Chabot College
Program Review Report
Check one:
__X_ SLO Portion of Upcoming ’16-’17
Program Review
(Submitted May 2015 in Preparation for Oct 2015)
___ Revision to ’15-’16 Program Review
(Originally Submitted Oct 2014)
___ Revision to ’14-’15 Program Review
(Originally Submitted Oct 2013)
Submitted on 5/1/15
Contact: Kent Uchiyama
1
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
ESL 112
Spring 2013
1
1
100.00%
Fall 2014
Lisa Bell, Kent Uchiyama
Form Instructions:
 Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported in this
Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Reporting Schedule.
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as
a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE
(CLO) 1: STUDENT EDITS FOR CORRECT USE OF
STRUCTURES COVERED IN THE COURSE
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
75% of students
will score 3 or
higher.
(CLO) 2: STUDENT IDENTIFIES THE STRUCTURES 75% of students
COVERED IN THE COURSE CONTENT
will score 3 or
higher.
(CLO) 3: STUDENT CORRECTLY USES
75% of students
will score 3 or
higher.
STRUCTURES COVERED IN WRITING.
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
79% of students
scored 3 or higher.
74% of students
scored 3 or higher.
74% of students
scored 3 or higher.
(CLO) 4:
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
2
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: STUDENT EDITS FOR CORRECT USE OF
STRUCTURES COVERED IN THE COURSE
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students exceeded our target scores. In fact, they scored higher on this SLO than on
the other two, which was strange for reasons that we'll explain below.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Reading a text and then identifying & correcting the grammar errors is, for most
students, a very difficult task. It requires a suite of quite sophisticated skills:
 the ability to focus on detail,
 the ability to sense when a structure is incorrect, which requires both an
understanding of the structure AND enough familiarity with it to have an
intuitive sense when it's being used incorrectly,
 the ability to determine the correct use in the context at hand.
Students therefore usually find editing for grammar significantly more difficult than
either correctly using a grammatical structure in a sentence or correctly identifying a
grammatical structure. It's surprising, then, that more students met the target score for
this CLO than for the other two.
In our past assessments of ESL 112, very much the same percent of students scored a 3 or
4 for each of the three CLO's: 76-77%. The difference here--79% compared to about
75%--is unique, but not very big. Our best guess is that the relatively small difference in
this assessment is a statistical anomaly rather than an indication of a trend.
B. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: STUDENT IDENTIFIES THE STRUCTURES
COVERED IN THE COURSE CONTENT
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
We came within 1 percentage point of our target score.
3
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
When we assessed this CLO previously, an overall average of 77% of students scored 3's
or 4's. This semester, 74% did. The difference is not large—3%—and the sample size this
semester was small, only 19 students. Again, our best guess that this does not indicate a
trend. If future assessments continue to show a drop from our previous scores, we'll
want to closely examine our pedagogy and see if we can find why this drop has occurred.
4
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: STUDENT CORRECTLY USES STRUCTURES COVERED
IN WRITING.
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
We came within one percentage point of our target score.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
As with CLO #2, the score was two percentage points below our average previous scores,
but this seems too small a difference to be significant.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
5
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No changes were made to the course based on our previous assessments. To the best
that we can tell, this has most likely been due to two reasons.
First, we met our target scores for success, so the seemed to be no urgent need to make
changes.
Second, the course has been taught by only one teacher each semester, and that
teacher has almost always been a part-time instructor. Because of this, it's been difficult to
have an in-depth, program-wide discussion of how the course has been doing. An individual
teacher might changes to pedagogy based on her SLO findings, but these generally did not
reach the next person to teach course. We hope to address this during our next assessment
cycle; the details of the changes we plan to make are explained below.
