Program Assessment Report
PROGRAM INFORMATION
Date submitted: August 27, 2013
Degree Program(s):
Department Chair:
Report Prepared by:
Next Self-Study due :
Department:
MA TESOL
LLD
Swathi Vanniarajan
Phone:
4-3742
Scott Phillabaum
Phone:
4-7095
2013-2014
E-mail:
scott.phillabaum@sjsu.edu
Note: Schedule is posted at: http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/programplanning/
ARCHIVAL INFORMATION
Location:
LLD 473
Person to Contact:
(Bldg/Room #)
Cookie Galvan
(Name)
4-6642
(Phone)
Assessment schedule is posted at http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/assessment
Please send any changes to the schedule or to student learning outcomes to Jackie Snell
jacqueline.snell@sjsu.edu
Enter the number and text of the SLO in this box (we post reports by
SLO)
Goal 1: Knowledge of language and skills required to understand and explain language systems
1A: Demonstrate an understanding of language as a system consisting of phonology, morphology,
syntax, semantics, lexis, pragmatics, and discourse.
1B: Demonstrate an understanding of an ability to articulate the relationships between the various
intrasentential levels and features of English structure.
1C: Demonstrate an understanding of the structure of meaning in English and of how meaning is
conveyed in structures beyond the structure level.
1D: Demonstrate the ability to correlate the knowledge in objectives 1A, 1B, and 1C, with four skills
of reading, writing, listening, and speaking with sufficient precision to teach and assess proficiency
in English as a non-native language.
Initial Evidence of Student Learning:
These SLOs were assessed in two separate classes. Details from each class are provided separately.
Spring 2012
The following methods were used to assess student learning outcomes:



Phonetics/Phonology Project
Grammar and Discourse Project
Error Analysis Project
In the phonetics/phonology project, students became aware of relationships between their ideals of
English structure and the ways this structure is actually expressed phonologically. In the grammar project
Page 1 of 3
Program Assessment Report
students became aware of different relationships between semantics and syntax that are found in written
as opposed to spoken texts. Students also completed an Error Analysis assignment in which they
interviewed a non-native speaker of English, transcribed the utterances including errors, and provided a
solution to these errors that could be used in language teaching.
The table below presents details on how students fared in section 1 of the course (N=28):
Assignment
A
Section 1
B
C
4 (14%)
24 (86%)
The table below presents details on how students fared on the first two assignments in section 2 of the
course (N=21):
Assignment
A
Phonetics/Phonology Project
Grammar and Discourse Project
B
21 (100%)
16 (76%)
C
D
3 (14%)
2 (10%)
Fall 2012
The following methods were used to assess student learning outcomes:






Transcription Activity
Teaching Speech Acts Project
Lesson Plan Project
Take-Home Exam #1
Take-Home Exam #2
Discussion Board Reflections
The table below presents details on how students fared in the assignments (N=121):
Assignment
Transcription Activity
Teaching Speech Acts
Lesson Plan Assignment
Take-Home #1
Take-Home #2
Discussion Board Reflections2
Overall Grade
A
3 (23%)
3 (25%)
4 (33%)
5 (42%)
3 (25%)
10 (83%)
7 (58%)
A5 (38%)
5 (42%)
3 (25%)
2 (17%)
4 (33%)
0
1 (08%)
B+
2 (15%)
2 (17%)
2 (17%)
2 (17%)
2 (17%)
0
2 (17%)
B
3(23%)
0
3 (25%)
3 (25%)
3 (25%)
2 (25%)
2 (17%)
C
0
3 (25%)
0
0
0
0
The majority of students were able to successfully make connections between phonology, morphology,
syntax, semantics, lexis, pragmatics, and discourse as indicated by their performance on individual
assignments as well as their overall performance in the class (83% of students received grades of B+ or
better). Students scoring in the “A” range made solid connections between these linguistic systems and
were able to translate their understanding of these connections to actual contexts of language teaching.
Those students scoring in the “B” range made adequate connections, but generally fell short in the
1
One student withdrew after the first two assignments. For those two assignments, N=13.
Students received full credit for any reflection that appropriately addressed the given topic. All students
received full credit with the exception of two students who filed to complete two reflections.
2
Page 2 of 3
Program Assessment Report
precision with which they discussed specific linguistic features in their data and in the materials that they
develop for teaching specific aspects of pragmatics and discourse. This reflects the primary challenge
that I have faced when teaching LLD 261.
Change(s) to Curriculum or Pedagogy:
Spring 2012
1) There is a feeling of imbalance in Ling 107 because some of the students are relatively
sophisticated TESOL graduate students, while others are Liberal Studies or Child and Adolescent
Development students with little experience with grammar. One solution would be to get the more
advanced students to help the less advanced ones.
2) If grades are taken to reflect student learning outcome, it appears that most of the students have
learned most of what they are expected to learn in this class. Student performance and
classroom observations lead to these (and other) reflections:
a. Because pragmatics must be examined from both a linguistic perspective and a
sociocultural perspective, students frequently discuss sociocultural factors that influence
language use without connecting those factors to specific details of language. A fair
amount of class time is devoted to examining actual samples of discourse data, and
students are encouraged to ground any analysis in specific details of the language itself.
Perhaps students need to do even more of this sort of analysis in and out of class. What
can the instructor do to better focus students’ attention on language structures in
pragmatics and discourse while not losing sight of how meaning is constructed in actual
language use?
b. The scope of the material poses a challenge to the instructor. No instructor of a course
designed to present semantics, pragmatics, and discourse, and relate those notions to
language teaching can adequately address all areas equally. So much of the material is
brand new for students, and they frequently struggle initially to wrap their heads around
examining language from such a different perspective. As a result, it often isn’t until the
end of the semester that students begin to connect the dots. This raises the question:
How do we decide what to include in course with such a broad scope so that the course
is able to adequately present what is covered without leaving out “essentials” that may
not be addressed in other courses?
3) Changes based on the above reflections are being implemented in Fall 2013. Among the
proposed changes were:
a. Build into the structure of the course that students with more experience in linguistics
work those with less experience.
b. Provide students with more opportunities to examine discourse data in and out of class,
making certain that language remains a focus of their analyses. These assignments
should include in-class data analysis as well as homework assignments.
c.
Develop projects that allow students to examine various topics in semantics, pragmatics,
and discourse that are not specifically addressed in class readings and discussions.
Evidence of Student Learning after Change.
Data from Fall 2012 and Spring 2013, reflecting the results of these changes, are forthcoming.
Page 3 of 3