COURSE ASSESSMENT: LF 111
LA Academy Cohort
Fall 2009
Date: 1-19-10
Department: Foreign Languages and Literatures
Course:
LF 111
Curriculum or Curricula: LA
PART I. STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES
For Part I, attach the summary report (Tables 1-4) from the QCC Course Objectives Form.
TABLE 1. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT
LF-111 is the first part of the introductory sequence of foreign language study (a requirement for a successful
transfer to the junior year of a baccalaureate program). It is a foundation course required for (AA) degree in
Liberal Arts and Sciences, Fine Arts, and Business Transfer.
TABLE 2. CURRICULAR OBJECTIVES
Note: Include in this table curriculum-specific objectives that meet Educational Goals 1 and 2:
Curricular objectives addressed by this course:
N/A
TABLE 3. GENERAL EDUCATION OBJECTIVES
Gen Ed
objective’s ID
number from
list (1-10)
General educational objectives addressed by this course: Select from preceding list.
(1) Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking.
(2) Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to
make informed decisions.
TABLE 4: COURSE OBJECTIVES AND STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Course objectives
Learning outcomes
1. Provide basic information in
Students will be able to talk about themselves by providing their name,
French about yourself, your city,
address, phone number, school schedule. They will also be able to describe
your classmates, your family,
their family or hobbies by answering questions in prompted dialogues.
friends, hobbies, and daily activities.
2. Demonstrate ability to accomplish
simple communicative tasks on
every day topics such as greeting
people or introduce yourself to
others, or describing your life in
school or at work, or during your
spare time.
Students will be able to greet people and/or introduce themselves, or
exchange personal information by participating in communicative tasks
where they will play the role of a new student at QCC or a party guest
trying to make friends.
2
PART II. ASSIGNMENT DESIGN: ALIGNING OUTCOMES, ACTIVITIES, AND
ASSESSMENT TOOLS
For the assessment project, you will be designing one course assignment, which will address at least one general
educational objective, one curricular objective (if applicable), and one or more of the course objectives. Please
identify these in the following table:
TABLE 5: OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED IN ASSESSMENT ASSIGNMENT
Course Objective(s) selected for assessment: (select from Table 4)
1. Provide basic information in French about yourself, your city, your classmates, your family, friends, hobbies,
and daily activities.
2. Demonstrate ability to accomplish simple communicative tasks on every day topics such as greeting people or
introducing yourself to others, or describing your life in school or at work and in your spare time.
Curricular Objective(s) selected for assessment: (select from Table 2)
N/A
General Education Objective(s) addressed in this assessment: (select from Table 3)
1. Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking.
2. Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to make informed
decisions.
In the first row of Table 6 that follows, describe the assignment that has been selected/designed for this project.
In writing the description, keep in mind the course objective(s), curricular objective(s) and the general education
objective(s) identified above,
The assignment should be conceived as an instructional unit to be completed in one class session (such as a lab) or
over several class sessions. Since any one assignment is actually a complex activity, it is likely to require that
students demonstrate several types of knowledge and/or thinking processes.
Also in Table 6, please
a) identify the three to four most important student learning outcomes (1-4) you expect from this assignment
b) describe the types of activities (a – d) students will be involved with for the assignment, and
c) list the type(s) of assessment tool(s) (A-D) you plan to use to evaluate each of the student outcomes.
(Classroom assessment tools may include paper and pencil tests, performance assessments, oral questions,
portfolios, and other options.)
Note: Copies of the actual assignments (written as they will be presented to the students) should be gathered
in an Assessment Portfolio for this course.
3
TABLE 6: ASSIGNMENT, OUTCOMES, ACTIVITIES, AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Briefly describe the assignment that will be assessed:
This project will assess students’ speaking abilities at a novice-mid proficiency level as described in ACTFL 2006
guidelines. Their conversational abilities will be assessed by engaging them in role-play activities where both
they and the instructor play a specific role. Students may play the role of a new student at QCC, or meeting
someone at a party trying to make new friends, or may share some personal information with a close friend
(played by the instructor) about a new boy/girlfriend. Oral tasks will prompt the students in providing personal
information, i.e. their name, address, phone number, or class schedule, or describing their daily activities and
hobbies.
Desired student learning outcomes
for the assignment
(Students will…)
List in parentheses the Curricular
Objective(s) and/or General
Education Objective(s) (1-10)
associated with these desired learning
outcomes for the assignment.
Briefly describe the range of
activities student will engage in
for this assignment.
Role-play at the Registrar’s office, at a
party or at a friend’s house.
What assessment tools will be
used to measure how well
students have met each learning
outcome? (Note: a single
assessment tool may be used to
measure multiple learning
outcomes; some learning
outcomes may be measured using
multiple assessment tools.)
Gen-Ed objective
(1) Communicate effectively through
reading, writing, listening and
speaking.
(2) Use analytical reasoning to
identify issues or problems and
evaluate evidence in order to make
informed decisions.
Students will be asked to complete a
task where they need to exchange
personal information with a new
acquaintance met at the Registrar’s
office, or at a party trying to make a
new friend or at friend’s house sharing
a new boy/girlfriend’s personal
information with a close friend (see
Appendix I).
Curricular objectives
N/A
4
PART III. ASSESSMENT STANDARDS (RUBRICS)
Before the assignment is given, prepare a description of the standards by which students’ performance will be
measured. This could be a checklist, a descriptive holistic scale, or another form. The rubric (or a version of it) may
be given to the students with the assignment so they will know what the instructor’s expectations are for this
assignment.
Please note that while individual student performance is being measured, the assessment project is collecting
performance data ONLY for the student groups as a whole.
TABLE 7: ASSESSMENT STANDARDS (RUBRICS)
Brief description of assignment: (Copy from Table 6 above)
This project will assess students’ speaking abilities at a novice-mid proficiency level as described in ACTFL 2006
guidelines. Their conversational abilities will be assessed by engaging them in role-play activities where both
they and the instructor play a specific role. Students may play the role of a new student at QCC, or a party guest
trying to make new friends, or may share some personal information with a close friend (played by the instructor)
about a new boy/girlfriend. Oral tasks will prompt the students in providing personal information, i.e. their name,
address, phone number, or class schedule, or describing their daily activities and hobbies.
