LA ACADEMY COHORT
COURSE ASSESSMENT: LH 111
Fall 2009
Date: 1-15-10
Department: Foreign Languages and Literatures
Course:
LH 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
LH-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,
Hebrew 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 Hebrew 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 a party goer
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.
Dialogue between student and
instructor on familiar topics, such
as family, lodgings, hobbies.
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 (personified by the
instructor) about themselves, their
family, their hobbies (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
with a new acquaintance, or in a
friend’s house, or share a new
boy/girlfriend’s personal
information with a close friend
(played by the instructor)
regarding general personal
information, family and lodgings.
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
Hebrew 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
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 results
33 students (2 classes) completed the speaking task in Hebrew, and their performance was rated
according to five parameters: listening comprehension, fluidity, pronunciation, vocabulary and
grammar. Student performance was scored using the scoring rubric.
The average score achieved for listening comprehension was 3.09, and the average score for
pronunciation was 2.08. On both these parameters, students on average met expectations.
The average score for fluidity of speech was 2.84; the average score for proficient use of vocabulary
was 2.84, while the average score for accuracy of grammar was 2.54. On these three parameters
students on average almost met expectations (see Chart 1 below):
6
Chart 1
Chart Title
4.5
4
3.5
Axis Title
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Series1
LISTENING FLUIDITY
PRONUNCIATION
VOCABULARY
GRAMMAR
OVERALL
3.09
2.84
2.08
3.84
2.54
2.87
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 Hebrew was 14.03. According to 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 Hebrew are the following: 0 students scored at Level 1, 0-5
points, and their performance does not meet expectations; 12 students (36%) scored at Level 2, 6-10
points, and their performance almost meets expectations; 12 students (36%) scored at Level 3, 11-15
points, and their performance meets but does not exceed expectations; finally, 15 students (45%)
scored at Level 4, and the quality of their performance exceeds expectations. Adding together Levels
3 and 4 gives us a total of 27 students (88%) who meet or exceed expectations, as defined by the
scoring rubric.
B1) Evaluation of student results
The results of the speaking task in Hebrew 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 88%. The largest portion of students (45%)
fell into the category rated as exceeding expectations, which 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 18%.
7
If we look at student performance according to individual parameters, the highest average score was
in listening comprehension, a passive skill. The other four parameters measured active skills.
The two lowest scoring parameters were vocabulary (2.84) and grammar (2.54). 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 skill. In the context
of a speaking task, linguists expect the performance on parameters of vocabulary and on grammar to
be weaker than in the context of a writing task. The student results achieved on each of the
individual parameters coincide with the expected results for a speaking task.
B2) Evaluation of the assessment
A formal evaluation of the assessment tools and assessment process has not been conducted, but
informal reactions were very positive overall. The great majority of students evidently took the
speaking task assessment very seriously, and had studied for it and students gained a real sense of
accomplishment from having participated successfully in the speaking task.
C) Further actions.
The overall average achieved by students on the speaking task in Hebrew shows a satisfactory result,
with 81.81% of students meeting expectations as defined by the Assessment Committee (see Chart 2
below):
Chart 2
18
16
14
Axis Title
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
NOT MEETING EXPECTATIONS (0‐5)
ALMOST MEETING EXPECTATIONS (6‐10)
MEETING EXPECTATIONS (11‐15)
EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS (16‐20)
Series2
0%
18.18%
36.36%
45.45%
Series1
0
6
12
15
The
averages achieved on each individual parameter in Hebrew 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 more complete data is
gathered, 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
8
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.
.
C. Resulting action plan:
Based on A and B, what changes, if any, do you anticipate making?
To start “oral training” earlier in the semester and give all the support and attention to those who need more so
that they can better meet expectations.
All in all the results were good out of 100% 18.18% “almost” met expectations. The others either
met (36.36%) or exceeded (45.45%) the expectations for a total of 81.81%.
9
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
SITUATIONS FOR ORAL ASSESSMENT IN HEBREW
GREETINGS
A new student joined your class. You want to know him better and you ask him/her following
information
Possible questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Where do you live?
How do you feel today?
How old are you?
What is your nationality?
What are your hobbies?
What do you like or dislike?
Did you have good friends in your last school?
Could you describe them?
