STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY FORM AY 2006-2007
Degree and
Program Name:
BA Foreign Languages
Submitted By:
Stephen A. Canfield
Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program
(major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your
department. Worksheets are due to CASA this year by June
15, 2007. Worksheets should be sent electronically to
kjsanders@eiu.edu and should also be submitted to your college
dean. For information about assessment or help with your
assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at
http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at
581-6056.
PART ONE
What are the learning
objectives?
How, where, and when are they
assessed?
What are the expectations?
What are the results?
1. Foreign Languages Majors
will, in their language of
concentration, achieve a
proficiency level of
Intermediate-High in
speaking, and listening as
described in the ACTFL
Proficiency Guidelines.
Modified Oral Proficiency
Interview administered once
after completion of second year
sequence and again during the
last two semesters of study.
Data will be collected and
evaluated by Dept. Assessment
Committee
ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines (revised 1999).
See below.
Two (2) Modified OPI
assessment interviews were
given to graduating seniors in
German in May 2007:
Results:
Meets expectations:
2
(Note: It should stated that
both of these graduating
seniors were native German
speakers).
As a mid-program benchmark, Majors in Foreign
Languages will, in their
language of concentration,
achieve a proficiency level of
Intermediate-Low in speaking
and listening as described in
the ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines.
2. Foreign Languages Majors
will, in their language of
concentration, achieve a
Eight (8) interviews were
given to 4th semester students
(FLF/FLG/FLS 2202) chosen
at random and evaluated: 0 French; 4 – German; 4 –
Spanish. .
Portfolio submitted containing
writing samples in the language
of concentration. Data collected
ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines (revised 1999).
Majors will document ability
Results:
Exceeds expectations:
0
Meets expectations:
7
Do not meet expectations: 1
(The data presented below
includes writing samples
collected in the previous
Committee/ person
responsible? How are
results shared?
Departmental
Assessment Committee
is responsible for
communicating these
results to the department
as a whole. The results
are shared in writing at
the same time as they are
submitted to CASA and
discussed in detail at our
first departmental
meeting of each year as
part of our annual
planning process.
See above.
proficiency level of
Intermediate-High in reading
and writing.
and evaluated by the Dept.
Assessment Committee.
to sustain coherent written
discourse on a chosen subject
for at least 1000 words.
assessment cycle -- 20052006 -- since at the time they
were collected they were
reported as such but not
evaluated.) All samples
represent work from upper
division, writing intensive
courses.: 12 – French; 24 –
Spanish; 0 – German
(Note: Writing samples were
collected from German
students but had not been
evaluated at the time of this
report.)
Results:
Exceeds expectations:
4
Meets expectations:
27
Do not meet expectations: 5
3. Majors will know manners,
customs, and ranges of
cultural expression including
the literatures of those who
speak their language of
concentration.
Materials from courses on
culture and literature as specified
in Undergraduate Catalog will be
incorporated into the student's
portfolio
In addition to portfolio
materials derived from class
work, student will document
having taken advantage of
opportunities to connect with
relevant language populations
outside of classroom setting,
e.g. extracurricular activities,
study abroad, travel.
Portfolio contents have still
not been agreed upon.
Study Abroad:
During the assessment period
17 majors completed study
abroad experiences:
1 Costa Rica
5 France
4 Guatemala
2 Mexico (internship)
5 Spain
These numbers represent a
220% increase over 20042005. (It should be noted
that 4 of the students
represented in this profile are
Teacher Certification
candidates and will also
appear in the Assessment
summary for that program.
See above.
4. Foreign Languages majors
will achieve a proficiency
level of at least Novice-High
in one language other than
their language of
concentration.
Successful completion of at least
two semesters of study in a
language other than the language
of concentration will be
documented in portfolio. Dept.
Assessment Comm.
See ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines (revised 1999).
As a secondary note of pride
I would also mention that 29
or our majors completed
study abroad programs
during the same time period.)
13 majors completed work at
or above the 1102 level in a
language other than their
language of concentration.
See above.
ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
Intermediate High
Speaking/Listening : Intermediate-High speakers are able to converse with ease and confidence when dealing with most routine tasks and social
situations of the Intermediate level. They are able to handle successfully many uncomplicated tasks and social situations requiring an exchange of
basic information related to work, school, recreation, particular interests and areas of competence, though hesitation and errors may be evident.
Intermediate-High speakers handle the tasks pertaining to the Advanced level, but they are unable to sustain performance at that level
over a variety of topics. With some consistency, speakers at the Intermediate-High level narrate and describe in major time frames
using connected discourse of paragraph length. However, their performance of these Advanced-level tasks will exhibit one or more
features of breakdown, such as the failure to maintain the narration or description semantically or syntactically in the appropriate
major time frame, the disintegration of
Reading: Intermediate-High readers are able to read consistently with full understanding simple connected texts dealing with basic
personal and social needs about which the reader has personal interest and/or knowledge. Can get some main ideas and information
from texts at the next higher level featuring description and narration. Structural complexity may interfere with comprehension; for
example, basic grammatical relations may be misinterpreted and temporal references may rely primarily on lexical items. Has some
difficulty with the cohesive factors in discourse, such as matching pronouns with referents. While texts do not differ significantly from
those at the Advanced level, comprehension is less consistent. May have to read material several times for understanding.
Writing: Able to meet most practical writing needs and limited social demands. Can take notes in some detail on familiar topics and
respond in writing to personal questions. Can write simple letters, brief synopses and paraphrases, summaries of biographical data,
work and school experience. In those languages relying primarily on content words and time expressions to express time, tense, or
aspect, some precision is displayed; where tense and/or aspect is expressed through verbal inflection, forms are produced rather
consistently, but not always accurately. An ability to describe and narrate in paragraphs is emerging. Rarely uses basic cohesive
elements such as pronominal substitutions or synonyms in written discourse. Writing, though faulty, is generally comprehensible to
natives used to the writing of non-natives.
PART TWO
We have continued to effectively evaluate oral proficiency in our majors. Unfortunately our scheduling of interviews and requests to students to
participate were not as effective as they have been in the past. Nonetheless, the data collected appears adequate and representative of what has
been observed.
We have made a certain degree of progress this period in that we have begun to integrate writing samples into our data. We do, however, have a
distance to go in this endeavor. We are still unsure of how to best construct a process for collecting and evaluating portfolios. For the time being
we are experimenting with several rubrics for evaluating written work including using a structure that parallels the evaluation techniques
associated with oral proficiency.
We are particularly pleased with the data we have been able to obtain concerning study abroad. This is due more to the efforts of Wendy
Williamson in that office than to any grand effort no our part.
PART THREE
Primarily we have learned that our program as currently implemented is working well though we are constantly revamping and updating course
work and course content. Since we began the assessment process, we have introduced numerous changes in our catalog descriptions that allow
more diversified participation and broader access to certain segments of our programs. Such review and change have become routine within the
curriculum building process of the department.
We need to track the students who study abroad better and more effectively integrate them into our assessment procedures. We have not done a
good enough job separating their results in oral proficiency, writing and culture from those of majors who do not avail themselves of the
opportunity. As stated in the comments of the CASA Director, there is a strong known connection between study abroad and oral and cultural
proficiency. We need to document and examine this connection to find ways to better encourage our majors to participate in study abroad
programs.