, because even though it is difficult to maintain regular communication via the internet for PCVs who have to leave site to do so, it is possible to at least make a few contributions. They may not be very frequent, but what they lack in quantity they may make up in quality.”

• “I have some ideas, but at this time cannot write as I am running out of airtime.” • “The major problem I've experienced is that people in the US don't understand what a "slow

internet connection" really means. Not a single PCV in Rwanda (to my knowledge) is able to stream videos or look at pictures successfully at site. We're running very basic internet most of the time, so communication with the US becomes tough. I have tried to upload photos and videos of Rwanda and projects that I've worked on but it's taken many hours and I had to be in the capital to do so.”

• “Perhaps provide internet USB keys for those who are in rural areas and cannot easily connect.” Technology platform:

• “I think that there should be a sort of general page for each PC country where all PCVs can upload photos/ videos (if possible) then people in the US can visit that page rather than trying to put the burden of sharing stimulating media completely on a single PCV. As a third year volunteer, I live in the capital and could more easily correspond with a school in the US, but I am no longer in a teaching position. Using willing PCVLs (or other 3rd year volunteers) to help manage a "Rwanda" page may help. Also, reducing our reliance on post makes sense. That's another reason I did not participate in WWS-‐ I didn't want to deal with postage and traveling to a post office to mail large envelopes full of letters.”

• “Video exchange could help with the time zone challenge.” • “It would be great to have something like a video diary. The problem here is that the internet is

too slow, there is no good forum, and thumb drives are too precious. Also it would be really cool if each country could get a 5 minute stats video with basic info, interesting facts and other similar things that could be shared as an intro to the country for WWS and just sharing in general.”

• “A classroom to classroom Skype lesson given to and from the educators and students in cooperation an with the help from a PCV. The lessons could be culturally based and exchange norms or unique characteristics from each of the participants.”

• “I think that picture sharing is a great way to allow students in the U.S. to clearly see what the culture is like in a foreign place, very different from their own. Creating a picture sharing site, much like Facebook, would be a great idea for all individuals enrolled in WWS to utilize. Students could see what many different cultures are like, looking through many different pictures of different countries.”

• “There could be an open website where interested educators could post questions/requests for volunteers to respond to. For example, maybe a teacher is doing just a unit on Africa or Eastern Europe and just wants to correspond once for a short time with a volunteer... or vice versa for volunteer needs.”


Appendix B – Survey Instruments

Questions for External Organizations

1. Please give a brief introduction about how you foster cultural exchanges. 2. What systems and/or technologies do you have in place that match stakeholders? 3. Do you as an organization have a staff member who matches stakeholders or do stakeholders

match themselves? 4. After stakeholders match, what is your level of effort in communicating with them? 5. Is there a required minimum time period in which your stakeholders are required (and/or

encouraged) to correspond? 6. In what methods do stakeholders correspond and how do you as an organization help facilitate

that communication? 7. What resources (ex: lesson plans, activities, timeline, etc.) do you provide stakeholders to help

facilitate the communication? 8. Is there a profile of stakeholders? I.e. who are your target audience? Age group? Demographic? 9. Are there partnerships with public or private entities in which you currently leverage? If so, who

and how?

Peace Corps Volunteer Focus Group: Enrolled in Correspondence Match Program Survey Questions

1. How were you introduced to the Correspondence Match program? 2. When would be the best time to learn about Correspondence Match ? 3. Describe your participation in Correspondence Match. 4. What makes participating in Correspondence Match worthwhile? 5. Did you and your match create a plan for exchanges? If you did, what did it involve? 6. In what ways, outside of Correspondence Match, do you educate host country nationals about

the U.S. or U.S. learners about your host country? 7. It sounds like you’re using the following technologies: [list the technologies you’ve heard]. Are

there any others you use? 8. How would you facilitate communication between host country nationals and U.S. learners? 9. What if, instead of being matched with one educator you could work with multiple

classrooms? What would you gain and what would you lose from the current structure? 10. What if Peace Corps Volunteers in other countries were part of whom you could connect with? 11. How would you like to see the program structured, more or less? 12. What does Peace Corps staff in host country do to support your efforts to teach U.S. learners

about your host country and host country nationals about the U.S.? 13. What else could they do? 14. Final thoughts?