? ‫ איפה אתה גר‬.1
? ‫איך אתה מרגיש היום‬
‫את‬/‫בן כמה אתה‬
? ‫איזה אזרחות יש לך‬
‫ת לעשות בזמן הפנוי‬/‫את אוהב‬/‫מה אתה‬
? ‫את לא אוהבת לעשות‬/‫מה אתה‬
‫י עליהם‬/‫היו לך חברים טובים בתיכון? תספר‬
10
DESCRIPTION OF LODGINGS
Describe your room/apartment at the University or at home. Describe the pieces of furniture in
it, what colors are used. Explain if you need or want other pieces of furniture. Tell why you like
or do not like the room/apartment:
Possible questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Do you live in a house or an apartment?
How big is it? How many rooms?
Do you like living with your parents or alone with roommates?
Where does your family live?
How is your room?
Do you have any pets?
Do you like to do your homework at home or in the school library?
‫תאור מגורים‬
‫י‬/‫ תסביר‬.‫ הצבעים‬,‫ תאר את הריה וט‬.‫תארי את המגורים שלך באוניברסיטה או בבית‬/‫תאר‬
.‫י אם אתה אוהב או לא אובה את המגורים שלך‬/‫ תגיד‬.‫אם אתה צריך או רוצה ריהוט נוסף‬
? ‫אתה גר בדירה או בבית‬
? ‫כמה גדול זה? כמה חדרים‬
? ‫אתה אוהב לחיות עם ההורים שלך או לבד עם חברים‬
? ‫איפה המשפחה שלך גרה‬
? ‫איך החדר שלך‬
? ‫יש לך חיות בבית‬
?‫ספר‬-‫אתה אובה לעשות שעורי בית בבית או בספריה של הבית‬
11
APPENDIX II
RUBRIC FOR ORAL ASSESSMENT IN HEBREW
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
12
Summary & Conclusion
Generally speaking, data have portrayed a quite uniform acquisition scenario among the six
language groups tested. As shown in Chart 1 below, the majority of students met and exceeded
the standard set up for the course, namely Chinese (97%), French (88%), German (82%),
Hebrew (81%), Italian (86%), and Spanish (88%). The percentage of students that performed
below the expected level was irrelevant, and, in some languages, null. The number of students
that almost reached the expected proficiency level was also uniform among the different
languages ranging from the 3 percentile and the 18 percentile.
Chart 1
Percentage of students in each proficiency level among the six languages tested
70
60
Chinese
50
French
40
German
30
Hebrew
20
Italian
10
Spanish
0
Below
Almost Lev
Level
Exceed Lev
The scenario does not substantially change when we take a closer look at how students
performed with each parameter tested, namely “Listening Comprehension”, “Fluidity”,
“Pronunciation”, “Vocabulary”, and “Grammar”. Results, in fact, do not report significant
discrepancies among these parameters as well as the six language groups. As indicated below,
for each parameter, students reached or slightly exceeded the expected level (3.0).
Chart 2
Accuracy rates of the five parameters among the six languages
4
3.5
Chinese
3
French
2.5
2
German
1.5
Hebrew
Italian
1
0.5
Spanish
0
Listening
Fluidity
Pronunc.
Vocab.
Grammar
Interestingly, the typology and the complexity of the sound pattern of a language do not seem to
delay the development of a particular speaking skill. For instance, the tone system that
13
characterizes languages such as Chinese does not create major acquisition delays to students
whose native phonological system is quite different.
In conclusion, given the overall positive outcomes obtained, we can safely assume that
the instruction time, the teaching methodology practiced and the tools used appear to be effective
in helping our students reach the desired oral ability.
14
LA ACADEMY COHORT
Spring 2010
Date: 6-3-2010.
Department: Foreign Languages and Literatures
Course:
LH 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
LI-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.
15
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,
Hebrew about themselves, their city, address, phone number, school schedule. They will also be able to describe
their classmates, family, friends,
their family or hobbies by answering questions in prompted dialogues.
hobbies, and daily activities.
2. Demonstrate ability to accomplish
simple communicative tasks on
every day topics such as greeting
people or introduce themselves to
others, or describing their life in
school or at work, or during their
spare time.
3. Read and understand and
write simple texts on the abovementioned topics.
4. Understand and use essential
vocabulary related to everyday
life.
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 be able to understand a small text about the daily routine of
small children. They will also be able to describe in writing form about
themselves, their hobbies, their plans, their families.
Students will be able to provide vocabulary relating to their daily activities.
16
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 Italian 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.
