PROGRAM PLANNING REPORT
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
B.A. LINGUISTICS, MINOR IN LINGUISTICS, M.A. LINGUISTICS, M.A. TESOL, ACADEMIC ENGLISH
COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND THE ARTS
HTTP://WWW.SJSU.EDU/LINGUISTICS
Department Chair: Swathi Vanniarajan, Dept. of Linguistics and Language Development, 1 Washington Sq., San
Jose, CA 95192-0093, Swathi.Vanniaraja@sjsu.edu, 408-924-3742
Faculty Program Plan Leader: Soteria Svorou, Dept. of Linguistics and Language Development, 1 Washington Sq.,
San Jose, CA 95192-0093 Roula.Svorou@sjsu.edu, 408-924-1379
External Reviewers: Dr. Lise Menn, Professor Emerita of Linguistics, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1625
Mariposa Ave., Boulder, Colorado 80302, Lise.Menn@colorado.edu, 303-413-0017
CV: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/docs/cv_jan_2014.pdf
Dr. Juan Carlos Gallego, Professor of TESOL and Spanish, Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, CSU
Fullerton, 800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92831, jgallego@fullerton.edu, 657-278-2562,
CV: http://hss.fullerton.edu/mll/faculty/pdf/GallegoCV2013.pdf
Date of Report: May 13, 2014
Date Due to PPC: Spring 2014
Current Chair of Program Planning Committee: Jinny Rhee, Jinny.Rhee@sjsu.edu
UGS Administrative Support for Program Planning: Nicole Loeser, Nicole.Loeser@sjsu.edu
Submissions: Reports are to be submitted electronically via email. Please email the program plan, request for
external reviewer (if applicable), and external reviewer’s report to programplanning@sjsu.edu. In addition, please
cc the above email on all communications with the dean, external reviewer, Program Planning Committee, and
UGS on matters pertaining to your program plan.
1
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
The Linguistics Program
Mission and Goals
Curricular Content
Societal need and employment opportunities for linguistics graduates
The TESOL Program
Mission and Goals
Curricular Content
Societal need and employment opportunities for TESOL graduates
Service Courses
General Education Courses
Academic English Program
LLD/ENG 100A
Other service courses
Department’s strengths
5
5
5
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS, CHANGES, AND PROPOSED ACTIONS
Progress on action plan of previous program review
11
Significant changes to the program and context
13
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING
B.A. Linguistics Program
Program Learning Objectives (PLO)
Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULG)
Matrix of PLOs to Courses
Assessment Data
Assessment Results and Interpretation
Placement of Graduates
M.A. Linguistics Program
Program Learning Objectives (PLO)
Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULG)
Matrix of PLOs to Courses
Assessment Data
Assessment Results and Interpretation
Placement of Graduates
M.A. TESOL Program
Program Learning Objectives (PLO)
Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULG)
Matrix of PLOs to Courses
Assessment Data
Assessment Results and Interpretation
Placement of Graduates
Academic English Program
Program Learning Objectives (PLO)
Assessment Data and Interpretation
LLD/ENG 100A
Program Learning Objectives (PLO)
Assessment Data Interpretation
14
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
2
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
PROGRAM METRICS AND REQUIRED DATA
Enrollment, Retention, and Graduation rates
Headcount in Sections
FTES, Induced Load Matrix
Composition of FTES by Program
Induced Load Matrix
Enrollment in minors, certificates, and service courses
FTEF, SFR, Percentage T/TT Faculty
22
23
24
24
24
25
26
PROGRAM RESOURCES
Faculty
Support Staff
Facilities
26
27
28
OTHER STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Faculty Accomplishments
Student Accomplishments
Challenges
Synergies
Progress towards the University’s Strategic Plan Goals
29
29
30
30
31
DEPARTMENT ACTION PLAN
31
APPENDICES
A.
Required Data Elements
B.
Accreditation Report (not applicable)
C.
Program PLOs
1. B.A. Linguistics
2. M.A. Linguistics
3. M.A. TESOL
D.
Assessment Results
1. Linguistics Assessment and WASC
2. Linguistics Student Self-Assessment
3. TESOL Program and WASC
4. M.A. Linguistics Comprehensive Exam Results
5. M.A. TESOL Comprehensive Exam Results
6. List of Master’s theses completed in 2009-2013
7. LLD/ENG 100A impact on 100W performance in comparison
to passage of WST
E.
Program Descriptions, Planning Forms, Culminating Experiences
1. B.A. Linguistics major description; Planning Form
2. M.A. Linguistics description; Planning Form
3. M.A. in TESOL description
4. M.A. Comprehensive Exam Information
5. LLD Guidelines for the Master’s thesis option
6. Comparison of SJSU’s Linguistics Programs with Programs
from other Universities
F.
Assessment of the Linguistics Programs Foreign Language Requirement
1. B.A. Linguistics
2. M.A. Linguistics
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
33
34
60
61
62
63
64
67
77
79
81
83
84
85
87
90
92
94
96
97
97
3
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Alumni Survey Instruments and Results
1. B.A. Linguistics Alumni Survey
2. M.A. Linguistics Alumni Survey
3. M.A. TESOL Alumni Survey
PLO-ULG Maps
1. University Learning Goals (ULGs)
2. B.A. Linguistics PLO-ULG Map
3. M.A. Linguistics PLO-ULG Map
4. M.A. TESOL PLO-ULG Map
PLO-Course Matrices
1. B.A. Linguistics PLO-Course Matrix
2. M.A. Linguistics PLO-Course Matrix
3. M.A. TESOL PLO-Course Matrix
LLD Department Mission and Goals
Assessment Plans for 2014-2019
1. B.A. Linguistics Assessment Schedule
2. M.A. Linguistics Assessment Schedule
3. M.A. TESOL Assessment Schedule
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
98
113
130
141
142
144
146
148
149
151
154
155
156
157
4
1.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
The Department of Linguistics and Language Development was established in 1991. It is physically located on
the fourth floor of Clark Hall and maintains a department website at http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/. The
Department offers three degree programs, BA Linguistics, MA Linguistics, and MA TESOL, and service courses in
writing (Academic English LLD 1 & LLD 2, LLD 100A, LLD 100WB) and in General Education. In fulfilling the
mission of the California State University as implemented by San José State University, the mission of the
Department of Linguistics and Language Development is to foster understanding of language structure and use
in the context of a technological and multi-cultural society. The Department’s specific goals can be read in
Appendix J.
THE LINGUISTICS PROGRAM
The Linguistics Program offers two degrees: a M.A. Linguistics and a B.A. Linguistics. Additionally, it offers a Minor
in Linguistics, a Certificate in Computational Linguistics, and eight General Education (GE) courses (three in core GE
and five in SJSU Studies).
Mission and Goals
The following goals are emphasized:




To transmit in-depth knowledge of the structure and function of language and its use
and change in various cultural and social settings.
To help students develop critical thinking skills, analytical skills, and reading, writing
and research skills.
To help students develop an understanding of the relationship between linguistic
theories and areas such as computational linguistics, cognitive science, language
acquisition and learning, and language policy.
To help students develop an appreciation for the diversity and dynamic nature of
human languages and cultures in the U.S. and the world.
The B.A. in Linguistics and the M.A. in Linguistics degrees share many program learning outcomes; the differences
reflect varying degrees of depth of knowledge and inquiry of the field. The alignment of program goals and
Program Learning Outcomes for each program appears in Appendix C1 and in Appendix C2, respectively.
Curricular Content
The field of linguistics is interdisciplinary by nature. Many areas of linguistics, such as psycholinguistics,
sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, and neurolinguistics, reflect the intersection of two or more different
disciplines.
B.A. Linguistics
The B.A. in Linguistics is a 120-unit major. The major consists of 36 units -- 21 units of required courses and 15
units of electives. The required courses cover the core of the discipline with courses in phonetics, phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, and historical linguistics. Our elective offerings may be clustered to provide an
informal concentration (along with the required courses) as given below. Two of these clusters also lead to
certificates.
TESOL electives (leading to a TESOL Certificate): LING 107, LING 108, LING 161, LING 166.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
5
Computational Linguistics electives (leading to a Computational Linguistics Certificate): LING 115, LING 124,
LING 165, LING 161, LING 166.
General Linguistics electives: LING 161, LING 166, LING 107, one of LING 122/123/129.
We offer eight courses in the General Education program: three lower division Basic Skills GE courses, LING 20, 21,
and 22, and five upper division SJSU Studies courses, LING 122, 123, 129, LLD 100W, and LLD 100WB. Up to three
of these linguistics GE courses can be used to fulfill requirements in the major. This includes LLD 100W, either one
of the lower division courses (but not all three), when taken prior to taking upper division courses in the major,
and either one of the SJSU Studies courses.
With the advisor’s approval, students may choose one relevant course from outside the department to complete
their elective requirements. Students are also required to fulfill a foreign language requirement. This involves
demonstrating competence equivalent to one-year college-level language instruction in a language other than the
student’s native language. For international students who have gone through their education in a language other
than English, English is considered their foreign language. A detailed description of the program is included in
Appendix E1.
Minor in Linguistics
Students majoring in fields such as World Languages, Communication Studies, English, or Computer Science may
choose to minor in Linguistics. The Minor consists of 15 units. Students are required to take LING 101: Introduction
to Linguistics, LING 111: Introduction to Phonetics, and LING 112: Introduction to Syntax and they can choose 6
units of upper-division electives with their advisor’s approval. In addition, students must fulfill one year of collegelevel instruction in a language other than their native language. With a careful selection of courses, students may
earn any one of the certificates offered by the Department concurrently with the Minor.
M.A. Linguistics
The M.A. in Linguistics was established in 1972. Students with Bachelor degrees from a variety of fields, such as
English, Engineering, Management, World Languages, Psychology, and Anthropology, are conditionally admitted
into the M.A. in Linguistics program. For admission to our program, international students must provide minimum
TOEFL scores of 577 (PBT) or 233 (CBT) or 90 (IBT) or IELTS (7.0) or Pearson (68). All students admitted to the M.A.
Linguistics program must have completed at a minimum LING 101: Introduction to Linguistics, LING 111:
Introduction to Phonetics, and LING 112: Introduction to Syntax (or equivalent courses) with a letter grade of “B” or
better before they become classified students in the program. Classified students take the following 18 units of
core courses: LING 113: Introduction to Phonology, LING 114: Introduction to Semantics and Discourse, LING 201:
Phonology: Theory and Applications, LING 202A: Syntactic Theory, LING 203: Semantic Structures, and LING 213:
Field Methods. In addition to the core courses, students are required to take 12 units of electives toward this 30unit degree. In consultation with their advisor, they can choose from a variety of courses from the graduate
curriculum, the undergraduate curriculum, the M.A. TESOL curriculum, as well as courses offered by other
departments. The list of courses offered by the Department can be viewed in the Catalog.
(http://artic.sjsu.edu/web-dbgen/catalog/departments/LING-courses.html)
In addition to coursework, students must fulfill a culminating experience requirement. To do so, students may
choose Plan A (Thesis option) and take up to six units of thesis work (LING 299: Master’s Thesis) in lieu of six
elective course units. Students who elect Plan B (non-thesis option) are required to take the M.A. Comprehensive
Exam, usually in their final semester (See Appendix E4 for description of the Comprehensive Exam and Appendix E5
for description of the Thesis Option. Most students opt for the comprehensive exam as their culminating
experience.
Students are also required to fulfill a foreign language requirement. For native speakers of English, this involves
demonstrating competence equivalent to two years of college-level instruction in an Indo-European language or
one-year of college-level instruction in a non-Indo-European language (including American Sign Language). For
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
6
international students whose native language is not English and/or the language of instruction for their previous
degree was not English, English satisfies this requirement. A detailed description of the program is included in
Appendix E2.