Desired student learning
outcomes from the
assignment: (Copy from
Column 1, Table 6 above;
include Curricular and /or
General Education Objectives
addressed)
Gen-Ed objectives
(1) Communicate effectively
through reading, writing,
listening and speaking.
Assessment measures for
each learning outcome:
(Copy from Column 3,Table 6
above)
Students will be asked to complete
a task where they need to
exchange personal information at
the Registrar’s office, or in a
friend’s house, trying to make a
new friend, or share a new
boy/girlfriend’s personal
information with a close friend.
Standards for student performance:
The parameters for measuring students’ speaking
abilities will be to determine whether:
(i) they understand the questions being asked by the
interlocutor,
(ii) they are accurate with regard to their use of
French syntactic structures and vocabulary,
(iii) they are understood by the interlocutor by
using the correct intonation and pronunciation, and
(iv) they speak with some degree of fluidity.
75% of the students tested are anticipated to meet
the course’s expectations as described in the
attached rubric (see Appendix II).
2) Use analytical reasoning
to identify issues or problems
and evaluate evidence in order
to make informed decisions.
Curricular objectives
N/A
5
PART IV. ASSESSMENT RESULTS
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Use the following table to report the student results on the assessment. If you prefer, you may report outcomes
using the rubric(s), or other graphical representation. Include a comparison of the outcomes you expected (from
Table 7, Column 3) with the actual results. NOTE: A number of the pilot assessments did not include expected
success rates so there is no comparison of expected and actual outcomes in some of the examples below. However,
projecting outcomes is an important part of the assessment process; comparison between expected and actual
outcomes helps set benchmarks for student performance.
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Desired student learning outcomes:
(Copy from, Column 1,Table 6 above;
include Curricular and/or General
Education Objectives addressed)
Student achievement: Describe the group achievement of each
desired outcome and the knowledge and cognitive processes
demonstrated.
Gen-Ed objectives
See Table 9
Communicate effectively through
reading, writing, listening and
speaking.
Curricular objectives
N/A
6
TABLE 9. EVALUATION AND RESULTING ACTION PLAN
In the table below, or in a separate attachment, interpret and evaluate the assessment results, and describe the
actions to be taken as a result of the assessment. In the evaluation of achievement, take into account student
success in demonstrating the types of knowledge and the cognitive processes identified in the Course
Objectives.
A. Analysis and interpretation of assessment results:
197 students completed the speaking task in French, and their performance was rated
according to five parameters: listening comprehension, fluidity, pronunciation,
vocabulary and grammar. Student performance was scored using the above-mentioned
scoring rubric (see Appendix II).
The average score achieved for listening comprehension was 3.36 and the average score
for pronunciation was 3.5. On both these parameters, students on average met
expectations (see Chart 1 below):
Chart 1
The average score for fluidity of speech was 3.02, the average score for proficient use of
vocabulary was 3.5, while the average score for accuracy of grammar was 3.61. On these
three parameters students on average almost met expectations (on two parameters the
average was quite close to the 3.0 mark (see Chart 1 below)
.
The total points a student could achieve (adding up all five parameters, each worth a
maximum of four points) was 20. The scale agreed upon beforehand by the Assessment
Committee 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 students tested in French was 15.17. According to
7
the scale, this average falls in the 11-15 range, signifying that student overall performance
on the task meets expectations.
The Assessment Committee also predicted that 75% of students tested would achieve a
score indicating that their performance meets expectations. The results for number of
students who achieved each performance level in French are the following: 3 students
(0.15%) scored at Level 1, 0-5 points, and their performance does not meet expectations;
21 students (10.6%) scored at Level 2, 6-10 points, and their performance almost meets
expectations; 65 students (33%) scored at Level 3, 11-15 points, and their performance
meets but does not exceed expectations; finally, 108 students (54.9%) scored at Level 4,
and the quality of their performance exceeds expectations. Adding together Levels 3 and
4 gives us a total of 173 students (87.9%) who meet or exceed expectations, as defined by
the scoring rubric (see Chart 2 below):
Chart 2
B. Evaluation of the assessment process:
What do the results suggest about how well the assignment and the assessment process worked
both to help students learn and to show what they have learned?
B1) Evaluation of students’ results
The results of the speaking task in French show that, as predicted, at least 75% of students
tested meet or exceed expectations on overall performance of the task: the actual
percentage of students tested in Fall 2009 who meet or exceed expectations is 87.9%. The
largest portion of students (54.9%) fell into the category rated as “exceeding
expectations,” that is, achieving 16-20 points out of 20. Adding together Levels 1 and 2,
the percentage of students whose performance does not meet expectations is 10.75%.
8
If we look at student performance according to individual parameters, the highest average
score was in listening comprehension (3.35%)..
The second and third highest scoring parameters were pronunciation (3.03) and fluidity
(2.99). These parameters are unique to speaking, and require the least analytic skill on the
part of the student. Another plausible reason could be that students have practiced
intensely during the entire assessment process. This could have also positively influenced
their speech flow.
The two lowest scoring parameters were vocabulary (2.96) and grammar (2.83). These
parameters require active knowledge of the material learned. Proficient use of vocabulary
requires memorization, and accurate application of the rules of grammar requires analytic
skills. In the context of a speaking task, a weaker performance on these two particular
parameters would be expected.
B2) Evaluation of the assessment tools
The results obtained seem to indicate that the assessment tools used and the assessment
process undertaken have been successful in accurately determining our students’ oral
proficiency level. Not only has it shown that more than ¾ of the students had met the
expectation, but it has also provided them with the appropriate tool that would facilitate
their learning process. The great majority of students, in fact, took the speaking task
assessment very seriously, and studied extensively for it.
Some faculty members, however, have indicated that there appears to be a wide gap in
terms of proficiency between the ‘meets the expectations’ and ‘exceeds the expectations’
levels. It has been speculated that this could be one of the reasons why the data reported
such a large number of students at a very high proficiency level. Therefore, it has been
suggested to add to the current rubric an intermediate proficiency level that would capture
those students that perform slightly above their course level.
C. Resulting action plan:
Based on A and B, what changes, if any, do you anticipate making?