17
TABLE 6: ASSIGNMENT, OUTCOMES, ACTIVITIES, AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Briefly describe the assignment that will be assessed:
The final exam will be used as the assessment tool to evaluate students’ abilities in listening, reading, and
writing as well as their knowledge in vocabulary and grammar.
Listening comprehension abilities will be evaluated by asking the students to listen to three paragraphs: one
about a student going to study to Israel while his family stays in N.Y.; the other one about a couple arguing
about the date and their respective occupation on specific days; the third one about daily life. Students need
to answer questions, then complete a true or false section and a multiple choice section.
Reading abilities will be evaluated by asking the students to read two passages: one about two children
discussing the importance of their parents on their way to school; the other about a student at QCC, his daily
routine and his parents’ occupation. Students need to answer questions in one instance and T/F in the other.
Vocabulary knowledge will be assessed by asking the students to complete two sections: they had to choose
the appropriate word (out of a provided list) to complete a sentence in vocabulary.
Grammar accuracy will be assessed by asking the students to complete four sections using the correct verb
conjugations; to choose the correct demonstrative adjectives in sentences; adjective forms, adverb forms,
and finally plural forms of entire sentences in the singular form.
Writing abilities will be assessed by asking the students to write a composition about themselves: country of
origin and nationality, physical appearance and personality traits (use at least three adjectives)
age and civil status, studies and/or occupation, three daily activities (where, with whom), three
activities you/he/she/ like to do on the weekend, plans for a vacation (where you/he/she want to go,
where are you/he/she going to do, and with whom)..
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.
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.
Curricular objectives
N/A
Briefly describe the range of
activities student will engage in
for this assignment.
For the speaking:
Students will be requested to
complete a task where they need
to exchange personal information
with a new acquaintance , or in a
friend’s house, or share a new
boy/girl friend ‘s personal
information with a close friend
(personified by the instructor)
regarding personal information,
family and lodgings.
For the writing:
Students were required to listen to
3 short passages and answer to
questions; they had to choose the
appropriate word to complete a
sentence in vocabulary; deal with
verb conjugations; to choose the
correct demonstrative adjectives in
sentences; read two passages and
answer to questions and T/F
options; finally, write a
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.)
Students will be requested to complete
a task where they need to exchange
personal information with a new
acquaintance (personified by the
instructor) about themselves, their
family, their lodgings and their
hobbies (see Appendix I).
Listening comprehension abilities
will be evaluated by asking the
students to listen to three
paragraphs: one about a student
going to study to Israel while his
family stays in N.Y.; the other one
about a couple arguing about the
date and their respective
occupation on specific days; the
third one about daily life. Students
18
composition about themselves,
their daily life, their hobbies, and
families.
need to answer questions, true or
false and a multiple choice.
Reading abilities will be assessed
by asking the students to read
three passages: one about two
children discussing the importance
of their parents on their way to
school; the other about a student at
QCC, his daily routine and his
parents’ occupation. Students
need to answer questions in one
instance, and T/F in the other.
Vocabulary knowledge will be
assessed by asking the students to
complete two sections: they had to
choose the appropriate word (out
of a provided list) to complete a
sentence in vocabulary.
Grammar accuracy will be
assessed by asking the students to
complete four sections using the
correct verb conjugations; to
choose the correct demonstrative
adjectives in sentences; adjective
forms, adverb forms, and finally
plural forms of entire sentences in
the singular form.
19
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)
For the speaking:
Students will be requested to
complete a task where they
need to exchange personal
information with a new
acquaintance , or in a friend’s
house, or share a new boy/girl
friend ‘s personal information
with a close friend (personified
by the instructor) regarding
personal information, family
and lodgings.
For the writing:
Students were required to
listen to 3 short passages and
answer to questions; they had
to choose the appropriate word
to complete a sentence in
vocabulary; deal with verb
conjugations; to choose the
correct demonstrative
adjectives in sentences; read
two passages and answer to
questions and T/F options;
finally, write a composition
about themselves, their daily
life, their hobbies, and
families.
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
Hebrew 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).
The parameters used to measure students’ writing
abilities will be to determine whether:
(i) they will provide all the information they have
been asked,
(ii) their writing displays a vocabulary appropriate
to their proficiency level,
(iii) they show an adequate control of the syntactic
structures for an Italian beginning level class.
(iv) Their sentences are fully developed, even
though sporadically connected.