Alignment with other linguistics programs
The core courses for the M.A. and the B.A. degrees and the Minor conform to program offerings at universities
from across the country. We compared the programs offered by San José State University to programs at two
other CSU campuses—Fresno State and San Diego State, and three Ph.D.- granting institutions-- UC Berkeley,
University of Oregon, and Ohio State University. The core curricula for the B.A., the Minor, and M.A. in Linguistics
are comparable to these universities in terms of number of units and required core courses. However, we would
like to point out that our required course list is more similar to the Ph.D. granting institutions mentioned above
than to other CSU campuses. We consider this to be one of our strengths. SJSU Linguistics offers a broad range of
required classes comparable to the offerings of Ph.D.-granting institutions. For a detailed comparison, please see
Appendix E6.
Computational Linguistics Certificate
This certificate is intended for students either in the linguistics major or in other majors, such as Computer Science,
who would like to gain basic preparation in the area of computational linguistics. The certificate consists of 18
units. Students are required to complete the following courses with a minimum 3.0 GPA: LING 101: Introduction to
Linguistics, LING 111: Introduction to Phonetics, LING 112: Introduction to Syntax, LING 115: Corpus Linguistics,
LING 124: Introduction to Speech Technology and LING 165: Introduction to Natural Language Processing. In
addition, they must demonstrate basic proficiency in a programming language, such as C(++), Java, Lisp, Perl,
Prolog, Python, or Ruby. A proposal to change the course requirements has been approved and will take effect in
Fall 2014. (For details on the new certificate, please see 2b.)
Societal need and employment opportunities for linguistics graduates
Throughout their studies, students in the Linguistics program develop fundamental intellectual skills such as critical
inquiry, oral and written communication, and quantitative and deductive reasoning as they learn to analyze
language and develop and evaluate hypotheses about language structure and function, variation and change. Such
skills are necessary for evaluating context and providing solutions in all aspects of life. Moreover, through their
exposure to characteristics of numerous languages and cultures, students gain multi-cultural perspectives that
contribute to broad social understanding. Graduates are prepared, according to their program, to apply their
knowledge of language in the teaching of language, in the formulation of language policy, in facilitating
communication among members of diverse cultures, and in facilitating communication between humans and
machines.
Graduates of the Linguistics program regularly get absorbed in education, in the computer industry, and in
government- and private industry-sponsored language analysis and research.
In education, our graduates find employment at various levels: at the elementary and secondary education after
completing teaching credential programs; in adult education programs, which are crucial to the lives of recent
immigrants; in community colleges as ESL teachers by combining the M.A. Linguistics program with a TESOL
certificate; in foreign language institutes, such as the Defense Language Institute, as teachers of foreign languages;
and in positions abroad, such as Japan and Korea, teaching English.
In the past decade, the demand for trained linguists to engage in language analysis has increased to
unprecedented levels. Because of the availability of faster and more powerful computer technology and with the
onset of speech and NLP technology, there has been a proliferation of new companies setting out to research,
develop, and bring to market products that use various natural language technologies such as speech technology
(synthesis, recognition), grammar checkers, and information retrieval systems. For the successful undertaking of
such enterprises, language professionals trained in the analysis of oral and written language and the
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
7
representation of linguistic knowledge are in demand. Many have had full- or part-time jobs with companies such
as Microsoft, Oracle, Fluential, TuVox, [24]7, Interface, Sensory, Sony, Apple, Nuance, Amazon, Ebay, among
others. Others have held positions in translation and localization companies and agencies.
Moreover, given the changing international situation, there has been an increased demand for linguists to work on
languages that previously had received less attention in the U.S., such as Arabic, Pashto, and Korean. Our students
and graduates have been in the forefront of filling such positions successfully.
THE TESOL PROGRAM
Mission and Goals
The M.A. in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) was established in 1991. The program
prepares its graduates to become teachers of English in the US or in other countries. The program has five goals
that we expect all students to attain:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Knowledge of language as a system;
Knowledge of language learning theories and processes;
Knowledge of language teaching, including curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment;
Skills and attitudes to apply the above knowledge in a variety of language learning environments; and
The necessary academic research and communication skills to be professionals.
The alignment of program goals and program learning objectives can be found in Appendix C3.
Curricular Content
Students with Bachelor degrees from a variety of fields may be conditionally admitted provided they complete two
prerequisites (LING 107: Patterns of English and LING 101: Introduction to Linguistics) each with a letter grade of
“B” or better, after which they become classified. Classified students take the following 24 units of core courses:
The core courses are LLD 250W: Becoming a Professional in Linguistics/TESOL; LLD 260: English Structures for
Teaching I; LLD 261: English Structures for Teaching II; LLD 270: Second Language Acquisition; LLD 271: Intercultural
Communication and Second Language Acquisition; LLD 280: Methods and Materials for TESOL; LLD 283: Curriculum
and Assessment in TESOL; and LLD 282: Practicum in TESOL, which is a supervised capstone course in which
students teach ESL students in a local classroom. In addition to the core, students are required to take 6 units of
electives toward this 30-unit degree; they choose from a TESOL elective (in recent years, the only one regularly
offered has been LLD 293: Teaching Developmental Reading and Writing: Principles and Practice); or a variety of
courses in Linguistics. See Appendix E3 for detailed M.A. TESOL program description.
The sequence in which students take these core courses can vary somewhat, but we strongly advise all students to
take LLD 250W in their first year since this provides a strong orientation to both the writing and the research skills
that they will need in the program and beyond. Toward the end of their coursework, students must fulfill a
culminating experience requirement. Most students select Plan B, the Comprehensive Exam. If a student desires
to do a thesis (Plan A), it is incumbent upon the student to seek agreement from faculty members who are willing
to serve on the thesis committee. In this case, the student takes up to six units of thesis work (LLD 299: Master’s
Thesis) in lieu of the six elective units.
MA TESOL students also have a unique opportunity to gain practical experience on campus as tutors and coaches
for developmental writing students. Through the Language Development Center (LDC), which hires graduate
students as coaches, they participate in a community of learners, acquire teaching strategies, and provide a
valuable service to our university's most needy students. It is a win-win situation because the MA TESOL students
gain experience and are mentored by the LDC director, and at the same time the university's developmental
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
8
writing students gain the support they need in order to be academically successful. With the proposed Stretch
program, the LLD faculty is worried about the future of LDC and the potential loss of training ground for MATESOL
students.
Students are also required to fulfill a foreign language requirement. For native speakers of English, this involves
demonstrating competence equivalent to one year of college-level instruction in a language other than English. For
international students whose language of instruction for their previous degree was not English, English satisfies
this requirement. For admission to our program, international students must provide minimum TOEFL scores of
577 (PBT) or 233 (CBT) or 90 (IBT) or IELTS (7.0) or Pearson (68).
Alignment with professional TESOL standards
The demand for TESOL degrees is growing rapidly in the era of globalization, and the spread of English as a lingua
franca is spurring many private institutions around the world to "jump on the bandwagon" and offer their version
of a TESOL degree or certificate. Many of these degrees and certificates are lacking in a strong theoretical
foundation. Our program has earned an uncompromising reputation for its high standards and solid foundations
in both theory and practice. The MA TESOL program at SJSU is the only one in the San Francisco Bay Area to offer a
TESOL degree (other programs offer degrees in English with a TESOL concentration). The program not only aligns
with the guidelines provided by the International TESOL organization, which include five domains of expertise –
language, culture, instruction, assessment and professionalism, but goes several steps farther: in keeping with
cutting edge scholarship in the field, we emphasize language teaching in a context of globalization, world
Englishes, pragmatics, and teaching of academic writing to struggling writers. We are able to provide these
perspectives because of the expertise of our faculty, several of whom have research interests in these growing
areas.
TESOL Certificates
The Department offers two certificates in TESOL, both comprising 18 units of coursework. For the graduate
certificate, students take LING 101, LING 107, LLD 270, LLD 271, LLD 280, and LLD 283. For the undergraduate
certificate, they take LING 101, LING 107, LING 108, LING 166, and two electives approved by the TESOL
coordinator. Students need to maintain a 3.0 average in these courses in order to receive the certificate.
Societal need and employment opportunities for TESOL graduates
SJSU is located in Silicon Valley, the epicenter of globalization. The constant inflow of immigrants from various
parts of the world to Silicon Valley and the globalization of the US economy has resulted in a worldwide need for
English language teachers who can understand not only the language but also the acculturation problems that new
and aspiring immigrants experience. A Master’s degree in TESOL gives one a specialist education in teaching the
English language to any social group in any part of the world. Apart from teaching English worldwide, the TESOL
training, in general, provides one with advanced research, interpretive, analytical, evaluative, and interpersonal
skills. As a result, TESOL graduates can start their careers as language teachers, language researchers, document
analysts, document interpreters, speech analysts, speechwriters, foreign language translators, foreign service
officers, English language officers, researchers in anthropological linguistics, test developers, curriculum specialists,
communication specialists, and program evaluators.
SERVICE COURSES
General Education Courses
Every semester during the period under review, the LLD Department has offered one or more sections of our three
lower division (“Core”) GE courses and of our five upper division (“SJSU Studies”) GE courses. The Core GE courses
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
9
are LING 20: The Nature of Language, LING 21: Language and Thinking, and LING 22: Language across the lifespan.
The SJSU Studies courses are LING 122: English as a World Language; LING 123: Sound and Communication, LING
129: Culture, Language, and Ethnicity in the U.S, and LLD 100W: Writing Workshop and LLD 100WB: Writing
Workshop for Business Writers. The last two courses fulfill the SJSU Studies area Z requirement for disciplinespecific writing workshops. The first course, LLD 100W: Writing Workshop, though aimed primarily at linguistics
majors, serves students from several other departments as well. The second course, LLD 100WB: Writing
Workshop for Business Students, was first offered in Spring 2007 as one of three successor courses to Business
100W, which the College of Business decided to stop offering. Our present courses position the Department to
serve students from a broad range of disciplines in most subject areas of the University’s GE program. (See
discussion in section 4c and Appendix A, RDE Exhibit 4.)
The academic quality of all of our GE courses is enhanced by the Department’s adherence to strict guidelines and
reporting requirements imposed by the SJSU Board of General Studies (BOGS) in order for courses to earn
continuing GE certification. A detailed assessment report on all our GE courses can be accessed on this link:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7CGh4XVEyYzcE40cUVMVzBzY28/edit?pli=1
Academic English Program
LLD 1 and 2 Academic English serve as the University's basic or developmental ("remedial") English requirement in
fulfillment of CSU Executive Order 665. Students with scores on the CSU's English Placement Test (EPT) of 138 or
below are required to take LLD 1 for 3 non-baccalaureate units during their first semester at SJSU; LLD 1 students
are also required to enroll in a 2-unit integrated lab program run through the Language Development Center (LDC).
Students with EPT scores of 139-146 are required to take LLD 2, a somewhat more advanced course that does not
require simultaneous enrollment at the LDC. Students who perform well enough in either course have the
possibility of fulfilling their official "remedial" requirement in their first semester; LLD 1 students may also progress
in their second semester to LLD 2, though no repeats of either LLD 1 or LLD 2 are currently permitted; students
who fail either course must fulfill their remedial requirement elsewhere (generally, at community colleges).
LLD/ENG 100A: Writing competency through genres
LLD/ENG 100A: Writing competency through genres, is a new service course that was developed by the
Department in collaboration with the Department of English and Comparative Literature and the Writing
Requirements Committee in 2011. The course, if passed with a C or higher, serves as an alternate satisfaction of
the Writing Skills Test (WST) for students who have had difficulty (at least one failed attempt) in passing the WST.
As the title suggests, the course focuses on developing rhetorical awareness -- the ability to analyze the context,
audience, purpose, organizational patterns, style, and other elements of professional writing across a variety of
disciplines -- and to write effectively within a few selected genres. Because it satisfies the Graduation Writing
Assessment Requirement (GWAR), the course is held to rigorous assessment standards, with norming and group
grading required on both the final portfolio and exam. Since 2011, LLD has offered approximately ten sections each
semester and English has offered six.
Other Service Courses
The Department also offers two other service courses: LING 107: Patterns of English and LING 108: Second
Language Development and Teaching. LING 107 and 108, in addition to being electives in the B.A. Linguistics
program and part of the Undergraduate TESOL Certificate program, also fulfill requirements in the B.A. in Liberal
Studies – Preparation for Teaching.