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
For our next assessment-cycle, we'll assess all our classes during the same semester. At the
end of the semester, our entire faculty will encouraged, as strongly as our contract permits,
to attend a program-wide meeting to discuss our findings and recommend changes to our
program based on them.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
Curricular
Pedagogical
Resource based
Change to CLO or rubric
X Change to assessment methods
6
Other:________________________________________________________________
_
7
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop”
discussion
ESL 109
yes
1
1
100
yes
Noel Marianetti, Kent Uchiyama
Form Instructions:
 Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported in
this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in
aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the
individual CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the
course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES
Defined Target Actual Scores**
INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY Scores* (CLO (eLumen data)
COURSE
Goal)
75% will score 76% scored at
(CLO) 1: Student uses a dictionary to find
level 3 or above.
pronunciation, meaning and usage of unfamiliar words at level 3 or
above.
in a given context
(CLO) 2: Students identifies the meaning of and uses 75% will score 90% scored at
at level 3 or
level 3 or above.
new vocabulary from assigned texts
above.
(CLO) 3:
75% will score 86% scored at
at level 3 or
level 3 or above.
Student identifies and correctly uses common stems
above.
and affixes
(CLO) 4:
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for
this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
8
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the
eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
9
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: Student uses a dictionary to find
pronunciation, meaning and usage of unfamiliar words in a given context
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
The scores were over the target slightly by 1%.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The teacher should spend an extra lesson on dictionary skills including finding
and decoding the correct pronunciation and finding other word forms.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: Students identifies the meaning of and uses
new vocabulary from assigned texts
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
The scores were well above the target level. 90% achieved the goal.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
10
The pedagogical approach was successful. We can improve by trying to identify
the few who are not achieving the goal earlier and ask them to meet outside of
class for extra help.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: Student identifies and correctly uses common
stems and affixes
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
The scores were well above the target. 86% achieved the goal.
3. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The results were very good. I think we can improve by spending an extra class on
the stems and affixes.
11
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the
prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
As in our Closing-the-Loop report for ESL 112, no changes were made to the
course based on our previous assessments. To the best that we can tell, this has most
likely been due to two reasons.
First, we met our target scores for success, so the seemed to be no urgent need to
make changes.
Second, the course has been taught by only one teacher each semester, and that
teacher has almost always been a part-time instructor. Because of this, it's been
difficult to have an in-depth, program-wide discussion of how the course has been
doing. An individual teacher might changes to pedagogy based on her SLO findings,
but these generally did not reach the next person to teach course. We hope to address
this during our next assessment cycle; the details of the changes we plan to make are
explained below.
5. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
Based on the reflections the program is strong in assisting students in acquiring
new vocabulary. We can improve the program by spending an extra class in
teaching dictionary skills and an extra class or two teaching about stems and
affixes.
Also, as mentioned earlier in in this program review, for our next assessmentcycle, we'll assess all our classes during the same semester. At the end of the
semester, our entire faculty will encouraged, as strongly as our contract permits,
to attend a program-wide meeting to discuss our findings and recommend
changes to our program based on them.
12
6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Pedagogical
X Change to assessment methods
Other:__________________________________________________________
_______
13
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
ESL 108: Basic Spelling for ESL
Spring 2015
one
one
100%
Spring 2015
Kent Uchiyama and Lisa Ikeda
Form Instructions:
 Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported in this
Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Reporting Schedule.
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as
a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE )
(CLO) 1: STUDENT CORRECTLY SPELLS COMMONLY USED WORDS IN
ENGLISH THAT FOLLOW CONVENTIONAL SPELLING PATTERNS
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
75% of students
score 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 2: STUDENT CORRECTLY SPELLS COMMONLY USED WORDS IN
ENGLISH THAT FOLLOW NON-CONVENTIONAL SPELLING
75% of students
score 3 or 4
50%
(CLO) 3: STUDENT DEMONSTRATES UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASIC
SOUND/ SYMBOL CORRESPONDENCE OF WRITTEN ENGLISH
75% of students
score 3 or 4
78%
73%
(CLO) 4:
If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
14
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The score of 73% is slightly lower than the targeted score.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
I think giving the assessment immediately after studying the conventional spelling
pattern (“i before e, except after c”) was effective.
B. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The score of 50% was much lower than the desired outcome.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This score was disappointing but not unexpected. The low outcome was due to the
difficulty of the task, the amount of memorization required, and the insufficient practice
time. This is a one-unit class which meets once a week, on Friday. Students had two
hours of class time, in addition to homework, in which to prepare for the assessment.
Clearly, this was not enough practice.
15
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The score of 78% exceeded the level outcome.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Obviously, this result was more satisfying. The students spent much more time on
sound/symbol correspondence because of the supplemental materials I had prepared.
16
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
Our faculty has discussed curricular weaknesses in this course, which focus primarily on the
lack of a satisfactory text for ESL spelling. I started writing a spelling textbook years ago, but
I have not been able to finish it.
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
We have observed measurable improvement in all the CLO scores since we last assessed
the course in 2012. I am teaching the course next semester too, and I plan to use the same
curriculum with more emphasis on the most difficult spelling than I gave it this semester.
After teaching this course several times, I recognize the importance for ESL students to
have tools when they approach new vocabulary so that they can not only spell words
correctly, but read and pronounce them correctly as well. What I would recommend is
increasing the units of the course from one to two or dividing it into two levels.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
xCurricular
xPedagogical
xResource based
Change to CLO or rubric
Change to assessment methods
17
Other:________________________________________________________________
_
18
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the
semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop”
discussion
Faculty members involved in
“Closing the Loop” discussion
ESL 116A
Fall 2013
1
1
100
Fall 2013
Ana DelAguila (ECD bilingual
program coordinator)
Form Instructions:
Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment
reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix
B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.
Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in
aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.
Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the
individual CLO.
Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the
course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE
Defined Target Scores* Actual Scores** (eLumen
COURSE-LEVEL
(CLO Goal)
data)
OUTCOMES
INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL
DIFFER BY COURSE↔)
(CLO) 1:
Target: That 75% of class 80% of students at 75%
Use simple present and
score 75% or above
or above
continuous tenses, form
affirmative statements,
negative statements and
questions using
appropriate auxiliary verbs
in simple present and
present progressive tenses
(CLO) 2: use common Target: That 75% of class 90% of students at 75% or
terms in metalanguage that score 75% or above
above.
describes English grammar
(CLO) 3:
Target: That 75% of class 80% of students at 75% or
identify the main idea and score 75% or above
above
19
supporting examples in a
reading
(CLO) 4:
Target: That 75% of class 75% of students at 75% or
organize a paragraph with score 75% or
above
a topic sentence followed
by supporting ideas
(CLO) 5: Define, exemplify Target: That 75% of class 80% students at or above
and recognize the
score 75% or above
75%
meaning of vocabulary
learned in textbook
readings about child
development.
↔ If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate
success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based
on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: Use simple present and continuous tenses,
form affirmative statements, negative statements and questions using appropriate auxiliary
verbs in simple present and present progressive tenses
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
About 80% of the students were able to do this 80% of the time in their writing
at the end of the semester, as judged by last grammar test and their final in-class
writing test.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
There was significant gain in their ability to form the negative and interrogative
in the simple present. Their knowledge of simple present and simple past
question formation is solid as we did oral drills often with everyone chiming in.
They got to see the logic of the pattern if it was written out in 3 columns side by
side. Their knowledge of question formation in the present progressive was
shakier as we spent much less time on it because of the need to endlessly
review the 3 forms of the 3rd person singular of the simple present. (affirm,
negative, interrogative). If I gave more pages of homework in the simple present
perhaps we could move onto the present progressive faster and include it earlier
on in the course.