The overall average achieved by students on the speaking task in French shows a
satisfactory result, with 87.9% of students meeting expectations as defined by the
Assessment Committee. The averages achieved on each individual parameter in French
show areas of relative strength, as well as two areas of relative weakness: vocabulary and
grammar. After discussion of the results across all languages taught in the department, it
has been decided by the Assessment Committee to postpone any changes in curriculum
emphases or instructional methodology until we have gathered more complete data,
including student performance on written tasks, as well as a second assessment using the
speaking task. After compiling and analyzing data for all assessment completed in
academic year 2009-2010, the Assessment Committee, in consultation with the faculty of
the department, will make recommendations concerning curriculum and classroom
practice for the 2010-2011 academic year.
9
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
SITUATIONS FOR ORAL ASSESSMENT IN FRENCH
Students will pick ONE situation at random for the interview.
SITUATION 1: AT QCC
Imagine that you are a new student and I am the advisor. What would you say,
how would you answer my questions? Use the “vous” form.
-
Greet each other and exchange names
Personal info: age, nationality, how is he doing/feeling, phone
number
Services on campus/location of certain buildings
Daily activities (schedule): courses, activities during the day
Activities during the weekend: likes and dislikes
Plans after college.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS IN FRENCH
- Comment allez-vous ?
- Comment vous appelez-vous ?
- Quel âge avez-vous ?
- Où habitez-vous ?
- Où travaillez-vous ?
- Quel est votre numéro de téléphone ?
- Où est la cafétéria ? Où est la bibliothèque ?
- Quelles classes avez-vous à l’université ?
- A quelle heure est votre classe de français ?
- Quels jours de la semaine travaillez-vous?
- Qu’est-ce que vous aimez faire le week-end ?
- Qu’est-ce que vous n’aimez pas faire ?
- Est-ce que vous aimez voyager ? Avec qui ? Où ?
- Qu’est-ce que vous désirez faire après vos études à QCC ?
10
SITUATION 2: A UNE BOUM
Imagine that you are at a party and you start talking with another student. What
would you say, how would you answer his/her questions? Use the “vous” or
“tu” form.
-
Greet each other and exchange names
Exchange personal info: age, nationality, how is he doing/feeling,
birthday, phone number
Talk about your family
Activities during the week-end
Plans for the vacation
Likes and dislikes
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS IN FRENCH
- Comment ça va ?
- Comment est-ce que tu t’appelles ?
- Quel âge as-tu ?
- Quelle est ta nationalité ?
- Où habites-tu ?
- Habites-tu avec tes parents ? Dans un appartement ou une maison ?
- Est-ce que tu as des frères ou des sœurs ?
- Quel âge ont-ils ?
- Comment s’appellent-ils ?
- Quel est ton numéro de téléphone ?
- Qu’est-ce que tu fais en général le week-end ?
- Qu’est-ce que tu vas faire pendant les vacances ? Voyager ? Etudier ?
Travailler ?
- Qu’est-ce que tu aimes faire ?
- Qu’est-ce que tu n’aimes pas faire ?
11
SITUATION 3: MON PETIT AMI / MA PETITE AMIE
Imagine that you are talking with your best friend about your new boyfriend /
girlfriend. What would you say, how would you answer his / her questions? Use
the “tu” form.
-
Greet each other
Girlfriend/boyfriend info: age, nationality, how is he doing/feeling,
birthday, phone number
Talk about his/her family
Activities during the week. What does he/she do?
Plans for the weekend. What are they planning to do during the
weekend?
Likes and dislikes. What does he/she like?
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS IN FRENCH
- Comment ça va ?
- Comment s’appelle ton petit ami/ ta petite amie ?
- Quel âge a-t-il/a-t-elle ?
- Où habite-t-il/elle ?
- Comment est-il/elle ? (jeune/beau/belle, sympathique, intelligent/e, etc.
- Comment est sa famille ? Il/elle a des frères ou des sœurs ?
- Qu’est-ce qu’il/elle fait ? Etudie/travaille ?
- Est-ce qu’il est étudiant/e à QCC ?
- Qu’est-ce qu’il/elle étudie ?
- Qu’est-ce que vous faites ensemble pendant le week-end ? Danser / faire une
promenade / aller au cinéma / faire du sport ?
- Qu’est-ce qu’il/elle aime faire ?
- Qu’est-ce qu’il/elle n’aime pas faire ?
12
APPENDIX II
HOLISTIC RUBRIC FOR ORAL ASSESSMENT IN FRENCH
Listening
Comprehension
Performance
exceeds
expectations
(4 points)
Performance
meets
expectations
(3 points)
Performance
almost meets
expectations
(2 points)
Performance
does not
meet
expectations
(0 – 1 points)
Fluidity
Pronunciation
Vocabulary
Grammar
Rich use of
vocabulary
Correct use
of basic
language
structures
(1-5 errors)
Does not interfere
with
communication
Adequate and
accurate use of
vocabulary for
this level
Adequate use
of basic
language
structures
(6-10 errors)
Speech
choppy and/or
slow with
frequent
pauses. Few
or incomplete
thoughts
Occasionally
interferes with
communication
Somewhat
inadequate
and/or
inaccurate use
of vocabulary
Emerging use
of basic
language
structures
(11-15 errors)
Speech
halting and
uneven with
long pauses
or incomplete
thoughts
Frequently
interferes with
communication
Inadequate
and/or
inaccurate use
of vocabulary
Inadequate
and/or
inaccurate
use of basic
language
structures
(more than 16
errors)
Student understands
the examiner’s
questions and
responds easily and
without probing
Speech
continuous
with few
pauses or
stumbling
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
Student only
understands the
examiner’s questions
after probing
Student fails to
understand most
questions even after
probing
Enhances
communication
13
Conclusions & Action Plan
Generally speaking, data portray a uniform acquisition scenario among the foreign languages
evaluated, namely, Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian and Spanish. As Table 1 shows, all
six language groups display similar percentages of students reaching or exceeding the
proficiency levels set up for a Beginning I language course.
Table 1
Percentage of students reaching or exceeding the required proficiency levels for each language group
80
70
Chinese
60
French
50
German
40
Hebrew
30
Italian
20
Spanish
10
0
However, contrary to our predictions, no language group reported more than 75 percent of their
students meeting the proficiency standards of the course. In fact, an average of less than 2/3 of
our learners reached the desired proficiency levels.