DEPARTMENT’S STRENGTHS
In our perception, what follows are the strengths of the Department of Linguistics and Language Development:
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
10







2.
The overall strength of the Department of Linguistics and Language Development is in its ability to offer robust
graduate programs in TESOL and Linguistics, a rigorous undergraduate program in Linguistics, and courses in
General Education and developmental writing. The department also offers a vibrant and well-recognized
computational linguistics certificate program. Students who have completed the Computational Linguistics
Certificate have succeeded in getting jobs in high-tech companies such as Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Nuance
Communications, to name a few. Among the departments in the College of Humanities and the Arts, it is the
Department of Linguistics and Language Development that has the largest graduate program. It is also the
department that has the largest number of international students.
The Department consists of ethnically, nationally and linguistically diverse faculty, all of whom are involved in
active scholarship with an excellent publication record and national and international reputation. The faculty
regularly direct student Master’s theses, in spite of their heavy workload, and many of these theses have won
recognition awards at the College and the University levels.
Although small in terms of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the Department boasts extreme collegiality
among its members, creating a pleasant and congenial work atmosphere.
The MA TESOL program has so far graduated more than 1200 students; the Linguistics degree programs about
500 students. The Department enjoys a high success rate in its students getting admitted to Ph.D. degree
programs in highly competitive universities or getting job placements in high-tech industries or in adult
education programs/community colleges.
The Department has also been providing service to about 1500 undergraduate students every year by helping
them improve their academic English language and writing, and critical thinking skills so as to enable them to
gain confidence and academic caliber and to graduate in time.
The Department has received external grants to the amount of $1.35 million in the last four years. No other
department in the College can come close to these numbers.
The Language Development Center (LDC), another major strength of the Department, is not only a training
ground for the MA TESOL and Linguistics students who are interested in language teaching, but also a major
FTES generating unit (unlike other tutoring centers) for the College, since students enrolled in programs
offered by the LDC pay regular tuition fee to the amount of one or two units.
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS, CHANGES, AND PROPOSED ACTIONS
Progress on action plan of previous program review
The table below lists the recommendations from the previous program review and the progress made in
implementing -- or not -- of each recommendation by program or area of departmental function.
BA Linguistics
MA Linguistics
Curriculum
AREA
Previous Recommendations
Progress
Change the required units
within the 36-unit major
from 18 to 21.
Graduate approximately 30
students per AY.
With the addition of LING 162, the required units are now 21.
DONE
Although not consistently, the number of BA LING graduates
is increasing every academic year
In progress
Increase number of
students graduating with a
thesis as their culminating
experience
25% of graduates in the current cycle opted for the thesis. Ten In progress
students wrote a thesis, compared to 8 in the previous review
cycle.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
Summary
11
MA TESOL
Offer English for Specific
Purposes (ESP) courses in
the summer.
The ESP concentration has been discontinued due to
inadequate summer enrollment and lack of funding to hire TT
faculty with ESP expertise.
Develop Computer-assisted
language learning courses
We are still exploring possibilities to develop such courses
Provide more opportunities
for practical training
Develop Student Learning
Objectives
Move away from exam-only
format for LLD 1/2
Solve the issue of conflicting
information from LLD 1/2
instructors and LDC tutors
Collaborate with the
Department of English and
Comparative Literature to
address issues of academic
writing
Integrate LLD 1/2 with MUSE
courses
Put in place assessment data
collection procedures
Offer additional lower
division GE courses
Tighten advising procedures
and career advising
Recruitment
Enrichment
Students
Advising
General
Education
Academic English
Develop a Certificate in
Academic Reading and
Composition
Build ties with community
college advisors and local
high schools
Establish a regular
colloquium series under the
charge of a faculty member
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
Halted
In progress
Practical experiences, such as designing a curriculum or
In progress
creating lesson plans have been built into syllabi of various
courses, such as LLD 280 and 283. In addition, we are
exploring on how to include more micro-teaching into our
curriculum
Although the recommendation has not been implemented as In progress
of yet, the Department is keen on pursuing the development
of this certificate in collaboration with the Department of
English and Comparative Literature and the Department of
Secondary Education.
Specific SLOs have been developed for LLD 1/2 and LLD 100A
DONE
courses
An overhaul of the curriculum has resulted in the change to
DONE
portfolio assessment for the courses
The LDC Director, with input from tutors and instructors,
DONE
revised the tutor training curriculum and put together a
training manual
LLD faculty and English faculty worked collaboratively and
DONE
created a new course, LLD/ENG 100A, a course that replaces
the Writing Skills Test for students who have repeatedly failed
the test. The collaboration now continues for the development
of the “stretch” ENG 1A writing course
The University has discontinued the MUSE program
N/A
A procedure for data collection has been implemented,
including a 5-year schedule of SLO assessment, for course
coordinators, and for department GE coordinator
LING 22: Language across the lifespan has been introduced in
Core GE Area E Human Understanding and Behavior
All incoming and continuing students receive advise in
beginning of the year and mid-semester orientation sessions
and individually by their assigned advisor. Advisors regularly
contact students. Up-to-the-minute information is
disseminated via a listserv and Facebook. The website is
updated but not as frequently as we would like due to the lack
of a designated webmaster. Career advising is done by
advisors. Job opportunities are disseminated via the student
association listserv and through our Facebook page
Our participation in the North American Computational
Linguistics Olympiad (NACLO) has brought us in contact with
local high schools. We have established relations with some
community colleges in the area and will continue to pursue
more.
DONE
Although regularity has not been established due to lack of
funds for invited speakers, students have been proactive in
creating a very successful student symposium where they have
been presenting their work and receiving feedback.
http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/symposia/2013_symposium/
In progress
DONE
In progress,
always
In progress
12
Workload
Faculty
Resources
Hire new TT faculty
There have been no new hires. Two faculty members have
been on FERP, one has retired completely
NOT DONE
due to
budget
Provide release time for
chairing master’s theses
committees and for writing
external research grants
Although the number of MA theses has increased, there has
been no release time available for that or for writing external
grants
NOT DONE
due to
budget
Provide travel money for
conference participation
Travel money from the University has practically disappeared;
the Department has very little to give; the H&A Dean has
allocated $750 for faculty at Assistant and Associate Professor
levels during AY 2013-14.
NOT DONE
due to
budget
The .5 Administrative
Assistant position needs to
be made full-time.
The .5 Administrative position was eliminated completely. The
Department is left with only 1.0 position.
NOT DONE
due to
budget
Hire a part-time lab
technician for the phonology
and computational
linguistics labs
No such hiring has been achieved due to budgetary issues.
Although the Phonology Lab is up and running the
Computational Linguistics Lab has been homeless for two
years.
NOT DONE
due to
budget
Upgrade computers in the
LDC, CL 242, and faculty
offices
Computers in LDC CL 242, and full-time faculty offices have
been updated by purchasing new ones or upgrading existing up
to their maximum capacity. More than half of the computers in
part-time offices have been upgraded up to their maximum
allowable capacity (some of them are XP machines). The
remainder will be updated as and when funds become
available
DONE
Significant changes to the program and context
BA Linguistics
As an increasing number of lower division students have been declaring linguistics as their major as a result of
taking one or more of LING GE courses (LING 20, 21, 22), we have changed our policy to allow for one lower
division LING GE course (3 units) to be included in the units for the major, if that course was taken before taking
any upper division courses in the major. This change has a significant impact in speeding students’ completion of
graduation requirements.
Computational Linguistics Certificate
The Computational Linguistics Certificate has undergone significant revisions for two reasons: first, to strengthen
the interdisciplinary training by allowing students to take relevant courses from other departments in lieu of LING
111 and LING 112, and, second, to increase the job prospects of the certificate recipients. The revised version
includes three core courses, LING 115, LING 124, and LING 165, and three elective courses towards the total of 18
units to be chosen with advisor’s approval depending on the student’s background, needs, and interest. The
revised certificate will be in effect starting Fall 2014.
New Courses
Two new courses have been added to our offerings: LING 22: Language Across the Lifespan, a Core GE Area E
(Human Understanding & Development) and LLD/ENG 100A: Writing Competency through Genres. LING 22 has
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
13
been offered at least once a year since Fall 2011. We strive to build the enrollment in this course to be able to offer
more sections. LLD/ENG 100A: Writing Competency through Genres is described in Section 1, Service Courses.
Academic English
Since the department's last 5-year review, the LLD 1-2 program has undergone a major overhaul. Traditionally,
students in these courses were assessed via a single end-of-semester final exam on a prompt for which students
received no preparation. In the last five years, LLD 1-2 faculty worked collaboratively to reform that outdated
system in two steps: first, changing the final exam to one involving readings for which students could prepare; and
second, to a full portfolio system that eliminated the final exam entirely. Students are now assessed on a portfolio
containing three essays (including their multiple revisions) and a reflective cover letter. While the format and
length of those essays are set by the program, course content remains instructor-decided. All instructors meet on a
Saturday toward the end of the semester for a norming session on the portfolios. LLD 1-2 faculty have found this
system to result in an optimal "middle ground" between program cohesion and instructor autonomy. It is
unfortunate that LLD 1 and LLD 2 may get replaced by Stretch English in the near future though previous
evaluators have always spoken in favor of recommending this model of developmental English programs to other
CSU campuses. If LLD 1 and 2 get replaced by Stretch English, it is more than likely that some of our part-time
faculty members may lose their employment with the university. If LDC also disappears, it will be unfortunate since
our TESOL students will lose training opportunities, and this may ultimately result in the TESOL program losing its
attraction for prospective students.
Grants
The Department has been active in seeking external funding. Dr. Vanniarajan has secured a grant for $1.2 million
for three years from the U.S. Department of State to establish a University Partnership with Azad Jammu &
Kashmir University (AJKU), Muzaffarabad, Pakistan that will result in collaborative research and in the
development of 18 training modules on mutually agreed upon content areas. Dr. Koo has also been successful in
getting four grants for a total of $250,000 for research and work in computational linguistics in the last five years.
Through his grants, he was able to offer part-time employment to several of our students. Other faculty have also
applied for external grants, though unsuccessfully. We conclude that some release time is needed to work on the
grant writing, since writing grant proposals requires extensive research and there is huge competition for less and
less money becoming available.
Budget
The state of the SJSU budget, specifically as it concerns the College of Humanities and the Arts, has had a very
negative effect on our implementation of our action plan from the previous review cycle. The lack of funding for
administrative support and computer lab technician has impeded day-to day operations and has put an increased
burden on faculty and the Chair to do tasks otherwise delegated to administrative staff. The lack of full support for
travel has practically halted faculty enrichment, who have to pay their own way out of their below standard
salaries to go to conferences in hope of satisfying RTP requirements. The enrollment-driven course planning has
not allowed us to even think about offering assigned time for thesis supervision and whatever increase in the
number of students graduating with a thesis option has occurred only because of the good will of the faculty and
not because there is any institutional support for it. There have been no new tenure-track hires and our full-time
faculty basis is shrinking because of retirements. We continue to support our GE and degree curricula by filling the
gaps with part-time faculty.
3.
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING
Assessment of student learning for all programs has been a regular exercise in the Department. Following the
schedule set during the previous program review, each semester we assessed a number of Program Learning
Objectives (PLOs) and discussed the data during curriculum meetings and retreats with the participation of all fullLLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
14
time faculty. What follows is a result of deliberations at those faculty meetings. The report on assessment is
organized by degree program.
B.A. LINGUISTICS PROGRAM
Program Learning Objectives (PLO)
The Program Learning Objectives of the B.A. Linguistics program are listed in Appendix C1. The basic goals of the
program have not changed since the last review. As a result of input from students and our own deliberations, we
made the following changes to the PLOs:
 The numbering of the PLOs was changed to reflect the way linguists think about the levels of language
analysis, from sounds to meaning.
 New PLO 1A has an added clause reflecting what is actually covered in courses: “Apply concepts of
acoustic theory in analyses of speech data.”
 New PLO 1C was reworded to match the current perspective on phonology: “Analyze linguistic sound
patterns in terms of their function, their structure, and the pressures that influence their change over
time.”