75% of the students tested are anticipated to meet
the course’s expectations as described in the
attached rubric (see Appendix IV).
Students’ vocabulary knowledge will be
determined by calculating the accuracy rates in
providing the correct words or phrases in a given
situation. 75 per cent of them are expected to meet
the course standards (80% accuracy rate).
20
Students’ grammar knowledge will be determined
by calculating their accuracy rates in providing the
correct forms or structures. 75 per cent of them are
expected to meet the course standards (80%
accuracy rate).
Students’ listening comprehension ability will be
determined by calculating their accuracy rates in
providing the correct answers to the questions
asked. 75 per cent of them are expected to meet the
course standards (80% accuracy rate).
Students’ reading comprehension ability will be
determined by calculating their accuracy rates in
providing the correct answers to the questions
asked. 75 per cent of them are expected to meet the
course standards (80% accuracy rate) (see
Appendix III for scoring scales).
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 (oral ability)
What does this show about what and how the students learned?
23 students completed the speaking task in Hebrew, and their performance was rated
according to five parameters: listening comprehension, fluidity, pronunciation,
vocabulary and grammar.
The average score achieved for listening comprehension was 2.34; the average score for
pronunciation was 2.28.
The average score for fluidity was 2.28; the average score for proficient use of
vocabulary was 1.95; the average score for accuracy of grammar was 2.69. In these
parameters students on average almost met expectations (the average was quite close to
the 3.0 mark).
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 Italian was 11.04. According to
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 percentage of
students who achieved each performance level in Italian are the following: 4.34% of
students scored at Level 1, 0-5 points, and their performance does not meet expectations;
30.43% scored at Level 2, 6-10 points, and their performance almost meets expectations;
56.52% scored at Level 3, 11-15 points, and their performance meets but does not exceed
expectations; finally, 8.69% scored at Level 4, and the quality of their performance
exceeds expectations. Adding together Levels 3 and 4 gives us a total of 64.52% of
students who meet or exceed expectations, as defined by the scoring rubric
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 Hebrew show that, as predicted, at least 64.52% 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 81%.
Adding Levels 1 and 2 together, the percentage of students whose performance does not
meet expectations is 35%.
23
If we look at students’ performance according to individual parameters, the highest
average score was in pronunciation (1.78%).
The second highest scoring parameters were ‘listening comprehension’ (2.34%). The
other three parameters: fluidity, vocabulary and grammar all scored very similarly,
respectively 2.28, 1.95, and 2.69.
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 than2/3 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.
C. Resulting action plan:
Based on A and B, what changes, if any, do you anticipate making?
Further actions
The overall average achieved by students on the speaking task in Italian shows a
satisfactory result, with 65% of students meeting expectations as defined by the
Assessment Committee. These results are lower than those obtained in the Oral
Assessment conducted in fall 09 (81%). The Assessment Committee, in consultation
with the faculty of the department, will discuss these results and make recommendations
concerning curriculum and classroom practice for the 2010-2011 academic year.
A. Analysis and interpretation of assessment results: (auditory, vocabulary, grammar,
reading and writing abilities)
What does this show about what and how the students learned?
The data of LH111 students that completed the final exam (assessment tool) in Hebrew was
gathered. Their performance was rated according to five categories: listening comprehension,
vocabulary, grammar, reading and writing.
The results are as follows:
SCORING SHEET‐ LH 111Total Final Overall Listening Vocabulary Grammar
Reading
Writing
16 16 36 16 16 15.43 14.04 25.62
12.73
13.47
23 23 23 23
23
Total 81.29 24
The average score achieved was 81.29%
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: 0-60points=
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.
OVERALL. Student performance …
Does not meet Almost meets expectations expectations Meets expectations Exceed expectations 0‐60 0 61‐78 1 79‐89 8 90‐100 14
0 4% 35% 61% The overall student performance shows that only 61% of students meet or exceed
expectations.