Peace Corps Volunteer Focus Group: Not Enrolled in Correspondence Match Program

1. What was your reaction when you first heard about Correspondence Match? 2. Can you describe the reasons why you decided not to enroll? 3. When would be the best time to learn about a program like Correspondence Match? 4. How do you do Goals Two and Three activities, namely educating U.S. learners about your host

country and host country nationals about the U.S.? 5. It sounds like you’re using the following technologies: [list the technologies you’ve heard]. Are

there any others you use? 6. How would you facilitate communication between host country nationals and U.S. learners? 7. What would motivate you to participate in a program like Correspondence Match? 8. If you were to participate, how would it benefit your service? 9. What does Peace Corps staff in you host country do to support your efforts to teach Americans

about Ukraine and Ukrainians about America? [Note: this question changed depending on the country]

10. What else could they do? 11. Final thoughts?

Peace Corps Staff Interview

1. How do Goals Two and Three help Volunteers meet the Peace Corps mission? 2. What role does the WWS Correspondence Match play in meeting Goals Two or Three of the

Peace Corps? 3. What are some examples of ways that you can measure the Volunteer’s Goal Two or Three

activities? 4. Do you notice any difference in the types of Volunteers that sign up for the WWS

Correspondence Match program? 5. How does participating in the WWS Correspondence Match program help Volunteers integrate

into their communities? 6. What motivation can we offer Volunteers encourage them to participate in Correspondence

Match? 7. What are some challenges that you face when it comes to supporting Volunteers who want to

participate in the Correspondence Match program? 8. What tools could Correspondence Match provide to you in order to make your job as

Correspondence Match coordinator easier? (*only ask if the staff person is the coordinator) 9. In 2020, what would a successful Correspondence Match program look like in __________

[country]? 10. Final thoughts?


Peace Corps Volunteer Global Survey

1. Please describe your involvement with World Wise Schools' Correspondence Match program. • I am enrolled and actively participating in the WWS Correspondence Match program • I am enrolled but not actively participating in the WWS Correspondence Match program • I am not enrolled in the WWS Correspondence Match program • I don’t know about the WWS Correspondence Match program

2. Why did you not enroll in the Correspondence Match program? [Open-‐ended response if respondent selected not enrolled]

3. In which one of the following programs would you be most likely to participate? • A program where PCVs use technology to link host country students with classrooms in the

U.S. to exchange ideas, stories, pictures and learn about each other's cultures. • A program where PCVs communicate with classrooms in the U.S. to exchange ideas, stories,

pictures and learn about the PCV's host country's culture. • A program where PCV's create virtual classrooms where U.S. and host country students can

exchange ideas, stories, pictures and learn about each other's cultures. • None of the programs listed interest me.

4. Do you facilitate communication between your host country community and U.S. students? • Yes • No

5. How frequently (number of times per month) do you and your host country community communicate with U.S. students using the methods below? • Letters • Emails • Facebook/Twitter • YouTube or other video sharing site • Blogs or personal Web site • Phone call – cell or landline • Skype or other VoIP • Other method not listed above

6. Of the following choices, which method do you most prefer to exchange information between your community and U.S. students? • Letters • Emails • Facebook/Twitter • YouTube or other video sharing site • Blogs or personal Web site • Phone call cell or landline • Skype or other VoIP • Other (please specify)

7. When did you enroll in Correspondence Match? • At Staging • During PST up to swearing-‐in • After I was at site for 1 to 3 months • After I was at site 4 to 6 months • After I was at site longer than 6 months


8. How long did it take to match you with a U.S. educator? • Less than 1 month after enrolling • 1 to 3 months after enrolling • 4 to 6 months after enrolling • Longer than 6 months after enrolling

9. How were you matched with your U.S. educator? • Matched by Peace Corps • I knew someone from home • Other (please specify)

10. Did you and your Correspondence Match educator discuss a plan or schedule at the beginning of your correspondence? • Yes • No

11. How frequently do you communicate with your Correspondence Match educator and students? • Once or twice a year • Less than once a month but more than once or twice a year • Once a month • 2 to 3 times a month • 4 or more times a month

12. Please identify the methods you use to share information with your Correspondence Match educator. • Letters • Emails • Facebook/Twitter • YouTube or other video sharing site • Blog or personal Web site • Phone call – cell or landline • Skype or other VoIP • Other (please specify)

13. How supportive was in-‐country staff in your participation in the Correspondence Match program? • Not at all • Minimally • Adequately • Considerably • Exceptionally

14. How can the Correspondence Match program be improved? [open-‐ended responses]

15. Why are you currently not participating in the program? Select all that apply. • U.S. educator did not respond. • I lost interest. • Lack of support from Peace Corps headquarters. • Lack of support from Peace Corps in-‐country staff. • Busy with other activities. • Coordinating the communication is too difficult. • My internet access is limited.