 New PLO 1E was simplified in its wording.
In Fall 2011, we evaluated the PLOs of both the B.A. Linguistics and the M.A. Linguistics programs using the WASC
rubric. The report that resulted appears in Appendix D1. In subsequent semesters, we worked to advance student
self-assessment. In a preliminary survey of student opinion, we found out that students were not adequately
aware of PLOs and did not practice self-assessment with regards to the PLOs. In the following semester, we
included the PLO-Course matrix in the relevant greensheets and conducted the survey again at the end of the
semester. The report with the results appears in Appendix D2. We continue to address issues in order to achieve
“highly developed” PLOs.
Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULG)
We believe that the B.A. Linguistics PLOs, supplemented by the SJSU General Education Student Learning
Objectives, cover all areas of the University Learning Goals. The map of the B.A. Linguistics PLOs to ULGs can be
found in Appendix H1.
Matrix of PLOs to Courses
The matrix maps of the B.A. Linguistics Program Learning Objectives to individual courses and assessment
techniques can be found in Appendix I1.
Assessment Data
The current assessment plan for the B.A Linguistics program, prepared in 2008 after our last department review, is
available on this website: http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/faculty/programrecords/Humanities/Linguistics/index.html.
Direct assessment data were collected from various courses according to PLO addressed. Following assessment of
PLOs at the individual course level, annual assessment reports were filed. By the end of the five-year cycle all of
the PLOs were assessed and implementation of the recommended changes has been well on the way.
Annual assessment reports can be found, organized by academic year, at Undergraduate Studies Program Records
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/faculty/programrecords/Humanities/Linguistics/index.html . Course level assessment
reports are in the Department archives and are available upon request.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
15
Indirect assessment data about student experience in the program were collected using an on-line alumni survey.
The survey instrument and results can be found in Appendix G1. Fifty alumni, who graduated between 2008 and
2013, were sent the survey. Of those, 11 responded, a 22% response rate.
Assessment Results and Interpretation
We have been conducting assessment of PLOs continuously and have been implementing the recommended
adjustments to the curriculum as appropriate. The adjustments made during the past five years can be
summarized in the following:
 more class time spent in data analysis and exercises;
 more contact with students outside of class time for extra help;
 creation of detailed handouts for more support;
 creation of new tools for better assessment of student performance on specific topics; and,
 reformulation of some PLOs, as specified above.
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to one-year college level study in a language other than their native
language was assessed by studying student files and records. The findings of the study are reported in Appendix
F1.
We are generally pleased with the outcomes of the direct assessment process and will continue to improve our
courses for the benefit of our students.
The results of the alumni survey detailed in Appendix G1 are also generally positive. In summary, the responding
students have reported having received “adequate” to “excellent preparation” in all content areas and among
those who continued for a MA degree in a related field found the preparation they received “excellent”. One
student pointed out the need for more preparation in statistics for students opting for the Computational
Linguistics certificate. We concur with this view and have revised the certificate to allow for inclusion of statistics
courses among others in order to accommodate student needs. Responders have also commented positively on
other experiences in the program, such as academic advising, although some have pointed out that they wish they
had had more career advice as they made progress through the program. We understand the need for career
advice and help and we are planning to make career advice a goal to pursue for the next five years.
Placement of Grads
The few graduates who have responded to our survey have pointed out difficulties in securing a job in the field.
Those who are interested in teaching were able to find employment. Others have sought employment outside the
field of linguistics. Some of the graduates, recognizing what is practically true for the linguistics field in general,
namely the need for advanced degrees, have continued on for a higher degree in Linguistics or in TESOL.
M.A. LINGUISTICS PROGRAM
Program Learning Objectives (PLO)
The Program Learning Objectives of the M.A. Linguistics program are listed in Appendix C2. The basic goals of the
program have not changed since the last review. The changes to the PLOs resulting from our assessment activities
are the following:


The numbering of the PLOs 1A and 1B was changed to reflect the way linguists think about the levels
of language analysis, from sounds to meaning.
PLO 1C was reworded to better capture the competencies currently pursued in the relevant courses:
“Analyze sentence structure of typologically diverse languages using current formalism and explain
how syntactic and semantic structures interface.”
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
16


PLO 2A was changed to more accurately reflect the process of linguistic analysis: “Extract patterns
from complex data sets, motivate categorization procedures, and apply learned analytical principles
over such patterns.”
PLO 3E was added to capture student preference for historical linguistics as a possible elective:
”Identify phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic changes in the history of a language,
discuss the contribution of social factors to language variation and change, explain the genetic and
typological classification of languages, and use the comparative method to reconstruct ancestors of
related languages.”
Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULG)
The M.A. Linguistics PLOs align well with the ULGs. The map can be found in Appendix H2.
Matrix of PLOs to Courses
The matrix maps of the M.A. Linguistics Program Learning Objectives to individual courses and assessment
techniques can be found in Appendix I2.
Assessment Data
The current assessment plan for the M.A Linguistics program, prepared in 2008 during our last department review,
is available on this website: http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/faculty/programrecords/Humanities/Linguistics/index.html .
As with the undergraduate program, assessment data were collected from various courses according to PLO
addressed and discussed at Curriculum Committee meetings and at departmental retreats throughout the fiveyear period since the last program plan. Following assessment of PLOs at the individual course level, annual
assessment reports were filed. By the end of the five-year cycle all of the PLOs were assessed.
As there is some overlap in PLOs between the undergraduate and graduate program, here only the PLOs that are
unique to the graduate program will be addressed. Annual assessment reports can be found, organized by
academic year, at Undergraduate Studies Program Records:
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/faculty/programrecords/Humanities/Linguistics/index.html. Course level assessment
reports are in the Department archives and are available upon request. Culminating experience data are culled
from two sources: from the comprehensive exam and the completed theses. Comprehensive exam results and
reflections can be found in in Appendix D4. A list of Master’s theses appears in Appendix D6.
Indirect assessment data of student experience in the program were collected using an on-line alumni survey. The
survey instrument can be found in Appendix G2. 39 alumni who graduated between Spring 2009 and Summer 2013
were sent the survey. Of those, 17 responded, a 43% response rate.
Assessment Results and Interpretation
The adjustments made during the past five years can be summarized in the following:
 more class time spent in data analysis and exercises;
 more contact with students outside of class time for extra help with designing and implementing
research for term papers;
 creation of visual aids to help students compare and contrast differing theoretical positions;
 creation of new tools for better assessment of student performance on specific topics; and,
 reformulation of some PLOs as specified above.
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to one-year college level study in a language other than their native
language was assessed by studying student files and records. The findings of the study are reported in Appendix
F2.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
17
We are generally pleased with the outcomes of the direct assessment process and will continue to improve our
courses for the benefit of our students.
The results of the alumni survey detailed in Appendix G2 are also generally positive. In summary, the responding
students have reported having received mostly “excellent preparation” and some “adequate preparation” in all
content areas and supplemented with very positive comments in the open-ended question relating to the quality
of the program. Two students recommended adding a course on etymology to the curriculum. Another suggested
that we make a greater effort in tying the theoretical aspects of the curriculum (Phonology, Syntax, and Semantics)
to the applied aspects, specifically to computational linguistics. We concur with this view and we will plan to create
such ties. Responders have also commented overwhelmingly positively on other experiences in the program, such
as academic advising. In terms of career advice, however, students pointed out that the circulation of job
opportunities via the listserv and discussion with individual professors, although helpful, were not providing
adequate exposure to the available jobs.
Placement of Grads
The information on employment of our graduates we received from the survey presents a good picture of where
our graduates find employment. The computer industry in the Silicon Valley absorbs a high percentage of our
graduates, and education follows next. Of the 17 respondents to the survey, eleven sought and found
employment in a linguistics-related field holding positions such as “Linguistic Content Developer”, “Speech Analyst
> Program Manager”, “Google Ads Rater”, “Localization Project Manger” and “Speech Annotator”. Others have
found employment in education as “Lecturer”, “Academic Tutor”, “Adjunct Faculty” in the U.S. and abroad, and in
translation and interpretation. Three alumni went on to pursue Ph.D. programs in Linguistics and in Psychology and
have unanimously found the preparation they received “excellent”. The remaining respondents explained that
they already had a career in teaching or elsewhere and had pursued linguistics out of personal interest in the field.
M.A. TESOL PROGRAM
Program Learning Objectives
The current “Program Learning Objectives” of the TESOL program are listed on the Department web page:
http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/programs/tesol/ma_tesol/goals_ma_tesol/ . In Fall 2011, we evaluated these PLOs
using the WASC rubric. The report can be found in Appendix D3. In continuously striving to improve our program,
we have realized that the current program’s emphasis on globalization needs to be made more visible in the goals.
Also, Goal 5, rather than only focusing on research and communication skills as it does now, should represent a
synthesis of Goals 1-4. Thus, the revised goals 4 and 5 are as follows:


Goal 4: Ability to understand and analyze the processes of linguistic and cultural globalization and
their impact on English language learning, teaching, and communication.
Goal 5: Effectively teach English learners in a variety of contexts and maintain an active professional
role as a teacher- scholar.
The revised set of goals and PLOs can be found in Appendix C3.
Map of the PLOs to the University Learning Goals (ULG)
The TESOL PLOs align well with the University Learning Goals as can be seen in the matrix provided in Appendix H3.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
18
Matrix of PLOs to courses
The matrix mapping the TESOL Program Learning Objectives to individual courses and assessment techniques can
be found in Appendix I3. All courses carry the prefix “LLD”, except for the two prerequisites, LING 101 and LING
107. All ten core courses and the two program prerequisites are listed on the Catalog: http://artic.sjsu.edu/webdbgen/catalog/departments/LING-courses.html .
Assessment Data
The assessment plan for the TESOL program, prepared in 2008 after our last department review, is available at this
link: http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/faculty/programrecords/Humanities/Linguistics/index.html . Over a period of five
years, all PLOs were assessed by direct methods as specified in the reports and discussed at Curriculum committee
meeting and retreats. Annual assessment reports can be accessed at the Undergraduate Studies Program Records
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/faculty/programrecords/Humanities/Linguistics/index.html . Individual course
assessment reports are in the Department archives and can be retrieved upon request. Culminating experience
data are culled from two sources: from the comprehensive exam and the completed theses. Comprehensive exam
results and reflections can be found in Appendix D5. A list of Master’s theses appears in Appendix D6.
We have also administered an on-line alumni survey to graduates from Spring 2009 to Summer 2013. Survey
requests were sent to 109 alumni and 20 responses were received at an 18% response rate.
Assessment results and Interpretation
As can be seen on the annual PLO assessment reports
(http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/faculty/programrecords/Humanities/Linguistics/index.html ), the department has been
diligent in carefully considering how well students succeeded in meeting PLOs. Many suggestions have been made
by instructors and the LLD curriculum committee for course improvements that would advance student
achievement. Many of those suggestions have been implemented, and results have been noted in the reports. The
changes implemented involve:
 developing assignments that address the problematic issues,
 pairing students in complementary ways according to their background so that they can receive
varied input,
 making clarifications on instructions of assignments, and
 giving additional feedback on student work.
Indirect assessment obtained through the MA TESOL alumni survey (Appendix G3) provides further valuable input
for the program. Respondents rated their preparation in content theoretical areas mostly as “adequate” or
“excellent” but were mixed in their preparation to integrate listening, speaking, and reading skills in teaching, to
create lesson plans, and to assess language learners and prepare curricula according to their needs. These ratings
were clarified in the open-ended comments, where alumni made suggestions for improvement. They have
recommended more attention to practical aspects of the TESOL preparation, more balance between theory and
practice, more attention to lesson plan preparation in all courses. They have also pointed out the need to update
the curriculum and to develop a certificate in teaching composition.