20
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: use common terms in metalanguage that
describes English grammar
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
90% —almost 100% percent of the students were able to distinguish a noun
from a verb or adjective or adverb, as the notion of 4 different possible parts
of speech with varying suffixes is exactly the same in Spanish. Problems
arose when discussing finer points like possessive pronouns, object
pronouns and subject pronouns….which look terribly similar.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
I had to spend more time on the possessive adjectives like he—>his, she—> her,
you—> your and use very concrete illustrations they all could write about like
photos the Obama family, videos of children who were clearly male or female
and use error correction exercises borrowing their own sentences anonymously.
The confusion partly springs from the fact that the formal word for “your” is
Spanish is exactly the same words as “his” and “her” in Spanish and it was a
hard habit to break them of , this translating in their minds. They’d write a
summary of a Charlie Brown video calling his dog Snoopy “your dog” five times
rather than “his dog.”
I’m still in love with the smart classrooms and all the
ways they allow me to present grammar in real-life contexts and keep 40 people
awake until 9:30 at night. We not only have the document camera, but access to
any youtube video that matches the topic, a dvd player and unlimited possibilities
to prepare my lessons with links or images beforehand walk in and open
googledrive. Gone are the days of bringing in n100 magazine photos cut out.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: identify the main idea and supporting
examples in a reading
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
80% success. Hoped for at least 75%. The majority of the students were able to
get the general opinion, main idea or message of a reading.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
I needed to explicitly teach them to read with a pencil in hand, put a start
by big ideas, try to summarize in the margin as they go.
21
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: organize a paragraph with a topic sentence
followed by supporting ideas
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
Barely on target. 75% of the students were able to do this, that is, assemble
more than a narrative of events.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
One issue was that several students who worked full time and had kids never
returned second drafts. Paragraph organization was stressed more in the
following semester with this identical group of students, that is, in ESL 149J,
more than this one ESL 149I. I repeatedly used the metaphor of the “sandwich”
which means you start with a general topic (bland bread), then give specific
examples (the meat, the spicy bit) then end with another general sentence
repeating the same idea (the bread again). It was helpful to them to hear me
read aloud good models of classmates’ writing. It will be helpful to impress on
them the equal importance of writing assignments by adding their due dates to
the syllabus alongside the exam dates. It appears that the students take more
seriously formal assessments typed on paper that have dates announced in
advance, numerical scores and the name “text.”
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: Define, exemplify and recognize the
meaning of vocabulary learned in textbook readings about child development.
Barely on target. 75% of the students were able to do this, that is, assemble
more than a narrative of events.
Reflection: based on the their multiple-choice vocabulary tests, about 80% of
the students were able to recall the vocabulary practiced in class. Those who
failed were often the same ones who missed a lot of class days, were never
qualified for this level of class to begin with, or who worked full-time while taking
9 units and having young children . Attendance impacted test performance
considerably.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment
cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
One of many CLOs was “proofread a test for errors.”
There was an unexpected bonus that came from my explicitly teaching mini spelling
22
lessons every week or so at the beginning of class (based on their most frequently
misspelled words in their weekly writings, words that to them resemble homophones,
etc) The effort paid off although it is considered more of an adult school level SLO, I
found it lacked so greatly for half the class that I had to include it to bring them up to
community college ESL level. I had to cover irregular plural nouns repeatedly as it
seems to defy logic, was a persistent error, and was covered in the textbook we used.
This partly accounts for the lesser amount of time spent on (and less progress) in the
area of paragraph organization.
One added area of explicit teaching I added from previous semesters was pronunciation
and phonics lessons, particularly of vowel blends, silent letters and letters that make
multiple sounds as in first grade. Many of the students had never studied English in
their life, never speak it outside my classroom, and had no idea of the basic rules of
English phonics and groups of words which follow one pattern or another. It paid off my
reading a big picture book aloud on while projecting the words and image on the
document camera, letting each student have a turn reading two pages, or having them
repeat after me the words that caused trouble, and also bringing several picture books
and having them read aloud to each other in small groups . In such a large class,
inevitably one person knew the correct pronunciation and could correct someone.
Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and
programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions
has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections,
discussions, and insights?
This year I discussed with some members of the ESL department and the person
coordinating the bilingual Spanish-English ECD program whose students were all
automatically enrolled in this course the difficulty it poses for an instructor to have
students who are TOTAL beginners admitted to a class whose level is low intermediate.
After several years of this, I convinced the program to administer a writing sample
assessment test to screen who would meet the basic requirements to begin in this
level. This means that in the future, the dozen students who don’t know a word in
English and cannot yet write or speak a sentence will be told to attend class at any
Adult school int he area rather than jump in a class too hard for them. That will make it
possible for me, the instructor, to actually teach the material and CLOs intended in the
course outline and not backtrack several levels .
What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
x Curricular = I’ll be able to stick to the intended course material as I won’t
have students several levels beneath the level who need to be brought up
to speed.
x Pedagogical= I may have 10 students I identify immediately as more
advanced be in charge of an assigned working group next semester.
23
It is impossible for me to tutor ten lost people at once but there is always
someone else who can explain.
x Resource based = I’ll be adding as text the same grammar textbook
used in ESL 110A, which is a 6-unit course of the same level (in theory) as
this 3-unit course, ESL 149I.
Change to CLO or rubric
x Change to assessment methods= never use multiple choice tests with
number or letters on them, as it becomes too easy for students to cheat
(“help friends”)
Other:______________________________________________________
___________
24
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the
semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop”
discussion
Faculty members involved in
“Closing the Loop” discussion
ESL 116B
Spring 2014
1
1
100`
Spring 2014
Kent Uchiyama (ESL) & Ana
DelAguila (ECD)
Form Instructions:
Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment
reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix
B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.
Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in
aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.
Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the
individual CLO.
Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the
course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE
Defined Target Scores* Actual Scores** (eLumen
COURSE-LEVEL
(CLO Goal)
data)
OUTCOMES
INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL
DIFFER BY COURSE↔)
(CLO) 1:
Target: That 75% of class 75%
organize a paragraph with score 75% or above
a topic sentence followed
by supporting ideas
(CLO) 2: Form
Target: That 75% of class 80%
affirmative statements,
score 75% or above
negative statements and
questions using
appropriate auxiliary verbs
in both simple present and
simple past tense
(CLO) 3:
use appropriate forms of
Target: That 75% of class 80%
score 75% or above
25
possessive adjectives,
prepositions of time and
place, and pronouns:
subject, object, possessive
and demonstrative
(CLO) 4: distinguish
75%
between verbs and modals Target: That 75% of class
such as can , will , should score 75% or above
and correctly use the base
form of a verb that comes
dirtily after a modal (rather
than an infinitive)
(CLO) 5: Proofread a text for Target: That 75% of class 70%
score 75% or above
errors in subject-verb
agreement and
punctuation.
↔ If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate
success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based
on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
75% is not a great outcome, but just on target for a group so large and with so
many unprepared for the level of course.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
I will introduce basic paragraph organization earlier in the semester in the
future. Paragraph organization was easier for those who had a solid English
vocabulary and could step back to focus on the big picture, rather than flip
through a dictionary to find a word in every sentence, sweat over the spelling of
individual words one by one. I waited until the last half of class to stress
paragraph organization, so it was given less time than vocabulary building and
grammar. So many students were absolute beginners far below the level for this
low intermediate class and had trouble forming single sentences for lack of
vocabulary, let alone series of related sentences. It seemed like I’d be putting the
cart before the horse, so I stressed in class free-writing and personal narrative
writing as ways to build simple basic writing fluency.