• My internet access is too expensive. • Other (please specify)

16. Please enter your full name (we may contact you based on your responses). 17. Enter the name of the country where you are currently serving: 18. In what area is your primary assignment? Please choose the closest answer.

• Agriculture • Community Economic Development • Education • Environment • Health • Peace Corps Response • Youth in Development

19. How long since you were sworn in as a Volunteer in this country? • 3 months or less • Over 3 months but less than a year • Over one year but less than 18 months • 18 months or more

20. Where can you connect to the internet to communicate with U.S. educators and students? Select all that apply. • At home • At work • At a neighbor's house • At a local school or community space • I have to leave my community

21. Do you have any ideas or feedback for a Peace Corps cultural exchange program that would allow you to share your Host Country with U.S. learners? [Open-‐ended response]

Thank you for your participation. Your responses will help inform recommendations to improve the WWS Correspondence Match program around the world. Please hit the Done button to submit your survey.


Peace Corps Volunteer Survey for Senegal, Ukraine, and Costa Rica

1. Please describe your involvement with World Wise Schools' Correspondence Match program. • I am enrolled and actively participating in the WWS Correspondence Match program • I am enrolled but not actively participating in the WWS Correspondence Match program • I am not enrolled in the WWS Correspondence Match program • I don’t know about the WWS Correspondence Match program

2. Why did you not enroll in the Correspondence Match program? [Open-‐ended response if respondent selected not enrolled]

3. In which one of the following programs would you be most likely to participate? • A program where PCVs use technology to link host country students with classrooms in the

U.S. to exchange ideas, stories, pictures and learn about each other's cultures. • A program where PCVs communicate with classrooms in the U.S. to exchange ideas, stories,

pictures and learn about the PCV's host country's culture. • A program where PCV's create virtual classrooms where U.S. and host country students can

exchange ideas, stories, pictures and learn about each other's cultures. • None of the programs listed interest me.

4. Do you facilitate communication between your host country community and U.S. students? • Yes • No

5. How frequently (number of times per month) do you and your host country community communicate with U.S. students using the methods below? • Letters • Emails • Facebook/Twitter • YouTube or other video sharing site • Blogs or personal Web site • Phone call – cell or landline • Skype or other VoIP • Other method not listed above

6. Of the following choices, which method do you most prefer to exchange information between your community and U.S. students? • Letters • Emails • Facebook/Twitter • YouTube or other video sharing site • Blogs or personal Web site • Phone call cell or landline • Skype or other VoIP • Other (please specify)

7. When did you enroll in Correspondence Match? • At Staging • During PST up to swearing-‐in • After I was at site for 1 to 3 months • After I was at site 4 to 6 months


• After I was at site longer than 6 months 8. How long did it take to match you with a U.S. educator?

• Less than 1 month after enrolling • 1 to 3 months after enrolling • 4 to 6 months after enrolling • Longer than 6 months after enrolling

9. How were you matched with your U.S. educator? • Matched by Peace Corps • I knew someone from home • Other (please specify)

10. Did you and your Correspondence Match educator discuss a plan or schedule at the beginning of your correspondence? • Yes • No

11. How frequently do you communicate with your Correspondence Match educator and students? • Once or twice a year • Less than once a month but more than once or twice a year • Once a month • 2 to 3 times a month • 4 or more times a month

12. Please identify the methods you use to share information with your Correspondence Match educator. • Letters • Emails • Facebook/Twitter • YouTube or other video sharing site • Blog or personal Web site • Phone call – cell or landline • Skype or other VoIP • Other (please specify)

13. How supportive was in-‐country staff in your participation in the Correspondence Match program? • Not at all • Minimally • Adequately • Considerably • Exceptionally

14. How can the Correspondence Match program be improved? [open-‐ended responses]

15. If you were matched with an educator, please provide any comments or suggestions on the matching process.

16. Why are you currently not participating in the program? Select all that apply. • U.S. educator did not respond. • I lost interest. • Lack of support from Peace Corps headquarters. • Lack of support from Peace Corps in-‐country staff.


• Busy with other activities. • Coordinating the communication is too difficult. • My internet access is limited. • My internet access is too expensive. • Other (please specify)

17. Please enter your full name (we may contact you based on your responses). 18. Enter the name of the country where you are currently serving: 19. How long since you were sworn in as a Volunteer in this country?