Placement of Grads
Of the 20 alumni responding to the MA TESOL Alumni Survey, 12 (60%) report having found employment in the
TESOL field as ESL instructors at community colleges and Intensive English Programs (IEP), as lecturers at the
university level, domestically and abroad, and as teachers or instructional coaches at middle schools. Less than half
are currently employed on a full-time basis, despite their desire to be full-time. They point to the imbalance of
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
19
supply of TESOL graduates versus the demand of full-time ESL positions in California as a factor, exacerbated by
the on-going fiscal crisis. This situation has forced some to seek employment outside the field.
ACADEMIC ENGLISH PROGRAM
Program Learning Objectives
LLD 1 and 2, pre-baccalaureate non-credit courses for incoming frosh, are standalone courses under the auspices
of LLD and SJSU’s Undergraduate Studies, and therefore the learning objectives for the courses act as the Program
Learning Objectives. The learning objectives for both courses are:
ACADEMIC ENGLISH PROGRAM LEARNING OBJECTIVES (PLOs): By the end of this course,
students will be able to:
Use academic vocabulary as learned and acquired from college dictionaries, word
analysis, and contextual information;
Respond critically to both expository and argumentative reading assignments;
Identify and produce different kinds of writing to meet different purposes and audiences;
Identify and comprehend the main idea and subordinate ideas in both spoken and written
academic texts;
Observe and discuss their own and their peers’ composing processes in order to develop
their own compositions from inception to completion;
Identify and use the surface-structure conventions (grammar) of written English.
Assessment Data and Interpretation
For the LLD 1-2 courses, semester-to-semester student pass rates are available in the table below. Apparent from
those data is a steady increase in pass rates, i.e. more students fulfilling SJSU’s “remedial writing” requirement and
entering English 1A to continue their studies at the university. Please note that from Spring 2010 the University
implemented a no-repeat policy for LLD 001; in addition, there have been no freshmen admissions (domestic or
international) during the same semesters; hence, the table contains blanks for 2010-2012 spring semesters.
RESULTS
F08
Comm.Coll.
LLD001
LLD002
ENGL 1A
Total #
students
S09
F09
#
%
#
%
#
%
203
303
249
755
27%
40%
33%
100%
84
65
89
238
35%
27%
38%
100%
95
282
333
710
13%
40%
47%
100%
S10
Class
not
offer
ed
F10
#
10
%
2%
264
318
592
44%
54%
100%
S11
Class
not
offer
ed
F11
#
24
%
4%
339
267
630
54%
42%
100%
S12
Class
not
offere
d
F12
#
9
%
2%
216
193
418
52%
46%
100%
LLD 001 Student Results and Placement – 2008-2012
RESULTS
F08
#
Comm.Coll.
LLD002
ENGL 1A
Total #
students
S09
%
#
F09
%
#
S10
%
#
F10
%
S11
F11
S12
F12
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
88
13%
51
20%
4%
20%
76%
24
98
356
5%
21%
74%
53
0
566
5%
100%
480
100%
619
393
542
42%
58%
271
346
44%
56%
176
543
24%
76%
57
213
21%
79%
530
87%
205
80%
31
167
638
935
100%
617
100%
719
100%
270
100%
608
100%
256
100%
836
95
%
100
%
LLD 002 Student Results and Placement – 2008-2012
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
20
LLD/ENGL 100A
Program Learning Objectives
LLD 100A is, also, a standalone course that students take after repeated failing scores on the university’s Writing
Skills Test (WST). To that end, it fulfills a writing proficiency requirement for junior-rising students, and does not fit
into any particular “program.” The learning objectives on the course greensheet – as vetted by the university’s
Writing Requirements Committee (WRC) – are as follows:
LLD 100A PROGRAM LEARNING OBJECTIVES (PLOs): By the end of the course, students will be able to:
Use correct and situationally appropriate sentence structure and grammar;
Utilize feedback from instructor and peers to improve the accuracy and clarity of writing;
Recognize, select, and use basic activities of the writing process, including prewriting, organizing,
drafting, revising, editing, and peer review;
Critically self-reflect about the writing process and about making context-appropriate rhetorical
choices;
Critically read, interpret, and synthesize multiple texts;
Write well organized, well developed essays with a clear thesis;
Identify how types of written texts in a variety of fields (genres) are influenced by audience,
situation, and purpose;
Employ research strategies to collect, analyze, and evaluate data from primary and secondary
sources.
Assessment Data and Interpretation
The course outcomes were assessed in Summer 2013. Statistical analyses by the Institutional Research Unit
indicate that when the 100A students move on to 100W, they perform as well as students who passed the WST
after having initial scores of 1-7. The analyses also showed that students' 100A grades were a somewhat
significant predictor of their eventual grades in 100W. Assessment data are reported in Appendix D7.
A detailed assessment of the course can be found on this link:
http://www.sjsu.edu/aanapisi/projects/reports/index.html
4.
PROGRAM METRICS AND REQUIRED DATA
The following data have been culled from statistical reports supplied by “Institutional Effectiveness & Analytics” at
SJSU. While “LLD” technically refers to the department as a whole, a distinction is drawn between LING prefix,
which refers to the BA and MA in Linguistics courses and programs, and the LLD prefix, which refers to the
department’s TESOL courses and program, as well as the Academic English Program and the advanced composition
courses (LLD 100A, LLD 100W, LLD 100WB) housed in our department. The Required Data Elements discussed in
this section are attached in Appendix A of this report.
For the purpose of this report, we have taken into consideration the time period between Fall 2008 and Fall 2013
Semesters. The reasons for using these two endpoints are twofold: (1) Regarding enrollments, Fall semesters are
better indicative of overall trends, since a majority of students enter the department during Fall term, (2) The
trajectory between these two endpoints is typically unarticulated, undergoing few major changes in direction over
the relevant span of time.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
21
Some of the major trends that have been observed during the period under review are as follows:




A significant increase in LING courses and sections offered, with class/section sizes remaining fairly
constant.
A significant increase in the number of LING students at both the BA and MA levels.
The number of LLD courses and sections offered has lowered somewhat, almost certainly attributable
to (1) higher GPA requirements for program admission, and (2) a “no repeat” policy implemented for
LLD 1 and LLD 2.
An impressive increase in the number of male students has been observed.
ENROLLMENT, RETENTION, GRADUATION RATES, AND GRADUATES (Data Exhibit 5-10)
LING enrollments in general have witnessed a significant increase over the review period, from a low of 64 in
Spring 2009 to a high of 92 in Fall 2013. In these same semesters, undergraduate LING majors increased from 39 to
56, and graduate LING enrollments increased from 19 to 29. TESOL Enrollments have declined, from 82 in Spring
2009 to 45 in Fall 2013.
Applied, Admitted, Enrolled by Cohort Group (Exhibit 5)
Generally there are more applicants to all degree programs during the fall semesters compared to spring
semesters. In Spring 2011, the University closed graduate admissions. Similarly, in Spring semesters 2011, 2012,
and 2013, there were no undergraduate admissions. The summary below refers to fall semesters only.
The number of first-time freshman applicants who have declared Linguistics as the major has steadily increased
between 2009 and 2013 (27-38-32-43-48), as has the admittance rate (56-66-75-84-83). Surprisingly, the show rate
has gradually declined (33-24-25-17-15). Similarly, the number of transfer student applicants has increased, as has
the admittance rate (48-21-71-68-95), while the show rate has fluctuated (40-71-25-36-34) but is generally better
than that of the freshman group.
The numbers exhibited for graduate students include both the TESOL and the LING students. There has been a
general decline in the number of applicants in the past two years (100-114-119-75-83) and despite the increase in
admittance rate (58-58-65-68-80) the show rate has remained fairly steady (45-53-56-53-50). Approximately half
of the applicants are international students. Their admittance rate is lower than the average for all students (4846-47-45-68) and their show rate is also lower (20, 38, 37, 50, 39).
Enrollment by Gender and Ethnicity (Exhibit 6)
Regarding gender, generally female students outnumber male students two-to-one, as in the past. This is true for
both undergraduate and graduate students, although there has been a significant increase in undergraduate male
enrollment (12-10-15-20-21) from Fall 2009 to Fall 2013.
Regarding ethnicity, the most significant change is the doubling of the Hispanic population among LING majors. In
the undergraduate population the predominant groups are those self-identified as White, Asian, and Hispanic in
similar numbers. Among graduate students, those self-identified as White predominate, while Hispanic, Asian, and
“Foreign” make up the bulk of the remainder, but with a drastic decrease in the number of Asian students (25-1814-7-4).
First-year Retention (Exhibit 9)
In the undergraduate program, very few first year students enter with LING as their declared major, although the
number has been going up in the past three years. Rather, the department tends to build its enrollments as
students advance in their studies. Consequently, statistics for this measure are not informative.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
22
Undergraduate transfers, also, form a small cohort, falling between 4 and 10 per fall semester during the period
under review. For what it’s worth, retention rates here are very high, from 83.3% in Fall 2008 to a high (also the
mode) of 100% in the subsequent semesters.
In the graduate programs, the first year retention rate has fluctuated from 72.4% in Fall 2008 to 81.5% in Fall 2012
with a high of 84.6% in Fall 2009. This rate has declined very slightly to 83% during the period under review.
Female retention rates are slightly higher than male retention rates.
Degrees Awarded (Exhibit 8)
There has been a significant increase in the number of Linguistics degrees awarded: 12 were awarded in
2008/2009, while 28 were awarded in 2013. (Here there is indeed an articulation to be considered: in 2009/2010,
the number of Linguistics degrees awarded jumped to 23.) Of the 12 degrees awarded in 2008/2009, 8 were BA
and 4 were MA. Of the 28 degrees awarded in 2012/2013, 15 were BA and 13 were MA degrees.
The number of degrees awarded in TESOL has decline from 34 in 2009 to 20 in 2013.
The ratio of male-to-female graduates has remained fairly constant during this period: 11-35 in 2008, 7-32 in 2012.
6 Year Graduation Rates* (Exhibit 10)
*The percentages presented here display the range from the third year analysis to the fifth year analysis as the
numbers of entering students examined in the sixth year analysis are simply too low to be significant: On average,
fewer than three students per fall semester.
Graduation rates in Linguistics have averaged 62.55% to 69%, exceeding the university target of 51.6% by more
than 10%. The percentages for the URM population during the same six-year period averaged 65.2% to 61.95% for
Asian students and 38.05% to 47.5% for Hispanic students. The percentages for Asians exceeds the university
target of 47.8% by almost 18% while the percentages for Hispanics approaches the university target in the five year
analysis. There are no numbers for Blacks or Pacific Islanders. The percentages for non-URM populations range
from 54.1% to 65.8 %, again exceeding the university target of 53.2%.
HEADCOUNT IN SECTIONS (Data Exhibit 1, 2)
The Department offers courses with two prefixes: the LING prefix represents courses at the lower division GE, SJSU
Studies, undergraduate major and graduate major; the LLD prefix represents courses related to developmental
writing (LLD 001/002, LLD 100A), SJSU Studies LLD 100W, and graduate courses in the TESOL program.
The number of LING courses offered increased from 15 in Fall 2009 to 20 in Fall 2013, and the number of sections
increased from 21 to 37.The increase is due to an increase in the number of sections of GE courses offered and a
change in the prefix from LLD to LING.
The number of LLD courses offered has remained pretty much the same at the graduate and upper division levels
but has declined in the lower division by half. This is due to the University’s no-repeat policy for LLD 001 and the
no-spring admission policy. This has also led to the decrease in the number of sections of LLD 001/002 by half.
Average Head Count
In lecture LING courses, average headcount per section has lowered over the period under review from a peak of
39 in Fall 2009 to 27 in Fall 2013. In seminar courses, average head counts have remained fairly constant. In Fall
2013 the average was 25.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
23
Average headcount per section has also remained quite constant for LLD classes: 19 for Fall 2013. Because the
majority of LLD classes are either undergraduate composition classes with a cap of 20 students or graduate classes
in the MA TESOL program with a cap of 15 students, this number aligns well with college and university averages.
Average Class Size
Average class size has dropped slightly during the period under review, from 24 in Fall 2009 to 22 in Fall 2013.
Overall in the Department, average class size has remained rather constant, being 22 in Fall 2013. During that
term, the lower division average was 23, the upper division average was 23, and the graduate average was 12.
