REPORT Assessment of LI 112 Methodology At the end of the fall 2013 semester, eighty-nine students attending Beginning II Italian courses were assessed. They were tested on whether they were able to communicate effectively through writing, and speaking at a mid-novice level as indicated in the American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages (General Education Objectives # 1) . They were also evaluated on whether they could apply their analytical reasoning to identify and correctly use, from a lexical and morpho-syntactic and semantic perspective, what they have learned during the course (General Education Objectives # 13). In order to determine whether students had successfully reached these objectives, they were asked to provide an oral and written description of a past event avoiding unnecessary repetition of words or phrases (Course Objective). With that in mind, they had to undertake a conversation with an imaginary friend (played by the instructor) where they would describe an unforgettable vacation they took (Learning Outcome). They had to provide information regarding its destination and duration. They also had to include the means of transportation used, and a brief description of the travelling companions. In addition, they had to provide a description of the activities done and the places visited. The conversation concluded with some comments on their vacation and some brief explanation of their positive or negative remarks. Students were evaluated on whether they were able to understand the questions asked by the instruction with no great difficulty, and answer them with a relative degree of grammatical accuracy. Particular attention was also paid on the presence of pauses or interruptions in their replies as well as their level of native-like pronunciation. The use of appropriate of the vocabulary was also taken into account (see Appendix 1 for a detailed explanation of these parameters). 1 Their writing task consisted of providing a description of what their life was like during their High School years. They were suggested to include some information regarding the name and location of their school, their favorite subject and/or preferred teacher and explain the reasons of their choice. They were also asked to indicate what they liked or did not like about the school they attended. They also had to briefly describe what a typical day was like, and whether they were pursuing any hobbies or sports. Their 80-word paragraph was evaluated on whether it provided a detailed description of the student’s time spent in HS. Furthermore, particular attention was paid on the level of discourse and appropriateness of the vocabulary used in their writing, as well as their degree grammatical accuracy (see Appendix 2). Data analysis As indicated in Rubric 1, students’ oral performance was rated according to five parameters: listening comprehension, fluidity, pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. Each parameter was divided in four different level based on whether student met or exceeded the expected proficiency level, or completely or barely failed to do so. Each level was assigned one point. The total points a student could achieve (adding up all five parameters, each worth a maximum of four points) was 20. The scale defined the following ranges: 0-5 points= student performance does not meet expectations; 6 – 10 points= student performance almost meets expectations; 11-15 points= student performance meets expectations; 16-20= student performance exceeds expectations. The average of total points achieved by the eighty-nine students tested was 16.2. According to the scale, this percentile slightly exceeds the 11-15 range, indicating that, in general, students’ met the expected oral proficiency level. Actually, 97% of them achieved or 2 exceed their performance level, whereas only 3% of them were unable to reach the minimum standards (see Table 1 below) Table 1 Number and percentage of students in each performance level for the speaking task Students (n = 89) Percentage Does not meet expectations 1 1.5 Almost meet expectations 1 1.5 Meet expectations 29 32.6 Exceed expectations 58 64.4 n = number of students Students’ written performance was also rated according to different parameters, i.e. Task completion, Level of discourse, Vocabulary (richness) and Grammar (accuracy). Similar to the speaking task, each parameter was divided in four different proficiency levels, namely Level 1 = Student does not meet expectations Level 2 = Almost meet expectations Level 3 = Meet expectations Level 4 = Exceed expectations For each level, student will be assigned one point for a total of 4 points. The maximum of points a student could receive was 16. The scale defined the following ranges: 0-4 points= student performance does not meet expectations; 5 – 8 points= student performance almost meets expectations; 9-12 points= student performance meets expectations; 13-16= student performance exceeds expectations. Students’ average score on the written task was 12.9, suggesting that, in general, they met, actually slightly exceeded the anticipated proficiency level. More specifically, 89% were writing at or higher level than expected, whereas only 8% of them were approaching their required level, and any of them did not meet the minimal standards. This is illustrated in Table 2 below. 3 Table 2 Number and percentage of students in each performance level for the written task Students (n = 89) Percentage n = number of students Do not meet expectations 0 0 Almost meet expectations 8 9 Meet expectations 30 33.7 Exceed expectations 37 57.3 In sum, data have shown that the majority of students have reached the objective of the course tested here, which was that of describing a past event, orally or in writing. A closer look at the data indicates that, in the speaking task, the average score in each parameter was as follows: a. b. c. d. e. listening comprehension 3.5 fluidity 3.3 pronunciation 3.5 vocabulary 3.1 grammar 2.9 As we can see, for all parameters, except for grammar, students met or slightly exceeded the expectations. In any case, the highest average score was reached in the Listening comprehension and Pronunciation, followed by Fluidity, Pronunciation and Grammar. Furthermore, the majority of students exceeded the expectations for the Listening comprehension and the Pronunciation, whereas a slightly less number of students reached that level in the Fluidity, and definitely less of them for the Grammar, as shown in Table 3 below. Table 3 Number of students in each competency type and level for the speaking task Levels Listening compr. 