The results for percentage of students in each category are as follows:
LISTENING. Student performance… Does not meet expectations 9.5 Almost meets expectations 10 to 12.5 Meets expectations 13 to 14.5
Exceed expectations 15‐16
0 0 4
19
0% 0% 17.5%
82.50%
VOCABULARY. Student performance …
Does not meet expectations 9.5 Almost meets expectations 10 to 12.5 Meets expectations
13 to 14.5
Exceed expectations 15‐16
1 4 5
13
4.34% 17.39% 21.73
56.54
GRAMMAR. Student performance … Does not meet Almost meets expectations expectations Meets expectations
Exceed expectations 0‐21.5 22‐28 28.5‐32 32.5‐36 6 7 5 5 26.08% 30.46% 21.73% 21.73% 25
READING. Student performance …
Does not meet Almost meets expectations expectations Meets expectations
Exceed expectations 9.5 10 to 12.5 13 to 14.5 15‐16 2 8 5 8 8.7% 34.78 21.74% 34.78% WRITING. Student performance …
Does not meet Almost meets expectations expectations Meets expectations
Exceed expectations 9.5 10 to 12.5 13 to 14.5 15‐16 1 8 4 10 4.35% 34.78% 17.39% 43.48% 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 in the vocabulary, grammar, reading and writing categories show that, (except
for vocabulary) contrary to the prediction, less than 75% of students tested meet or
exceed expectations on the performance of each task. The only category where the
students meet or exceed expectations is listening. The actual percentage of students
tested who meet or exceed expectations in vocabulary is 78.27%, in grammar is 43.46%,
in reading is 56.52%, in writing is 60.87% and in listening is 82.5%
B2) Evaluation of the assessment
.
The results obtained seem to indicate that the assessment tools used and the assessment
process undertaken have been effective in determining our students’ proficiency 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 assessment in Hebrew is 81.29, but the
averages achieved on each individual category in Hebrew show that all areas need to
improve except for listening. The weakest area is grammar. These results need to be
addressed. The committee will meet in the fall to discuss the results and determine
recommendations. It will then share and discuss the recommendations with the faculty.
26
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
SITUATIONS FOR ORAL ASSESSMENT IN HEBREW
GREETINGS
A new student joined your class. You want to know him better and you ask him/her following
information
Possible questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Where do you live?
How do you feel today?
How old are you?
What is your nationality?
What are your hobbies?
What do you like or dislike?
Did you have good friends in your last school?
Could you describe them?
? ‫ איפה אתה גר‬.1
? ‫איך אתה מרגיש היום‬
‫את‬/‫בן כמה אתה‬
? ‫איזה אזרחות יש לך‬
‫ת לעשות בזמן הפנוי‬/‫את אוהב‬/‫מה אתה‬
? ‫את לא אוהבת לעשות‬/‫מה אתה‬
‫י עליהם‬/‫היו לך חברים טובים בתיכון? תספר‬
27
DESCRIPTION OF LODGINGS
Describe your room/apartment at the University or at home. Describe the pieces of furniture in
it, what colors are used. Explain if you need or want other pieces of furniture. Tell why you like
or do not like the room/apartment:
Possible questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Do you live in a house or an apartment?
How big is it? How many rooms?
Do you like living with your parents or alone with roommates?
Where does your family live?
How is your room?
Do you have any pets?
Do you like to do your homework at home or in the school library?
‫תאור מגורים‬
‫י‬/‫ תסביר‬.‫ הצבעים‬,‫ תאר את הריה וט‬.‫תארי את המגורים שלך באוניברסיטה או בבית‬/‫תאר‬
.‫י אם אתה אוהב או לא אובה את המגורים שלך‬/‫ תגיד‬.‫אם אתה צריך או רוצה ריהוט נוסף‬
? ‫אתה גר בדירה או בבית‬
? ‫כמה גדול זה? כמה חדרים‬
? ‫אתה אוהב לחיות עם ההורים שלך או לבד עם חברים‬
? ‫איפה המשפחה שלך גרה‬
? ‫איך החדר שלך‬
? ‫יש לך חיות בבית‬
?‫ספר‬-‫אתה אובה לעשות שעורי בית בבית או בספריה של הבית‬
28
APPENDIX II
HOLISTIC RUBRIC FOR ORAL ASSESSMENT IN HEBREW
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
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
Vocabulary Task Scale (Range: 0 to 16)
VOCABULARY ACCURATE AND ADEQUATE USE OF THE VOCABULARY
SECTION
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)
30
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)
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
31
APPENDIX IV
WRITING TASK HOLISTIC RUBRIC
Exceeds
expectations
Meets
expectations
Almost meets
expectations
Does not meet
expectations
Task
Completion
Level of
Discourse
Vocab.
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%)
Conclusions & Action Plan
32
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).
Table 2
33
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.
34
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.
35