These numbers approximate the university average of 25 and are directly aligned with the college average of 21.8,
despite the fact that the department has the largest graduate program in the College.
FTES, INDUCED LOAD MATRIX
Composition of FTES by Program (Exhibit 3)
LING FTES has steadily increased in Linguistics from 109.2 in Fall 2009 to 170.5 in Fall 2013, an increase of 64%.
This is the result of an increased number of Linguistics majors as well as the success of our lower and upper
division GE courses, which includes a new course (LING 22) added in 2009.
LLD Lower Division FTES has shown a steady decline, dropping from 442 in Fall 2009 to 265 in Fall 2013. This
decline stems from three main reasons: (1) The elimination of LLD 98 and LLD 99, (2) a no-repeat policy for LLD 1
and LLD 2, and (3) no freshmen admission policy in Spring semesters starting in 2010.
Upper Division LLD FTES has shown a steady increase from 54.6 in Fall 2009 to 87.4 in Fall 2013. This is despite a
department decision that changed the prefix for LLD 107 and LLD 108 to LING, which shifted some LLD FTES to
LING FTES. This increase is due to the introduction of LLD 100A courses.
Graduate Division LLD FTES has shown a slight decline from 28.8 in Fall 2009 to 27.5 in Fall 2013. The greatest
decline occurred between Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 when the FTES dropped from 35.7 to 28.8. The Department’s
experience is that, during economic recession times, the number of students seeking admission to our TESOL
graduate program declines. From Fall 2009 – Fall 2012, FTES has remained quite constant.
Induced Load Matrix (Exhibit 4)
LING courses serve students from a wide range of departments, as seen in Exhibit 4. From Fall 2009 to Fall 2013,
the following trends are visible. First, linguistics courses continue to provide a great service to Business
Administration, with a total of 94 students served in Fall 2009 and 114 students served in Fall 2013. The
department also served an increased number of students from both Child and Adolescent Development (CHAD),
up from 7 in Fall 2008 to 31 in Fall 2013, and Liberal Studies, which saw an increase from 3 to 30 in the same time
period. Similarly, the number of students served from Computer Science rose from 7 in Fall 2008 to 13 in Fall 2013.
In Fall 2008, the Department hired Dr. Hahn Koo, an expert in Computational Linguistics, and this increase is
attributable to his presence. Finally, the number of students that the Linguistics program serves in World
Languages and Literatures increased from 21 in Fall 2009 to 41 in Fall 2013.
Due to the number of developmental writing courses that LLD offers, students from the entire campus are served.
In Fall 2009, the program served 519 students from Business Administration. Among these students, 371 were
enrolled in lower division classes and 148 in upper division classes. That number remains high, with 427 students
served in Fall 2013. The balance between lower and upper division enrollment has changed, though. In Fall 2013,
152 Business Administration students enrolled in lower division LLD courses while 275 Business Administration
students enrolled in upper division LLD courses. The increase in upper division enrollment among Business
Administration students from 152 to 275 is attributable to the increased number of 100WB courses offered by LLD.
The decrease in enrollment among lower division Business Administration students reflects (1) The elimination of
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
24
LLD 98 and LLD 99, (2) the imposition of a no-repeat policy for LLD 1 and LLD 2, and (3) no freshmen admission
policy for Spring semesters.
As noted above, the prefix change of LLD 107 and LLD 108 to LING 107 and LING 108, shifted students from Child
and Adolescent Development (CHAD) from LLD to LING. In Fall 2008, 52 students from CHAD were served by LLD,
which decreased to 30 students in Fall 2013. It should be noted that the total number of CHAD students served by
the department has remained constant. LLD also serves a large number of Engineering students -- 255 in Fall 2009
and 260 in Fall 2013 -- and a wide range of undeclared students -- 185 in Fall 2009 and 302 in Fall 2013.
Enrollments in minors, certificates, and service courses
Minor in Linguistics
The Minor in Linguistics program serves a number of students from a variety of departments. On an average, 5
students graduate with the Minor in an academic year.
There is definitely room for increase in the number
of minors. The Minor could be potentially more
Ling Minor
6
4
4
6
1 (+F13)
attractive to students because it could be easily
combined with either of our two certificates,
Computational Linguistics and Undergraduate TESOL, to provide further specialization.
Program
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Certificate Programs
Of the three certificate programs, Computational Linguistics, Undergraduate TESOL and Graduate TESOL, the
Computational Linguistics Certificate program saw a dramatic increase during the 2012-2013 academic year
yielding a total of 11 certificates offered during the period under review. This is a trend that promises to continue
as a great majority of incoming MA Linguistics students apply to SJSU specifically to specialize in Computational
Linguistics.
Certificate
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
COMP LING
0
2
1
1
7
11
UG TESOL
3
6
3
3
6
21
GR TESOL
7
0
2
2
5
16
A good number of our undergraduates but
also students from the World Languages
department opt for specialization in TESOL.
Additionally, graduate linguistics students,
but also TESOL students who are still
completing their MA degree, earn the
graduate TESOL certificate.
Service Courses
LLD 001 / 002 Academic English
Enrollment numbers for LLD 001/002 courses are seen below. LLD 001 was not offered in S10, S11, and S12
because of the University’s no freshman admission policy in Spring semesters.
COURSE
F08
S09
F09
S10
F10
S11
F11
S12
F12
LLD 001
755
238
710
Not
offered
592
Not
offered
630
Not
offered
418
LLD 002
935
617
719
270
608
256
836
480
619
TOTAL
1690
855
1429
270
1200
256
1466
480
1037
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
25
LLD 100A: Writing Competency through Genres / LLD 96S
The table below presents the enrollment by semester in this course since Summer 2011. Prior to that, a similar
curriculum was offered through LLD 96S, a Special Session course. An upward trend can be observed in
enrollments indicating need.
COURSE
Su10
S11
LLD 96S
301
329
Su11
LLD 100A
F11
S12
Su12
F12
S13
Su13
F13
Total
630
19
217
226
45
228
188
80
239
1242
FTEF, SFR, PERCENTAGE T/TT FACULTY (Exhibit 3)
Student to Faculty Ratio (SFR) (Exhibit 3a)
SFR has remained remarkably constant during the period under review, averaging about 21/1, with a lower ratio at
the graduate level, at about 11/1. These figures hold for the department in overall, and for courses prefixed with
LLD. LING prefixed courses exhibit a 15% increase from 20/1 in Fall 2009 to 23/1 in Fall 2013. This is accompanied
by a 36% increase in FTES for the same time period, which is attributed to an increase in GE offerings in the lower
and upper division. The department’s SFR at the graduate level exceeds the college average of 8/1.
FTEF (Exhibit 3c)
There has been an increase in Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) for LING courses from 5.5 in Fall 2009 to 7.4 in
Fall 2013. For the same time period, there has been a fluctuation and decrease of FTEF for LLD courses from 22.7 in
Fall 2009 and 2011 to 17.5 in Fall 2012 and 18.5 in Fall 2013. The decrease can be attributed to a decrease in LLD
001/002 course offerings for the same periods.
Percentage T/TT Faculty (Instructional FTEF by Tenure Status Exhibit)
The percentage of tenured/tenure-track faculty to total FTEF has remained quite steady during fall semesters,
ranging from 25.3% to 28.7%. The one exception was Fall 2010 when the percentage was 57.6%. During spring
semesters, the percentage has also remained quite steady, ranging from 43.4% to 47.9%. The one exception
occurred in Spring 2010 when the percentage was 62.5%. The variation noted occurred during the 2010 calendar
year when instructors teaching LLD 96S were not counted in the FTEF because it was a special session course.
5.
PROGRAM RESOURCES
FACULTY
Tenured, Tenure-track, FERP Faculty Profile
Out of the nine tenured/tenure-track faculty, two are FERP. Regarding gender, three are female (two are FERP) and
six are male. In terms of ethnicity, five are white (three male and two female) and four are Asian (three male and
one female). Of the nine, four are full professors (two are FERP), two are associate professors, and three are
assistant professors (one tenured and two probationary). In Fall 2013 semester, seven were involved in graduate
division teaching, six in upper division teaching, and two in lower division teaching. One of the full professors is
likely to retire in the next two to five years.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
26
In addition to teaching duties (four courses per semester), T/TT faculty, with the exception of FERP faculty, also
have academic advising responsibilities in their respective programs. Each TESOL faculty advises from about 10-16
students per semester; each linguistics faculty advises from about 20 to 30 students per semester. All T/TT faculty
also serve on departmental, college, and university committees. Two assistant professors work as coordinators of
their respective degree programs for which they used to get .2 reassigned time. The coordinators handle graduate
program applications, conduct new and continuing student orientations, evaluate program plans for each student,
administer MA comprehensive exams, administer program assessment activities, write annual program
assessment reports, answer questions from prospective students, update the catalog, departmental fliers,
departmental website, and department Facebook page; advise the LLDSA, organize departmental events such as
department graduation. Currently, the TESOL coordinator is in charge of 45 students and the Linguistics
Coordinator is in charge of 36 graduate students and 56 undergraduate students. In addition to the two degreeprogram coordinators, two other faculty members used to receive .2 reassigned time, one for coordinating the
Academic English Program and the GE courses, and the other for the LLD 100A program. As of Spring 2014,
reassigned time for program coordination has been reduced to only a single .2 for the entire department. The
TESOL and the Linguistics coordinators will each receive reassigned time in alternate semesters, while still
performing their duties every semester. The two other coordinatorships are currently only partially supported by
departmental funds.
We consider the ever-increasing responsibilities carried by T/TT faculty to be excessive and in need of a balance
among teaching, research, and service if they are to fulfill the high expectations of the university for tenure and
promotion.
Part-time Faculty
There are no full-time lecturers. Of the 31 part-time lecturers regularly employed by the department, 25 hold M.A.
degrees and 6 hold Ph.D. degrees. Of the 25 M.A. degree holders, 14 graduated from our Department with MA
TESOL or MA Linguistics degrees. The department employs on an average 18 to 30 part-time faculty in a year. In
terms of gender, of the 31 part-time faculty employed in Fall 2013, 25 are female and 6 are male. In terms of
ethnicity, 15 are Asian, 12 are White, 3 are Hispanic, and one is “other”. Of these, 17 (2012-2013) to 30 (20082009) are involved in lower division teaching, 5 (2010-2011) to 16 (2012-2013) in upper division teaching, and 1
(2012-2013) to 3 (Spring 2009) in graduate division teaching.
The T/TT to temporary faculty ratio has been getting lower in each year and it is lower than the university average.
In addition, there is an imbalance between Fall and Spring semesters due to the decreased number of Academic
English sections offered in Spring semesters. This adds to the already heavy workload for full time faculty as few
faculty must carry the responsibilities of shared governance, which include part-time faculty evaluation (e.g., seven
full-time faculty to evaluate 35 part-time instructors.)
SUPPORT STAFF
During the previous program planning phase, the department had one full-time Administrative Support
Coordinator, one .7 Administrative Assistant, and one or two part-time students on Work Study money. These
resources supported 44 faculty members. Presently, this has been reduced to one full-time Administrative Support
Coordinator and two part-time student assistants on Work Study money. They support about 40 faculty members.
The Language Development Center (LDC) is managed by one full-time non-instructional staff member. He is
assisted by student assistants. Together, they support more than one thousand students.
The lack of adequate administrative support is felt by everyone in the Department, from the Chair to all faculty
members who have had to perform tasks previously carried out by administrative support. Crucial program
operations related to student and departmental records receive lower priority because of lack of support.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
27
FACILITIES
Equipment
All faculty members have computers in their offices. Attempts are made to keep them upgraded on a regular basis
depending on available funding. However, there are several complaints by many faculty members regarding the
lack of software and network support by the university; the network is notoriously unreliable. Moreover, although
most faculty use presentation slides in their classes, there are rather few laptops that can be used by faculty in the
classroom. As a result, faculty are forced to use their personal laptops.