In any case, a closer look at the data reveals an interesting acquisition phenomenon. Our L2
learners seem to encounter less difficulty in developing the required speaking and auditory skills
than their reading or writing abilities. Despite their limited amount of instruction and exposure to
the target language, a relatively high number of students (avg. 87%), are able to speak and
converse at the expected level of a beginning course, irrespective of the language they are
learning. Furthermore, their ability to comprehend oral messages seems to be equally developed.
In fact, the percentage of students meeting the standards of the course is 75 percent (see Table 2
below).
14
Table 2
Percentage of students reaching or exceeding the required level of oral, auditory, reading and writing proficiency
for each language group
100
90
80
70
Oral
Auditory
Reading
Writing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Chinese
French
Hebrew
German
Italian
Spanish
The reading and writing skills, however, do not seem to follow a similarly expedite
developmental pattern. Data indicate that an average of only 63 percent of the students write at
the level required by the course. If we eliminate the high percentage displayed by the students of
Chinese (92%), the number reaches worrisome levels (55%). These results are quite interesting
and intriguing. Normally, one would expect just opposite outcomes given that performance
limitations of psychological nature (i.e. nervousness, anxiety) are usually more visible in
generating oral than written language.
Such a clear discrepancy in students’ oral and written use of their target language (henceforth:
L2) calls for a re-analysis of the oral assessment tools used, mainly with regard to their reliability
and usefulness in generating accurate data. This re-evaluation should help us eliminate or, at
least reduce, the effects of external factors that might have altered the results obtained. The
personal and oral nature of this assessment process, in fact, may be easily subject to human
errors or bias. With that in mind, the department will organize some training sessions for the
instructors administering the oral test in order to ensure that the assessment tool is used
uniformly and appropriately.
In any case, the low percentage of students meeting the writing standards of the course is also
reflected in the appropriate use of L2 syntactic structures. Data indicate that an average of 44
percent of the students tested were able to reach the accuracy standards required by the course.
And again, if we eliminate the percentage of the students of Chinese from our calculations, the
percentile lowers to 38 percent. Interestingly, such a lower accuracy level is also encountered in
L2 oral production. Across the six language groups, the appropriate use of grammatical
structures is one of the weakest oral abilities. That being the case, one could assume that
internalizing L2 grammar rules is problematic. Such difficulties are displayed in both oral and
written language modes.
15
Fortunately, this does not seem to be case when students need to master the required vocabulary.
Lexical items do not appear to be acquisitionally as problematic as the grammar rules. As Table
3 indicates, the overall percentage of students using the required vocabulary is clearly higher
(62%), even though the Italian and Spanish learners are still showing some problems (33% and
43%, respectively)
Table 3
Percentage of students reaching or exceeding the required levels of lexical and syntactic proficiency for each
language group
80
70
60
50
Grammar
Voc.
40
30
20
10
0
Chinese French Hebrew German
Italian
Spanish
In sum, students have shown to be struggling with the mastering of L2 grammar rules. Their
behavior is quite consistent, equally involving the oral and written use of their target language.
The reasons justifying this lack of accuracy may be various and of different nature. The groups
that have shown greater number of problems are those learning morphologically rich languages
such as Italian, French Spanish and German. At a beginning level, the acquisition of grammar is
mostly morphologically-based. It is well known that morphology is a linguistic component that is
usually acquired very late.
However, the similarly lower number of students of Italian and Spanish reaching the desired
level of lexical knowledge seems to highlight a general behavior of poor study skills and habits.
In fact, L2 learners appear to fall short whenever the skill requires a more attentive participation
and thorough analysis of the language. With this in mind, the department will implement a
greater variety of grammar activities and tasks in the curricula of the beginning language courses
along with a closer monitoring of students' homework and lab assignments.
16
Spring 2010
Date: 6-8-10
Department: Foreign Languages and Literatures
Course:
LF 111
Curriculum or Curricula: LA
PART I. STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES
For Part I, attach the summary report (Tables 1-4) from the QCC Course Objectives Form.
TABLE 1. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT
LF-111 is the first part of the introductory sequence of foreign language study (a requirement for a successful
transfer to the junior year of a baccalaureate program). It is a foundation course required for (an AA) degree in
Liberal Arts and Sciences, Fine Arts, and Business Transfer.
TABLE 2. CURRICULAR OBJECTIVES
Note: Include in this table curriculum-specific objectives that meet Educational Goals 1 and 2:
Curricular objectives addressed by this course:
N/A
TABLE 3. GENERAL EDUCATION OBJECTIVES
Gen Ed
objective’s ID
number from
list (1-10)
General educational objectives addressed by this course: Select from preceding list.
(1) Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking.
(2) Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to
make informed decisions.
17
TABLE 4: COURSE OBJECTIVES AND STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Course objectives
Learning outcomes
1. Provide basic information in
Students will be able to talk about themselves by providing their name,
French about yourself, your city,
address, phone number, school schedule. They will also be able to describe
your classmates, your family,
their family or hobbies by answering questions in prompted dialogues.
friends, hobbies, and daily activities.
2. Demonstrate ability to accomplish
simple communicative tasks on
every day topics such as greeting
people or introduce yourself to
others, or describing your life in
school or at work, or during your
spare time.
Students will be able to greet people and/or introduce themselves, or
exchange personal information by participating in communicative tasks
where they will play the role of a new student at QCC or a party guest
trying to make friends.
Students will also be able to write about themselves, their friends, their
studies, their families, what they like or do not like to do, or write a letter to
a pen pal about these topics.
18
PART II. ASSIGNMENT DESIGN: ALIGNING OUTCOMES, ACTIVITIES, AND
ASSESSMENT TOOLS
For the assessment project, you will be designing one course assignment, which will address at least one general
educational objective, one curricular objective (if applicable), and one or more of the course objectives. Please
identify these in the following table:
TABLE 5: OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED IN ASSESSMENT ASSIGNMENT
Course Objective(s) selected for assessment: (select from Table 4)
1. Provide basic information in French about yourself, your city, your classmates, your family, friends, hobbies,
and daily activities.
2. Demonstrate ability to accomplish simple communicative tasks on every day topics such as greeting people or
introducing yourself to others, or describing your life in school or at work and in your spare time.