• 3 months or less • Over 3 months but less than a year • Over one year but less than 18 months • 18 months or more

20. Where can you connect to the internet to communicate with U.S. educators and students? Select all that apply. • At home • At work • At a neighbor's house • At a local school or community space • I have to leave my community

21. Do you have any ideas or feedback for a Peace Corps cultural exchange program that would allow you to share your Host Country with U.S. learners? [Open-‐ended response]

Thank you for your participation. Your responses will help inform recommendations to improve the WWS Correspondence Match program around the world. Please hit the Done button to submit your survey.


Returned Peace Corps Volunteer Focus Group: RPCV Questions What was your involvement with Correspondence Match while a Peace Corps Volunteer? [Determine if the RPCV participated in Correspondence Match, and then either ask participated or non-‐participant questions.] If participated:

1. How were you introduced to the Correspondence Match program? 2. Describe your participation in Correspondence Match. 3. [If not answered above] Did you know your matched educator prior to departure? 4. Did you and your match create a plan for exchanges? If you did, what did it involve? 5. Did you have any challenges coordinating the communication? 6. Which communication method did you use most often? 7. What was the best part of your participation in Correspondence Match? 8. What if, instead of being matched with one educator you could work with multiple classrooms?

What would you gain and what would you lose from the current structure? 9. How do you think the program should be structured now? 10. Any thoughts on how you could support Correspondence Match participant efforts to share

about their country of service? 11. Final thoughts?

If Non-‐participant:

1. Do you remember hearing about Correspondence Match during your service? 2. Can you describe the reasons why you decided not to enroll? 3. What kind of Goals Two and Three activities did you do? 4. It sounds like you used the following technologies: [if any technologies were listed]. Are there

any others you could have used? Any you could not have used? 5. Looking back, what would have motivated you to participate in a program like Correspondence

Match? 6. Any thoughts on how you could support Correspondence Match participant efforts to share

about their country of service? 7. Final thoughts?


2012 Educator Survey

1. How long have you been participating in the Correspondence Match Program overall? • Less than 1 year • 1 to 2 years • 2 to 5 years • 5 to 10 years • More than 10 years

2. How long have you been matched with your current Volunteer • Less than 6 months • 6 to 12 months • 12 to 18 months • 2 years • More than 2 years

3. Did you know the Peace Corps Volunteer with whom you are matched prior to his or her service? (i.e., former students, family, friends, former colleagues)

• Yes • No

4. How often does your current Peace Corps Volunteer match communicate with your classroom? • Never • Weekly • Biweekly • Monthly • Bimonthly • 2 to 3 times per year

5. How often do you or your students communicate with your current Peace Corps Volunteer? • Never • Weekly • Biweekly • Monthly • Bimonthly • 2 to 3 times per year

6. How do you communicate with your current Correspondence Match Peace Corps Volunteer? (Mark all that apply)

• Email • Postal letters • Telephone • Internet telephone (e.g., Skype, Vonage) • Instant messenger • Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blog) • No longer communicate with Volunteer


• Other, please specify 7. If you no longer communicate with your Correspondence Match Volunteer, how long was the

duration of your actual correspondence? • 1 to 3 months • 3 to 6 months • 6 months to 1 year • 1 year to 18 months • Longer than 18 months

8. What challenges (if any) do you face in actively participating in Correspondence Match (Mark all that apply)

• Difficult to find the time • Not easy to align with curriculum standards • Volunteer correspondence is sporadic • Postal mail delivery delays • Cost of postage • Volunteer has limited access to Internet • None • Other, please specify

9. How do you use the correspondence with your current Peace Corps Volunteer(s) in your teaching? (Mark all that apply)

• As a weekly component of ongoing learning • As a monthly component of ongoing learning • As part of one learning unit • As part of a service-‐learning component • As a writing or literacy exercise • As an extracurricular activity • As an extension exercise • As an individual learning activity • Other, please specify

10. After corresponding with a Peace Corps Volunteer, my students showed the following (by checking “Increased,” “Decreased,” or “The Same”):

• Understanding of cultural diversity • Interest in volunteering in their own community • Understanding of global issues • Seeing similarities between people of different background despite cultural or economic

differences • Understanding of the correlation between where people live and how they live • Exposure to authentic applications of student learning

11. In what ways could World Wise Schools improve upon the Correspondence Match Program? [Open-‐ended response]

Correspondence_Match_FY_2014-2015_Strategic_Plan

Documents

Transcript of Correspondence_Match_FY_2014-2015_Strategic_Plan