4 46 3 41 2 2 1 0 Total 89 Fluidity 28 48 13 0 89 Pronunciation 42 39 8 0 89 Vocabulary 27 39 23 0 89 Grammar 15 50 21 3 89 4 As for the writing task, the average score for each parameter was as follows: a. b. c. d. Task completion Level of discourse Vocabulary Grammar 3.5 3.5 3.1 2.6 Similar to the speaking activity, students reached or slightly exceeded the expected proficiency level. Unfortunately, the grammatical accuracy of their writing was not as good the other aspects tested. In any case, students were quite accurate in completing the task and use the appropriate language and vocabulary. As we can see from Table 4 below, the majority of them exceeded the expectations for Task completion and Level of discourse. A slightly less number of them reached that level for their use of the vocabulary, and visibly less students scored as high for the correct application of grammar rules of the Italian language. Table 4 Number of students in each competency type and level for writing task Levels Task Completion 4 59 3 22 2 6 1 2 Total 89 Comprehensibility 41 11 13 1 89 Level of Discourse 46 29 13 1 89 Vocabulary 32 36 19 2 89 Grammar 14 25 40 10 89 Conclusion and future action plan Data have displayed an interesting scenario regarding students’ abilities to narrate past events either through writing or oral description. Their narrations are quite accurate and detailed showing that students have mastered a great variety of vocabulary words. Furthermore, even though a slightly foreign accent may be detected in their oral descriptions, it does not interfere 5 with their communication. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said with regard to their use of syntactic structures. Students do not appear to be as grammatically accurate as they are in other oral and writing competencies. Their speech patterns and writing products still show some morpho-syntactic inaccuracies; they, nevertheless, do not seem to completely hinder the understanding of their message. In sum, despite the encouraging results obtained, students need to further improve their morpho-syntactic knowledge of their target language. This is quite surprising since they frequently exposed and formally instructed regarding the grammar rules and the syntactic structures of Italian. Their less-developed grammar competency with respect to the other areas suggests that, for some reasons, they do not fully retain what has been presented to them. In light of these results, I would suggest that more attention be paid to further develop that particular language ability. With that in mind, the syllabus of this particular course should include more activities whose objective is to provide students with further practice and drilling of particularly difficult structures such as the formation of the Italian past tense. Additional verification practices in form of weekly quizzes and daily homework assignments should also be part of daily lesson plans to make sure that a particular structure has been fully learned. This procedure would certainly help the mastery of the necessary vocabulary, which does not seem to develop as fast as the other abilities. 6 Appendices Appendix 1 Speaking Task - Holistic Rubric Performance exceeds expectations Listening comprehension Student understands the examiner’s questions and responds easily and without probing Fluidity Speech continuous with few pauses or stumbling 4 points Performance meets expectations 4 points Student understands the examiner’s questions and knows how to respond but needs occasional probing Some hesitation but manages to continue and to complete her/his thoughts Pronunciation Vocabulary Grammar Enhances communication Rich use of vocabulary Correct use of basic language structures (1-5 errors) 4 points Adequate and accurate use of vocabulary for this level 4 points Adequate use of basic language structures 4 points Does not interfere with communication (6-10 errors) 3 points Performance almost meets expectations 3 points Student only understands the examiner’s questions after probing Performance does not meet expectations 2 points Student fails to understand most questions even after probing 0-1 points Speech choppy and/or slow with frequent pauses. Few or incomplete thoughts 2 points Speech halting and uneven with long pauses or incomplete thoughts 0-1 points 3 points Occasionally interferes with communication 3 points Somewhat inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary. 3 points Emerging use of basic language structures (11-15 errors) 2 points Frequently interferes with communication 2 points Inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary 2 points Inadequate and/or inaccurate use of basic language structures (more than 16 errors) 0-1 points 0-1 points 0-1 points 7 Appendix 2 Writing Task - Holistic Rubric. Exceeds expectations Task Completion Level of Discourse Vocab. Grammar Superior completion of the task. Students fully address the information requested, and provide additional details Sentences are fully developed and interconnected with conjunctions (e.g. AND, BUT, or BECAUSE Rich use of vocabulary Perfect control of the syntactic structures required (Accuracy level 90% - 100%). 4 POINTS Completion of task. Students fully address the information provided, but do not provide additional details 4 POINTS Sentences are fully developed. Cohesive devices are sporadically used 4 POINTS Adequate and accurate use of vocabulary 4 POINTS Meets expectations Adequate control of the syntactic structures. Some grammatical imperfections (Accuracy level 79% - 89%). 3 POINTS 3 POINTS Almost meets expectations Does not meet expectations 3 POINTS 3 POINTS Emerging control of the syntactic structures Several grammatical imperfections (Accuracy level 61% - 78%). 2 POINTS Partial completion of task. Students complete no more than 60% of the information requested Sentences are somewhat complete. Rare use of cohesive devices Somewhat inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary 2 POINTS 2 POINTS 2 POINTS Minimal completion of task. Students complete less than 40% of the information requested. Sentences are mostly incomplete. No use of cohesive devices Inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary Minimal control of the syntactic structures. Numerous grammatical errors (Accuracy level 0%60%) 1 POINT 1 POINT 1 POINT 1 POINT 8 Appendix 3 Writing samples 9 10 11 12 13