Curricular Objective(s) selected for assessment: (select from Table 2)
N/A
General Education Objective(s) addressed in this assessment: (select from Table 3)
1. Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking.
2. Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to make informed
decisions.
In the first row of Table 6 that follows, describe the assignment that has been selected/designed for this project.
In writing the description, keep in mind the course objective(s), curricular objective(s) and the general education
objective(s) identified above,
The assignment should be conceived as an instructional unit to be completed in one class session (such as a lab) or
over several class sessions. Since any one assignment is actually a complex activity, it is likely to require that
students demonstrate several types of knowledge and/or thinking processes.
Also in Table 6, please
a) identify the three to four most important student learning outcomes (1-4) you expect from this assignment
b) describe the types of activities (a – d) students will be involved with for the assignment, and
c) list the type(s) of assessment tool(s) (A-D) you plan to use to evaluate each of the student outcomes.
(Classroom assessment tools may include paper and pencil tests, performance assessments, oral questions,
portfolios, and other options.)
Note: Copies of the actual assignments (written as they will be presented to the students) should be gathered
in an Assessment Portfolio for this course.
19
TABLE 6: ASSIGNMENT, OUTCOMES, ACTIVITIES, AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Briefly describe the assignments that will be assessed:
1. Oral Interview: This project assessed students’ speaking abilities at a novice-mid proficiency level as described
in ACTFL 2006 guidelines. Their conversational abilities were assessed by engaging them in role-play activities
where both they and the instructor play a specific role. Students may play the role of a new student at QCC, or
meeting someone at a party trying to make new friends, or may share some personal information with a close
friend (played by the instructor) about a new boy/girlfriend. Oral tasks prompted the students to provide personal
information, i.e. their name, address, phone number, or class schedule, or description of their daily activities and
hobbies.
2. Written Final Exam:
Listening comprehension was assessed by the instructor reading questions and having students choose the correct
answers to some questions and then a true/false exercise on a passage read to them.
Reading abilities was evaluated by having students read two passages in French and answer true/false questions
on the first passage or complete sentences in a multiple choice exercise.
Vocabulary knowledge was assessed by an exercise “chase the intruder” and completing sentences.
Grammar accuracy was assessed by exercises on verbs, adjectives and various aspects of grammar. These were
exercises with fill-in blanks, true/false, or multiple choices answers.
Writing abilities were assessed by asking the students to describe themselves, or a friend, their studies, their plans
for the future, and what they like or do not like to do, This was a short essay of 60 words.
Desired student learning outcomes
for the assignment
(Students will…)
List in parentheses the Curricular
Objective(s) and/or General
Education Objective(s) (1-10)
associated with these desired learning
outcomes for the assignment.
Briefly describe the range of
activities student will engage in
for this assignment.
Gen-Ed objective
2. Written Final Exam
(1) Communicate effectively through
reading, writing, listening and
speaking.
(2) Use analytical reasoning to
identify issues or problems and
evaluate evidence in order to make
informed decisions.
1. Oral Interview Role-play at the
Registrar’s office, at a party or at a
friend’s house.
Listening comprehension,
grammar, vocabulary, reading
comprehension and writing
activities and tasks are described
in the paragraph above.
What assessment tools will be
used to measure how well
students have met each learning
outcome? (Note: a single
assessment tool may be used to
measure multiple learning
outcomes; some learning
outcomes may be measured using
multiple assessment tools.)
1. Oral Interview
Students will be asked to complete a
task where they need to exchange
personal information with a new
acquaintance met at the Registrar’s
office, or at a party trying to make a
new friend or at friend’s house sharing
a new boy/girlfriend’s personal
information with a close friend (see
Appendix I).
Curricular objectives
N/A
2. Written Final Exam
See paragraph 2 above and Appendix
III for rating scales.
20
PART III. ASSESSMENT STANDARDS (RUBRICS)
Before the assignment is given, prepare a description of the standards by which students’ performance will be
measured. This could be a checklist, a descriptive holistic scale, or another form. The rubric (or a version of it) may
be given to the students with the assignment so they will know what the instructor’s expectations are for this
assignment.
Please note that while individual student performance is being measured, the assessment project is collecting
performance data ONLY for the student groups as a whole.
TABLE 7: ASSESSMENT STANDARDS (RUBRICS)
Brief description of assignment: (Copy from Table 6 above)
This project will assess students’ speaking abilities at a novice-mid proficiency level as described in ACTFL 2006
guidelines. Their conversational abilities will be assessed by engaging them in role-play activities where both
they and the instructor play a specific role. Students may play the role of a new student at QCC, or a party guest
trying to make new friends, or may share some personal information with a close friend (played by the instructor)
about a new boy/girlfriend. Oral tasks will prompt the students in providing personal information, i.e. their name,
address, phone number, or class schedule, or describing their daily activities and hobbies.
Desired student learning
outcomes from the
assignment: (Copy from
Column 1, Table 6 above;
include Curricular and /or
General Education Objectives
addressed)
Gen-Ed objectives
(1) Communicate effectively
through reading, writing,
listening and speaking.
3) Use analytical reasoning
to identify issues or problems
and evaluate evidence in order
to make informed decisions.
Curricular objectives
N/A
Assessment measures for
each learning outcome:
(Copy from Column 3,Table 6
above)
Students will be asked to complete
a task where they need to
exchange personal information at
the Registrar’s office, or in a
friend’s house, trying to make a
new friend, or share a new
boy/girlfriend’s personal
information with a close friend.
Listening comprehension,
grammar knowledge,
vocabulary, reading
comprehension and writing
were assessed by exercises on
a variety of tasks described
above.
Standards for student performance:
1. The parameters for measuring students’ speaking
abilities will be to determine whether:
(i) they understand the questions being asked by the
interlocutor,
(ii) they are accurate with regard to their use of
French syntactic structures and vocabulary,
(iii) they are understood by the interlocutor by
using the correct intonation and pronunciation, and
(iv) they speak with some degree of fluidity.
75% of the students tested are anticipated to meet
the course’s expectations as described in the
attached rubric (see Appendix II).
2. The parameters for measuring students writing
will be assessed as described in the attached rubric
for writing (see Appendix IV).