In the next few months, telephone systems will be upgraded and the new equipment will have capabilities for
Skype and video-conferencing. The Department has so far managed to fulfill its equipment needs either from the
Operating Expenses & Equipment (OE&E) budget it receives every year from the Dean’s Office or from Continuing
Education (CE) funds the department raises by offering summer and winter sessions.
The Department has two photocopiers that also serve as scanners. By using the scanner facility in the
photocopiers, the faculty is able to upload materials converted into PDF documents onto their course websites.
This has saved the Department a lot of money that in the past was spent on paper.
Facilities
For supporting undergraduate and graduate phonetics and phonology courses and student research, the
department maintains a Phonology Lab. The lab is housed in an office space and has two computers available for
student use. The Department has purchased a sound booth for special sound recording; the booth however is
physically not in the same room as the lab computer equipment, making its access somewhat difficult. The
Department is in need of a space that can accommodate all the equipment in one easily accessible room.
Since 2008, the Department has created an organized research unit, the Center for Human Language Technology
(CHLT). The Center was given temporary housing in WSQ in facilities allotted to Computer Science. Two years ago,
the Center lost its physical space and is currently ‘homeless.’ The Center has so far succeeded in getting external
grants to the value of $250,000 since its establishment. For continued success in receiving grants, however, the
Center needs a physical space. The department has been working to identify adequate space. It is important that
this be given priority since grant-awarding agencies prefer to see the laboratory facilities in the department prior
to granting the award.
The Department has dedicated a room for use by students. The Grad Room serves a variety of functions: as a
departmental library – with books donated by students and faculty, as a tutoring space, and as a meeting place for
LLD students.
The Language Development Center (LDC)
The LDC is a center that supports instruction in the developmental academic writing courses LLD 001/002. The LDC
serves an average of 1365 freshmen each semester who register for a 2-unit course for tutoring. In the past five
years the center was housed in a multi-functional space with facilities for small group tutoring, individual
workstations, office space, and a resting space for tutors. As of Spring 2014, the LDC has been dismantled and in its
new incarnation there are several rooms for different functions. As such, its functionality is yet to be evaluated.
Website and Social Media
The Department has a dedicated website wherein it provides information to the current and the prospective
students about the department, admission requirements, courses offered, news events, advising including the
critical dates, the Center for Human Language Technology, and so on. Three faculty members maintain a Facebook
page for the department wherein information about the department, faculty, and students are exchanged with a
great deal of informality.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
28
Library
The SJSU library has a number of resources in support of the graduate and undergraduate programs offered by the
department – a total of 3626 books not including e-books. Additionally, it subscribes to many journals in linguistics,
TESOL, psychology, communication, anthropology, and neuroscience that have relevance for the courses that the
department offers. The Department is served by a dedicated librarian liaison with whom a positive and
cooperative working relationship has been established. However the funding for actual books and journals, and
even for electronic journals, has been cut.
6.
OTHER STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES
FACULTY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Scholarly Achievements- Tenured, Tenure-track, and FERP Faculty
During the report period, the full-time tenured, tenure-track, and FERP faculty has continued to make significant
contributions to scholarship and professional development. In addition to contributing to knowledge production in
their respective areas of interest, the faculty has been orienting their research towards fulfilling the mission and
goals of the Department, College, and the University. Their research has been, in part, aimed at (a) expanding our
understanding of linguistic structures and cultural processes in the context of a global society, and (b) finding
strategies for helping students become globally-engaged, communicatively-enabled, and culturally-sensitive
citizens imbued with humanistic values. The following is a summary of their achievements:
Since January 2008, the LLD fulltime faculty has published 5 books, 29 articles and chapters in refereed journals
and edited volumes, 8 papers in referred conference proceedings, 2 video documentaries, 1 technical report, and 1
book review. In addition, the faculty has been a notable presence in international, national, and regional
conferences. On the whole, they have presented 48 papers, delivered 34 keynote/plenary addresses and 22 invited
guest lectures. They have also organized numerous workshops in national and international venues. Apart from
these, the faculty has also served on editorial boards, reviewed manuscripts, and excelled in professional
organizational leadership. In addition to these, the faculty has succeeded in getting external grants to the amount
of $1.45 million. Part of those funds has supported students in the capacity of research assistants.
Student Accomplishments
Although we are proud of all of our graduates, some have been exceptional in various ways. Two of our MA
Linguistics graduates have won research competitions with their Master’s thesis work– CSU/SJSU/H&A Research
Competition (Michelle Arden); SJSU/H&A Research Competition (Fabio Coehlo). Others have been successful in
receiving the Sally Casanova Pre-doctoral grant, a competitive CSU grant for preparing and applying to Ph.D.
programs (Lorenzo Tlacalael, Oliviana Zakaria). A few presented their work in national conferences (Yi-An Chen,
Fabio Coehlo, Robin Melnick) and have received a travel grant from alumni donations. Some of our MA Linguistics
graduates were accepted and are currently pursuing further studies in linguistics at the Ph.D. level in universities
such as Stanford, UC Santa Barbara, U of Washington, U of Florida, Tufts, and Ohio State University.
Another strength of our Department is our student association, which has flourished in the recent years. The
Linguistics and Language Development Student Association (LLDSA)
(http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/people/lldsa/) has galvanized around a need to strengthen our student
community and academic offerings - with an eye to improving student experience and the value of our degree. To
this end, they created the Linguistics & TESOL Symposium at SJSU
(http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/symposia/2013_symposium/ ) in order to provide a platform for the sharing of
knowledge and showcase the quality of work among our students. In addition, they have an ongoing "Linguistics
Discussion Group" that provides a venue for the exploration of new ideas and discussion. Papers are presented
and theoretical challenges are deconstructed in order to help each other progress in understanding and sharing
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
29
knowledge. To reinforcing concepts introduced in instruction the LLDSA initiated a "Workshop Series", on a variety
of topics, taught by alumni, current students, and guests. Topics have included "Intro to Linux
Programming," "Audio Processing with Praat", and "Optimality Theory". Future workshops shall include topics
such as "Fieldwork Essentials," "Intro to Speech Pathology", and "Audio Recording and Technology". The LLDSA
also provides a venue for social interaction and bonding through monthly Linguistics gatherings, hikes, and other
social events. An event schedule keeps students updated on all LLDSA activities
(http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/people/lldsa/event_schedule/).
CHALLENGES







The Department has limited budgetary resources to be used for non-operational expenses, such as faculty
professional developmental activities, faculty stipends for coordinating programs, faculty retreat related
hospitality expenses, and student stipends for tutoring. As the alumni of the Department are not very rich or
in a position to make monetary contributions to the department, the only other source of is the funds
received for running special session courses during winter and summer sessions.
The small number of faculty in the Department, while possibly perceived as a strength, it is also a weakness.
The faculty are expected to do a lot in terms of committee work and everybody has to be involved in
everything, which consumes a lot of valuable time, preventing them from opting to direct student theses and
from working on their research projects. Plus, they have to do enormous amount of advising. For example,
the TESOL faculty advise 20 plus students each and the Linguistics faculty advise 40 plus students each. The
Linguistics coordinator is responsible for more than 100 students. Furthermore, the ratio of full-time faculty
to part-time faculty is very low and it has resulted in heavy peer observation and annual evaluation work for
the full-time faculty.
Currently, the Department has only two full professors and one of them is the chair. This creates an
extraordinary workload for that person since some of the College committees require full professorship for
their memberships.
The TESOL curriculum hasn’t undergone much change since it was designed when the Department was
founded, except for the inclusion of LLD 250W as a core course. The Linguistics curriculum added morphology
and corpus linguistics; the computational linguistics courses were recently revised. However, recent changes
in the fields of TESOL and Linguistics warrant a lot of changes in the current TESOL and Linguistics curricula.
Being overwhelmed with a lot of bureaucratic matters, it gets more and more difficult for faculty to find time
to work on these.
The institutional limit of 30 units for the Master’s degree has resulted in some compromises in the MATESOL
curriculum. For example, we have combined language testing/assessment and curriculum in one course.
Other universities offer Master’s degrees with higher unit limit; for example, the University of Hawaii at
Manoa offers an MA TESOL with 42 units.
Lack of ESL teaching opportunities on campus is a major weakness in the TESOL curriculum. We lose some
students for this reason. Students prefer to go to institutions that provide such training as part of their
curriculum. At many other institutions such as San Francisco State University, for example, there is a link
between the MA TESOL program and a university affiliated, private English language school (comparable to
SJSU’s Studies in American Language (SAL)), where graduate students can do their graduate teaching.
The LLD faculty feel that their Computational Linguistics Certificate is being threatened by the number-driven
top-down administrative decisions. The two other CSU campuses with computational linguistics programs,
Fresno State and San Diego State, are also in a similar situation. In fact, the Computational Linguistics
program at Fresno State is gradually declining. However, compared to these two programs, LLD’s program is
gradually growing with more and more students getting interested and seeking admission to the degree
programs in linguistics. Because of its location, SJSU is in a unique position to develop this niche area of
linguistics
SYNERGIES
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
30





Given the diverse multi-lingual population of SJSU, the LLD faculty feel that the College should explore the
possibility of offering a stretch academic English program to such students. LLD has already been playing a
significant role in offering developmental writing programs and can contribute greatly to a stretch program
with a branch dedicated to students of multilingual background offered through the department with the
support of Language Development Center (LDC).
The Language Development Center can play a greater role in providing support to students who have
language related problems in their writings, especially to students enrolled in 100A and 100W courses
through the LLD 4 course.
The Language Development Center is the perfect hub for developing a database of developmental writing.
Such a database can be used as a springboard for getting grants for research in developmental writing, thus
enhancing the visibility of the Department, the College, and the University in the virtual academic world. LLD
hopes that the College would recognize the opportunity and will provide adequate financial support to
develop such a database.
The Department is in the process of hosting podcasts, video casts, and other related academic materials in
their website to attract students to the degree programs.
Applied Linguistics is the field that specializes in language assessment and writing assessment. The
Department wants to play a major role in this area, especially in developing instruments in lieu of the existing
ones used in the University.
PROGRESS TOWARDS UNIVERSITY’S STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
The Department of Linguistics and Language Development, since its inception in 1991, has been relentlessly
working towards the academic well-being of California’s so-called “1.5 generation” by engaging this multi-ethnic
student population in academic writing courses and preparing them for the rigors of the SJSU curriculum. With its
extraordinarily caring attitude and empathy towards these students and its integral support through the Language
Development Center, the Department has instilled Spartan pride in these students and has enhanced their
opportunities for academic success and their potential for lucrative careers in Silicon Valley. With its diverse
faculty, its commitment towards globalization of English language teaching, and its interdisciplinary curriculum and
research, the Department continues to expand its scope for inclusiveness of people and perspectives. Also, the
department’s meticulous attention to advising has resulted in accelerated graduation in students in all three
degree programs. With active student engagement, the department has shown that, although small in size, it can
still contribute greatly to knowledge augmentation, as evidenced by the production of institutionally recognized
student theses and faculty publications.
7.
DEPARTMENT ACTION PLAN
In moving forward towards the next five years, the Department of Linguistics and Language Development plans to
engage in the following activities by program:
LINGUISTICS
 Continue with PLO assessment for the BA and MA Linguistics programs. A detailed assessment schedule
for the next five years appears in Appendix K1 (for BA Linguistics) and Appendix K2 (for MA Linguistics).
 Develop rubrics for assessment of levels of competence for the PLOs.
 Make students aware of PLOs at the beginning of each semester to help them streamline their learning
along the desired outcomes.

Strengthen career advising in the program by offering career workshops to undergraduate and graduate
students.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
31



TESOL





Promote the Minor in Linguistics in conjunction with the Computational Linguistics Certificate and the
Undergraduate TESOL Certificate.
Work in liaison with the College of International and Extended Studies (CIES) to promote the
Computational Linguistics Program in northern California and abroad.
Continue to consider innovative ways of attracting new majors.
Continue with MA TESOL PLO assessment on a semester basis. A detailed assessment schedule for the
next five years appears in Appendix K3.