Considering that the
large class size (40), perhaps the success rate was not as bad as it seems. I’d
rather see actual score reach at 90% of students at proficiency, but those
students who never took an English class in their life before landing in my
26
intermediate English class still managed to learn a lot, just not 100% of material.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
80% of a class of 40 students is higher than the minimum 75% I proposed. But
I’d like to see it closer to 90% or more.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is one area I drilled and drilled them on: affirmative statements, negative
statements and questions using appropriate auxiliary verbs in both simple present
and simple past tense. It is the basis to writing any coherent English sentence for
any future college course. Their success rate (85%) shows the attention paid to
this elemental first-month English grammar knowledge. We give time to what
matters to us. Many of my students learned pigeon survival English on the street
or around toddlers. In my opinion, now was the time to learn correct English
grammar to open doors for them in their future . I told my students that in any job
interview they go to, they want to sound smart and educated, and that correct
grammar could help them make a good impression. I would joke with them if they
finish 4 months with me and don’t know that CHILDREN is already plural, and
that if they say “CHILDRENS” at a job interview, I’m going to cry. It helped to put
everything we learn in a very clear concrete context—not just the new vocabulary
being learned but even the reasons why we’re bothering to learnt and why we
should bother to learn correct grammar. These are very practical women and
they appreciate that.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
We were slightly above target for my goal of 75% knowing at least 75% of the
time. Learning multiple forms of pronouns: subject, object, possessive and
demonstrative, was a big challenge.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The textbook we used only dedicated a page or two to this, so I had to supplement
a lot. Seeing the glass half-full, 80% success still means 1 in 5 students can’t really
reliably choose the right form 75% of the time. It can lead to miscommunication
working in a preschool when a person doesn’t know the difference between when
to use HIS and HER and YOUR. A they all plan to work with groups of English27
speaking children, they really need to know the correct forms to communicate and
give directions and ask kids to share and know what belongs to
whom. Possessive adjectives were harder than memorizing which time phrases
to use “in” with and which to use “on” with. Since I’ve also taught Spanish to
Americans, I know that the Spanish language blurs the line between what in
English we consider second and third person and worse still, Spanish possessives
must agree with the gender of the inanimate thing or child possessed and NOT with
the OWNER, so there was a great amount of first language interference going on in
their heads. It required using lots of magazine photos for casual conversation
describing the children in the pictures to make it more automatic—her skirt, his
shirt, their mom. Many things are too abstract to teach from textbook model
sentences and real life contexts make it easier. I will definitely repeat activities that
successfully made clear the usage. We watched Charlie Brown’s friend Linus lose
his blanket and they had to write his sister, his blanket, his mom, other times we
saw a bit of a family drama each night and then stopped and wrote 10 minutes
about what the father wanted, his culture, the daughter, her culture, her mom, her
dad, his wife, her boyfriend, etc. The students often didn’t want to stop writing after
10 minutes and produced a whole page when I asked for just half a page in their
journal.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
The objective to distinguish between verbs and modals such as can , will , should
and correctly use the base form of a verb that comes dirtily after a modal (rather
than an infinitive) was lofty but worth it. 80% success 75% of the time is on-target.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The vast majority of the class were ready for this, so I didn’t want to water down
my curriculum leaving it out even though 1/5 were not quite ready to deal with the
distinction. It helped frequently drilling them on if they could remember the 9
modals I’d taught them or listing 15 verbs & modals mixed together and seeing if
they could pick out the modals. It may have been doubly challenging that I picked
this (and mainly their most common errors from their writing) as the grammar points
to have on their tests, but it was the only way to maximize the 17 classed we had
together. One-day-a-week classes make it hard to cover and retain a lot of
concepts.
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: Proofread a text for errors in subject-verb
agreement and punctuation.
The objective was for 75% of the students to be able to spot errors in Subject-Verb
agreement and punctuation 75% of the time, but fell short at 70%.
28
The objective wasn’t quite met and will need to be worked in the future in whichever
classes these students take. I’ll admit I paid less attention to punctuation than
grammar, introducing it more towards the end of the semester. Even native English
speakers have trouble recognizing comma-splice and run-on sentences. We
labeled every subject and verb in sentences , hunted for conjunctions like and or
but, worked on actual sentences they had written copied anonymously as
exercises and having individuals come up to the screen to point out where to put
periods.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the
prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
I repeated the daily use of video as a basis of in-class writing since it was so
successful in motivating students in the previous incarnation of this class
(ESL 149J)
I cut back on use of Scan-tron multiple choice tests. The opportunity to cheat
became too great .
Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
I will not be adding students who appear without the prerequisite course any
longer. It created too much work and backtracking and re-teaching material
that should have bee learned already.
It was decided this year, Fall 2014 that finally not every single student who
applied to the bilingual ECD program would have to take my ESL 149 (now
116) classes.
If in the Chabot Assessment Center it was discovered that they were absolute
beginners , they’d be told to attend Adult School ESL classes before. This will
simplify my job and make it easier to progress at the intended speed and not
need to reteach vocabulary concepts that were really prerequisites.
x Curricular = I’ll be able to stick to the intended course material as I won’t
have students several levels beneath the level who need to be brought up
to speed.
Pedagogical
X Resource based = We’ll begin to use two textbooks-one reading/
vocabulary focus and one purely grammar for homework.
29
Change to CLO or rubric
x Change to assessment methods= never use multiple choice tests with
number or letters on them, as it becomes too easy for students to cheat
(“help friends”).
Use more in-class writing as assessments.
Other:______________________________________________________
___________
30
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: _ESL_____

PLO #1: Write at least 750 words of clear and coherent prose using largely error-free standard
American English.

PLO #2: Decode, summarize, and paraphrase shorter and book-length texts of academic,
artistic, and journalistic prose.

PLO #3: Comprehend and respond appropriately to spoken English both in conversational and
college-level academic contexts.


PLO #4: Orally communicate one's thoughts clearly and completely using largely error-free
standard American English, both in conversational and college-level academic contexts.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
These assessments and closing-the-loop discussion take place in the context of a larger
conversation concerning our program and the approach we take to skills acquisition. These three
courses--ESL 108, 109, and 112--were created years ago to provide extra skills development in areas
where our students often seemed to need work. Since we began tracking SLOs, our students in these
classes have, overall, consistently met the SLO target goals, which certainly suggests that these classes
are having the desired effect. We are, however, wondering if we could do a better job of skills
development by broadening our curriculum as a whole rather than relying on a few appended courses.
We recently proposed expanding Chabot’s ESL program to match that of our sister college, Las Positas
College. This proposed curriculum would give students at each level more opportunities to work on
reading, writing, speaking, listening and grammar. It would, we believe, therefore provide more
development in vocabulary, spelling and grammar, but within the context of our core classes. A
problem that was noted more than once in these conversations is that often only one instructor teaches
ESL 108, 109, and 112 each semester. By integrating vocabulary, spelling, and grammar support into the
core curriculum, all our instructors could be comparing notes and making suggestions in real time as we
teach these courses. We’re not sure if we’ll get funding to make this change—it’s pricey—but we feel
confident that our future data would bear out our intuition that it would be a more effective way of
developing these skills.
31
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
As noted above, these ancillary skills courses seem to be doing what they were designed to do.
Our SLO data indicates this, and in addition to that, our students achieve high levels of success when
they matriculate from our program and take English 101A and 102. Their success rates in these classes
match, and sometimes even exceed, the success rates of the overall Chabot average. The question
remains, as we noted above, of whether we could be doing even better.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Our proposal to expand the ESL curriculum is currently before Chabot’s Enrollment
Management Committee. Should it not pass, we plan to make what changes we can to our present
curriculum, including implementing two new courses to bridge the ESL program and English 1A, so that
ESL students can move directly to transfer English. We would then retool our curriculum from the top
down so that each level adequately prepares students for the next. This new bridge program is being
written this semester by a team of English and ESL instructors and should be up and running in a year or
two. In future program reviews, we’ll assess our new data to see if these changes have brought about
the improvements we’re hoping for.
32
33