21
PART IV. ASSESSMENT RESULTS
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Use the following table to report the student results on the assessment. If you prefer, you may report outcomes
using the rubric(s), or other graphical representation. Include a comparison of the outcomes you expected (from
Table 7, Column 3) with the actual results. NOTE: A number of the pilot assessments did not include expected
success rates so there is no comparison of expected and actual outcomes in some of the examples below. However,
projecting outcomes is an important part of the assessment process; comparison between expected and actual
outcomes helps set benchmarks for student performance.
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Desired student learning outcomes:
(Copy from, Column 1,Table 6 above;
include Curricular and/or General
Education Objectives addressed)
Student achievement: Describe the group achievement of each
desired outcome and the knowledge and cognitive processes
demonstrated.
Gen-Ed objectives
See Table 9
Communicate effectively through
reading, writing, listening and
speaking.
Curricular objectives
N/A
22
TABLE 9. EVALUATION AND RESULTING ACTION PLAN
In the table below, or in a separate attachment, interpret and evaluate the assessment results, and describe the
actions to be taken as a result of the assessment. In the evaluation of achievement, take into account student
success in demonstrating the types of knowledge and the cognitive processes identified in the Course
Objectives.
A. Analysis and interpretation of assessment results:
1. Speaking Task - Oral interview:
168 students completed the speaking task in French, and their performance was rated
according to five parameters: listening comprehension, fluidity, pronunciation, vocabulary
and grammar. Student performance was scored using the above-mentioned rubric.
The results are as follows:
SCORING SHEET‐ LF Speaking Task Listening Comprehension Range Listening Comprehension 4 Fluidity
Pronunciation
Vocabulary
Grammar Total
4 4
4
4 20 Percentage 3.14 2.96
2.68
2.75
2.83 14.33
# of students 168 168 168
168
168 168 The total points a student could achieve (adding up all five parameters, each worth a maximum of
four points) was 20. The scale agreed upon beforehand by the Assessment Committee 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 results for percentage of students in each category are as follows:
Speaking students’ performance Range Does not meet expectations 0‐5 Almost meets expectations 6‐10 # of students 1 24 Percentage 0.5% 14% Meets expectations 11‐
15 83
50%
Exceed expectations 16‐20 60
35.5%
The overall student performance shows that 85.5% of students met or exceeded expectations
2. Written Final Examinations - Overall view:
The data of 180 students who completed the written final exam in French was gathered. Their
performance was rated according to five categories: listening comprehension, vocabulary,
grammar, reading and writing.
The results are as follows:
23
SCORING SHEET‐ LF General Performance in E ach Category
Listening Vocabulary Grammar
Reading
Writing Total Range 0‐16 0‐16 0‐36 0‐16 0‐16 0‐100 Score 13.24 10.14 20.13
12.36
12.68 68.54 # of Students 180 180 180
180
180
180 The average score achieved was 69%
The total points a student could achieve (adding up all five categories) was 100. The scale agreed
upon beforehand by the Assessment Committee defined the following ranges: 0-60 points= student
performance does not meet expectations; 61–78 points= student performance almost meets
expectations; 79-89 points= student performance meets expectations; 90-100= student performance
exceeds expectations.
Range # 0f Students Percentage OVERALL. Student performance …
Does not meet Almost meets expectations
expectations 61‐78 0‐60 Meets expectations
79‐89 Exceeds expectations
90‐100 54 73 38 15 30% 40.5% 21% 8.5& The overall student performance shows that only 29% of students met or exceeded expectations.
The results for percentage of students in each category are as follows:
LISTENING. Student performance …
Range # of Students Does not meet expectations 0‐9.5 16 Almost meets expectations 10‐12.5 37
Meets expectations
13.14.5 58
Exceeds expectations 15‐16 69 Percentage 9% 20.5%
32.5%
38% VOCABULARY. Student performance …
Range Does not meet expectations 0‐9.5 Almost meets expectations 10‐12.5 Meets expectations
13‐14.5 # of Students 78 66
23
Exceeds expectations 15‐16 13 Percentage 43% 37%
13%
7% GRAMMAR. Student performance … Does not meet Almost meets expectations expectations 0‐21.5 22‐28 Meets expectations
28.5‐32 Exceeds expectations 32.5‐36 97 39 27 17 54% 22% 15% 9% Range # of Students Percentage 24
Range # of Students Percentage Range # of Students Percentage READING. Student performance …
Does not meet Almost meets expectations expectations 0‐9.5 10‐12.5 Meets expectations
13‐14.5 Exceeds expectations 15‐16 22 67 55 36 12% 37% 31% 20% WRITING. Student performance …
Does not meet Almost meets expectations expectations 0‐9.5 10‐12.5 Meets expectations
13‐14.5 Exceeds expectations 15‐16 24 52 44 60 13% 29% 24.5% 33.5% B. Evaluation of the assessment process:
What do the results suggest about how well the assignment and the assessment process worked
both to help students learn and to show what they have learned?
The results of the oral interview were that 85.5 % of students met or exceeded
expectations. This is a very positive result.
However, in the final written exam the overall performance results show the following
percentages of students who met or exceeded expectations in the different categories: 70 %
in listening, 20 % in vocabulary, 51 % in reading comprehension, 48 % in writing and only
14 % in grammar.
Evaluation of the assessment
The results obtained seem to indicate that the assessment tools used and the assessment
process undertaken has been effective in determining our students’ strengths and
weaknesses.
C. Resulting action plan:
Based on A and B, what changes, if any, do you anticipate making?
The average achieved in the oral interview was quite satisfactory and proved the benefit of
the communicative method used by many instructors in the department. However, the
averages in other categories show weaknesses especially in grammar. This observation
should be taken into consideration in our teaching in order to improve these results and
students’ performance.
25
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
SITUATIONS FOR ORAL ASSESSMENT IN FRENCH
Students will pick ONE situation at random for the interview.
SITUATION 1: AT QCC
Imagine that you are a new student and I am the advisor. What would you say,
how would you answer my questions? Use the “vous” form.
-
Greet each other and exchange names
Personal info: age, nationality, how is he doing/feeling, phone
number
Services on campus/location of certain buildings
Daily activities (schedule): courses, activities during the day
Activities during the weekend: likes and dislikes
Plans after college.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS IN FRENCH
- Comment allez-vous ?
- Comment vous appelez-vous ?
- Quel âge avez-vous ?
- Où habitez-vous ?
- Où travaillez-vous ?
- Quel est votre numéro de téléphone ?
- Où est la cafétéria ? Où est la bibliothèque ?
- Quelles classes avez-vous à l’université ?
- A quelle heure est votre classe de français ?
- Quels jours de la semaine travaillez-vous?
- Qu’est-ce que vous aimez faire le week-end ?
- Qu’est-ce que vous n’aimez pas faire ?
- Est-ce que vous aimez voyager ? Avec qui ? Où ?
26
SITUATION 2: A UNE BOUM
Imagine that you are at a party and you start talking with another student. What
would you say, how would you answer his/her questions? Use the “vous” or
“tu” form.
-
Greet each other and exchange names
Exchange personal info: age, nationality, how is he doing/feeling,
birthday, phone number
Talk about your family
Activities during the week-end
Plans for the vacation
Likes and dislikes
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS IN FRENCH
- Comment ça va ?
- Comment est-ce que tu t’appelles ?
- Quel âge as-tu ?
- Quelle est ta nationalité ?
- Où habites-tu ?
- Habites-tu avec tes parents ? Dans un appartement ou une maison ?
- Est-ce que tu as des frères ou des sœurs ?
- Quel âge ont-ils ?
- Comment s’appellent-ils ?
- Quel est ton numéro de téléphone ?
- Qu’est-ce que tu fais en général le week-end ?
- Qu’est-ce que tu vas faire pendant les vacances ? Voyager ? Etudier ?
Travailler ?
- Qu’est-ce que tu aimes faire ?
- Qu’est-ce que tu n’aimes pas faire ?
27
SITUATION 3: MON PETIT AMI / MA PETITE AMIE
Imagine that you are talking with your best friend about your new boyfriend /
girlfriend. What would you say, how would you answer his / her questions? Use
the “tu” form.
-
Greet each other
Girlfriend/boyfriend info: age, nationality, how is he doing/feeling,
birthday, phone number
Talk about his/her family
Activities during the week. What does he/she do?
Plans for the weekend. What are they planning to do during the
weekend?
Likes and dislikes. What does he/she like?
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS IN FRENCH
- Comment ça va ?
- Comment s’appelle ton petit ami/ ta petite amie ?
- Quel âge a-t-il/a-t-elle ?
- Où habite-t-il/elle ?
- Comment est-il/elle ? (jeune/beau/belle, sympathique, intelligent/e, etc.
- Comment est sa famille ? Il/elle a des frères ou des sœurs ?
- Qu’est-ce qu’il/elle fait ? Etudie/travaille ?
- Est-ce qu’il est étudiant/e à QCC ?
- Qu’est-ce qu’il/elle étudie ?
- Qu’est-ce que vous faites ensemble pendant le week-end ? Danser / faire une
promenade / aller au cinéma / faire du sport ?
- Qu’est-ce qu’il/elle aime faire ?
- Qu’est-ce qu’il/elle n’aime pas faire ?
28
APPENDIX II
HOLISTIC RUBRIC FOR ORAL ASSESSMENT IN FRENCH
Performance
exceeds
expectations
Performance
meets
expectations
Performance
almost meets
expectations
Listening
comprehension
Student
understands the
examiner’s
questions and
responds easily and
without probing
4 points
Student
understands the
examiner’s
questions and
knows how to
respond but needs
occasional probing
Fluidity
Pronunciation
Vocabulary
Grammar
Speech
continuous
with few
pauses or
stumbling
Enhances
communication
Rich use of
vocabulary
Correct use
of basic
language
structures
(1-5 errors)
4 points
3 points
Student only
understands the
examiner’s
questions after
probing
3 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
2 points
Performance
does not
meet
expectations
Student fails to
understand most
questions even after
probing
4 points
Some
hesitation but
manages to
continue and
to complete
her/his
thoughts
4 points
Does not
interfere with
communication
4 points
Adequate and
accurate use
of vocabulary
for this level
3 points
3 points
Occasionally
interferes with
communication
2 points
Frequently
interferes with
communication
3 points
Somewhat
inadequate
and/or
inaccurate
use of
vocabulary.
2 points
Emerging
use of basic
language
structures
(11-15
errors)
2 points
Inadequate
and/or
inaccurate
use of
vocabulary
Inadequate
and/or
inaccurate
use of basic
language
structures
(more than
16 errors)
0-1 point
0-1 point
0-1 point
0-1 point
Adequate
use of basic
language
structures
(6-10 errors)
0-1 point
29
APPENDIX III
SCORING SCALES
Grammar Task Scale (Range: 0 to 36)
GRAMMAR
SECTION
ACCURATE USE OF THE GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURES LEARNED IN
THE COURSE
Performance More than 90% completion of the task
exceeds
(32.5- 36 points)
expectations
Performance Between 79% and 89% completion of the task
meets
(28.5- 32 points)
expectations
Performance Between 64% and 78% completion of the task
almost
(22 – 28 points)
meets
expectations
Performance Between 0% to 60% completion of the task
does not
(0 - 21.5 points)
meet
expectations
30
Vocabulary Task Scale (Range: 0 to 16)
VOCABULARY
SECTION
VOCABULARY
SECTION
ACCURATE AND ADEQUATE USE OF THE VOCABULARY
LEARNED IN THE COURSE
ACCURATE AND ADEQUATE USE OF THE VOCABULARY
LEARNED IN THE COURSE
Performance
exceeds
expectations
More than 90% completion of the task
(15 - 16 points)
Performance
meets
expectations
Between 79% and 89% completion of the task
(13 – 14.5 points)
Performance
almost meets
expectations
Between 62% and 78% completion of the task
(10 – 12.5 points)
Performance
does not meet
expectations
Between 0% to 61% completion of the task
(0- 9.5 points)
31
Listening Task Scale (Range: 0 to 16)
LISTENING
SECTION
UNDERSTAND PHRASES, EXPRESSIONS AND SHORT MESSAGES
RELATED TO THE TOPICS COVERED IN THE COURSE
Performance
More than 90% completion of the task
exceeds
expectations (15 – 16 points)
Performance Between 79% and 89% completion of the task
meets
(13- 14.5 points)
expectations
Performance
almost
meets
expectations
Performance
does not
meet
expectations
Between 65% and 78% completion of the task
(10 – 12.5 points)
Between 0% to 60% completion of the task
(0 to 9.5 points)
32
Reading Task Scale (Range: 0 to 16)
READING
SECTION
UNDERSTAND SHORT AND SIMPLE MESSAGES
RELATED TO THE TOPICS COVERED IN THE COURSE
Performance
More than 90% completion of the task
exceeds
expectations (15 – 16 points)
Performance Between 79% and 89% completion of the task
meets
(13- 14.5 points)
expectations
Performance Between 65% and 78% completion of the task
almost
(10- 12.5 points)
meets
expectations
Performance Between 0% to 60% completion of the task
does not
(0 to 9.5 points)
meet
expectations
33
APPENDIX IV
Writing Task Holistic Rubric
Exceeds
expectations
Meets
expectations
Almost meets
expectations
Does not meet
expectations
Task
Completion
Level of
Discourse
Vocabulary
Grammar
Superior completion
of the task. Ss fully
address the
information
requested, and
provide additional
details
Completion of task.
Ss fully address the
information
provided, but do not
provide additional
details
Partial completion of
task. Ss complete no
more than 60% of
the information
requested
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%)
Sentences are fully
developed. Cohesive
devices, however,
are sporadically used
Adequate and
accurate use of
vocabulary
Sentences are
somewhat complete.
Rare use of cohesive
devices
Somewhat
inadequate and/or
inaccurate use of
vocabulary
Adequate control of
the syntactic
structures. Some
grammatical errors
(accuracy level
79% - 89%)
Emerging control of
syntactic structures.
Several grammatical
errors (accuracy
level 61% - 78%)
Minimal completion
of task. Ss 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
syntactic structures.
Numerous
grammatical errors
(accuracy level
0% - 60%)
34
Conclusions & Action Plan
Generally speaking, data portray a uniform acquisition scenario among the foreign languages
evaluated, namely, Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian and Spanish. As Table 1 shows, all
six language groups display similar percentages of students reaching or exceeding the
proficiency levels set up for a Beginning I language course.
Table 1
Percentage of students reaching or exceeding the required proficiency levels for each language group
80
70
Chinese
60
French
50
German
40
Hebrew
30
Italian
20
Spanish
10
0
However, contrary to our predictions, no language group reported more than 75 percent of their
students meeting the proficiency standards of the course. In fact, an average of less than 2/3 of
our learners reached the desired proficiency levels.
In any case, a closer look at the data reveals an interesting acquisition phenomenon. Our L2
learners seem to encounter less difficulty in developing the required speaking and auditory skills
than their reading or writing abilities. Despite their limited amount of instruction and exposure to
the target language, a relatively high number of students (avg. 87%), are able to speak and
converse at the expected level of a beginning course, irrespective of the language they are
learning. Furthermore, their ability to comprehend oral messages seems to be equally developed.
In fact, the percentage of students meeting the standards of the course is 75 percent (see Table 2
below).
35
Table 2
Percentage of students reaching or exceeding the required level of oral, auditory, reading and writing proficiency
for each language group
100
90
80
70
Oral
Auditory
Reading
Writing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Chinese
French
Hebrew
German
Italian
Spanish
The reading and writing skills, however, do not seem to follow a similarly expedite
developmental pattern. Data indicate that an average of only 63 percent of the students write at
the level required by the course. If we eliminate the high percentage displayed by the students of
Chinese (92%), the number reaches worrisome levels (55%). These results are quite interesting
and intriguing. Normally, one would expect just opposite outcomes given that performance
limitations of psychological nature (i.e. nervousness, anxiety) are usually more visible in
generating oral than written language.
Such a clear discrepancy in students’ oral and written use of their target language (henceforth:
L2) calls for a re-analysis of the oral assessment tools used, mainly with regard to their reliability
and usefulness in generating accurate data. This re-evaluation should help us eliminate or, at
least reduce, the effects of external factors that might have altered the results obtained. The
personal and oral nature of this assessment process, in fact, may be easily subject to human
errors or bias. With that in mind, the department will organize some training sessions for the
instructors administering the oral test in order to ensure that the assessment tool is used
uniformly and appropriately.
In any case, the low percentage of students meeting the writing standards of the course is also
reflected in the appropriate use of L2 syntactic structures. Data indicate that an average of 44
percent of the students tested were able to reach the accuracy standards required by the course.
And again, if we eliminate the percentage of the students of Chinese from our calculations, the
percentile lowers to 38 percent. Interestingly, such a lower accuracy level is also encountered in
L2 oral production. Across the six language groups, the appropriate use of grammatical
36
structures is one of the weakest oral abilities. That being the case, one could assume that
internalizing L2 grammar rules is problematic. Such difficulties are displayed in both oral and
written language modes.
Fortunately, this does not seem to be case when students need to master the required vocabulary.
Lexical items do not appear to be acquisitionally as problematic as the grammar rules. As Table
3 indicates, the overall percentage of students using the required vocabulary is clearly higher
(62%), even though the Italian and Spanish learners are still showing some problems (33% and
43%, respectively)
Table 3
Percentage of students reaching or exceeding the required levels of lexical and syntactic proficiency for each
language group
80
70
60
50
Grammar
Voc.
40
30
20
10
0
Chinese French Hebrew German
Italian
Spanish
In sum, students have shown to be struggling with the mastering of L2 grammar rules. Their
behavior is quite consistent, equally involving the oral and written use of their target language.
The reasons justifying this lack of accuracy may be various and of different nature. The groups
that have shown greater number of problems are those learning morphologically rich languages
such as Italian, French Spanish and German. At a beginning level, the acquisition of grammar is
mostly morphologically-based. It is well known that morphology is a linguistic component that is
usually acquired very late.
However, the similarly lower number of students of Italian and Spanish reaching the desired
level of lexical knowledge seems to highlight a general behavior of poor study skills and habits.
In fact, L2 learners appear to fall short whenever the skill requires a more attentive participation
and thorough analysis of the language. With this in mind, the department will implement a
greater variety of grammar activities and tasks in the curricula of the beginning language courses
along with a closer monitoring of students' homework and lab assignments.
37