Make students aware of PLOs at the beginning of each semester to help them streamline their learning
along the desired outcomes
Develop a Certificate in Academic Reading and Composition. The certificate may involve cooperation with
the Department of English and Comparative Literature. As students have shown interest in the prospect,
this can be used as a recruitment tool for the MA TESOL program.
Upgrade curriculum in responding to globalization and the role of English in that context.
Continue to promote the MA TESOL program with the goal of improving enrollments. Work in liaison with
the College of International and Extended Studies (CIES) to promote the TESOL degree program in
northern California and abroad.
CURRICULUM



Make use of online resources, including e-textbooks, for instructional purposes.
Offer increased number of hybrid and online courses to enable students to take classes at their learning
pace.
Develop new GE courses in areas C and B to increase FTES for the Department and the College.
FACULTY
• As the number of T/TT faculty is decreasing because of retirements, explore ways of obtaining
authorization for new hires to participate in the shared governance of the Department.
• Due to the very high number of part-time faculty compared to full-time faculty, the full-time faculty has a
very high workload due to committee work, peer evaluations, and part-time evaluation write-ups. The
department can hire more full time faculty if it can grow the enrollment in degree program courses. A 3-3
teaching load would allow the Department of LLD to hire more full-time faculty to cover existing courses.
SUPPORT STAFF
 Explore ways to obtain an additional Administrative Assistant position.
 Identify ways of upgrading the full-time academic coordinator position of the LDC to a faculty position or
higher-level staff position with career development salary steps.
 Explore ways to fund a part-time lab technician to support the phonology lab and the Computational
Linguistics Lab once space has been identified to house both.
EQUIPMENT and FACILITIES
 Purchase laptops for classroom use.
 Find an appropriate space to accommodate the Center for Human Language Technologies and the
Phonology Lab. The Department, in cooperation with the Dean, would need to identify innovative ways
to create this lab in order to provide crucial support for the Computational Linguistics Program.

Advocate for the Library’s increasing of funding for new journal subscriptions to support the diverse
teaching needs and research interests of the LLD faculty, as current allocations are not adequate.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
32
8.
APPENDICES
Insert: Program Review_RDE_LLDandLING.pdf
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
33
B.
Accreditation Report (not applicable)
60
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
C.
PROGRAM PLOs
C1. B.A. LINGUISTICS
BA LINGUISTICS GOALS
PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES
GOAL 1:
PLO 1A: Transcribe, using the International Phonetic Alphabet, and produce
speech sounds of the world’s languages. Apply concepts of acoustic theory in
To transmit knowledge of the
analyses of speech data;
structure and function of language PLO 1B: Analyze linguistic sound patterns in terms of their function, their structure,
and its use and change in various and the pressures that influence their change over time;
cultural and social settings.
PLO 1C: Analyze words and their internal structure in terms of their meanings,
their sound properties, and the pressures that influence their change over time;
PLO 1C: Analyze words and their internal structure in terms of their meanings,
their sound properties, and the pressures that influence their change over time;
GOAL 2:
To help students develop critical
thinking skills, analytical skills,
and reading, writing and research
skills.
GOAL 3:
To help students develop an
understanding of the relationship
between linguistic theories and
areas such as artificial
intelligence, cognitive science,
language acquisition and learning,
and language policy.
GOAL 4:
To help students develop an
appreciation for the diversity and
dynamic nature of human
languages and cultures in the U.S.
and the world.
PLO 1D: Analyze sentence structure in any language in terms of grammatical
relations and constituent structure, and recognize the typological diversity of
syntactic phenomena;
PLO 1E: Analyze the meaning of words and sentences, elaborate on the role of
linguistic and pragmatic context in the interpretation of meaning, and understand
the role of theories in the analysis of semantic data;
PLO 1F: Identify phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic changes in
the history of a language, discuss the contribution of social factors to language
variation and change, explain the genetic and typological classification of
languages, and use the comparative method to reconstruct ancestors of related
languages;
PLO 2A: Analyze phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and
historical linguistics data;
PLO 2B: Critically evaluate competing approaches to the analysis of linguistic data;
PLO 2C: Use library and electronic research sources effectively;
PLO 2D: Use reading and writing skills effectively;
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to one-year college level study in a
language other than their native language.
PLO 3A: Discuss issues in speech synthesis, speech recognition, natural language
processing, and develop speech recognition, speech synthesis and natural
language processing programs;
PLO 3B: Evaluate theories of first and second language acquisition, and second
language teaching;
PLO 3C: Identify language-related social programs in areas such as education, the
law, the workplace, etc., and discuss the feasibility of various empirically-based
solutions.
The Linguistics program addresses this goal in all its core courses as well as through
specific areas of specialization that students may pursue. In that respect, Goal 4 is
realized through the specific objectives listed for Goals 1, 2, and 3.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
61
C2. M.A. LINGUISTICS
MA LINGUISTICS GOALS
GOAL 1:
To transmit in-depth knowledge
of the structure and function of
language and its use and change
from various theoretical
perspectives.
GOAL 2:
To instill in students and train
them in advanced critical
thinking skills, analytical skills,
and reading, writing and
research skills.
GOAL 3:
To develop an understanding of
the relationship between
linguistic theories and areas
such as artificial intelligence,
cognitive science, language
acquisition and learning,
intercultural communication,
language change, and language
policy.
GOAL 4:
To instill in students an
appreciation for the diversity
and dynamic nature of human
languages and cultures in the
U.S. and the world.
PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES
PLO 1A: Transcribe, using the International Phonetic Alphabet, and produce speech
sounds of the world’s languages. Apply concepts of acoustic theory in analyses of
speech data.
PLO 1B: Analyze linguistic sound patterns in terms of their function, their structure, and
the pressures that influence their change over time.
PLO 1C: Analyze sentence structure of typologically diverse languages using current
formalism and explain how syntactic and semantic structures interface.
PLO 1D: Analyze the meaning of linguistic expressions, elaborate on the role of
linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural context in the interpretation of meaning, and
understand the role of theories in the analysis of semantic data;
PLO 1E: Show an understanding of current linguistic theories; compare and evaluate
different theoretical approaches.
PLO 2A: Extract patterns from complex data sets, motivate categorization procedures,
and apply learned analytical principles over such patterns.
PLO 2B: Carry out independent empirical, experimental or theoretical research
involving formulating a research project, presenting a literature review, using
appropriate methodology, collecting data pertinent to the project, and interpreting the
data;
PLO 2C: Use library and electronic research sources effectively;
PLO 2D: Use oral, reading, and writing skills effectively to report on research;
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to a two-year of an Indo-European or a
one-year of a non-Indo-European language college level study in a language other than
their native language.
PLO 3A: Discuss issues in speech synthesis, speech recognition, natural language
processing and develop speech recognition, speech synthesis and natural language
processing programs.
PLO 3B: Evaluate theories of first and second language acquisition and second
language teaching;
PLO 3C: Apply linguistics knowledge to address societal issues related to language
variation and diversity, and intercultural communication;
PLO 3D: Recognize the relation between language and cognition and evaluate theories
of their interaction.
PLO 3E: Identify phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic changes in the
history of a language, discuss the contribution of social factors to language variation
and change, explain the genetic and typological classification of languages, and use the
comparative method to reconstruct ancestors of related languages.
The Linguistics program addresses this goal in all its core courses as well as through
specific areas of specialization that students may pursue. In that respect, Goal 4 is
realized through the specific objectives listed for Goals 1, 2, and 3.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
62
C3. M.A TESOL
MA TESOL GOALS
GOAL 1:
Knowledge of language and skills
required to understand and explain
language systems.
PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES
PLO 1A: Students will analyze language as a system consisting of phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, lexis, pragmatics, and discourse and articulate the
relationships between the various intrasentential levels and features of English
structure.
PLO 1B: Students will correlate the knowledge and analytical skills in objective 1a
with four skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking with sufficient precision to
teach and assess proficiency in English as a non-native language.
GOAL 2:
Knowledge of language learning –
Knowledge of current theories
concerning cognitive, affective,
social, and cultural factors central to
the acquisition and use of second
languages.
PLO 2A: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the role of pragmatic
knowledge and knowledge of text structure in the comprehension, production, and
acquisition of a second language.
PLO 2B: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the intersection between
culture, language, language learning and teaching, and language use with particular
reference to English as a global language.
PLO 2C: Students will apply theoretical knowledge of second language acquisition in
second language learning/acquisition contexts.
GOAL 3:
Knowledge and skills of language
instruction – Knowledge of
curriculum frameworks, teaching
methods, and proficiency
assessment instruments for
teaching English as a non-native
language.
PLO 3A: Students will identify the instructional strategies that go with the
established teaching methods and apply them to various language learning and
teaching situations.
PLO 3B: Students will critically evaluate the teaching of actual ESL classes with
regard to teaching strategies and activities and with regard to goals 1 and 2.
PLO 3C: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the theory and practice of
needs analysis, curriculum design, and assessment techniques.
PLO 3D: Students will develop ESL curriculum for diverse target groups, design
supplementary materials for use with particular instructional strategies, and develop
language tests and assessment instruments, by synthesizing the objectives of goals 1
and 2 and the teaching strategies in objective 3a.
GOAL 4:
Ability to understand and analyze
the processes of linguistic and
cultural globalization and their
impact on English language learning,
teaching, and communication.
GOAL 5:
Synthesize the learning represented
in goals 1-4 in order to effectively
teach English learners in a variety of
contexts and be an active teacher
scholar.
PLO 4A: Students will critically examine concepts such as race, ethnicity, identity,
and culture and their relationship to language teaching and learning in the context of
a globalized world.
PLO 4B: Students will design syllabi that create classroom and program
environments that foster global cultural consciousness.
PLO 5A: Students will complete a one-semester supervised practicum in which they
plan lessons and teach English to an actual ESL class.
PLO 5B: Students will carry out independent research.
PLO 5C: Students will effectively write and present for professional audiences.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
63
D.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
D1: Linguistics Assessment and WASC
Application of WASC Rubric to the SJSU Linguistics Program Assessment of Learning Outcomes
October 2011
Prepared by Soteria Svorou
DIMENSIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Comprehensive List
The Linguistics Program, in a series of retreats starting in 2006, has developed a set of learning
outcomes and continues to review and update them over the years. Although there are no specific
disciplinary standards specified by the professional organization, the Linguistic Society of America (LSA),
the curriculum and the learning outcomes of the Linguistics Program are comparable to a number of other
programs offered by institutions in California (CSU and UC) and the nation, as documented in the
program’s 2007-08 Self Study. The set of learning outcomes appears on the Undergraduate Studies
website (http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/assessment/programs/humanities/linguistics/) as well as the Linguistics
and Language Development website (http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/programs/linguistics/index.htm). The
list consists of 15 learning outcomes and is organized according to four broad program goals. In addition
to discipline-specific learning outcomes, the list includes broader learning outcomes, such as critical
thinking skills (as applied to the evaluation of different approaches and linguistic theories), communication
skills (particularly reading and writing skills), and information literacy as applied to using electronic
resources for research. The undergraduate and the graduate program in linguistics share a number of
learning outcomes but the list makes clear the unique outcomes of each level, with the graduate program
involving greater depth and rigor in terms of research and critical evaluation of theoretical approaches.
Based on the rubric, the program learning outcomes assessment process is judged as developed on this
dimension. Currently, each outcome is assessed using grades as a guide. The Linguistics Program can
improve the assessment process by developing explicit criteria (e.g., a rubric) for each learning outcome.
Assessable Outcomes
Each learning outcomes is articulated using action predicates (describe, use, transcribe, analyze,
evaluate, apply); for example, “Transcribe speech sounds of the world's languages using the International
Phonetic Alphabet” or “develop speech recognition and natural language processing programs”. The
assessment of the outcomes is currently based on grades.
Based on the rubric, the program learning outcomes assessment process is judged as developed on this
dimension. To improve the assessment process, the Linguistics Program will have to develop explicit
criteria (e.g., a rubric) for each outcome.
Alignment
The curriculum is aligned with the program outcomes for each level of the program. A map is available in
the LLD department’s website: for the B.A. Linguistics program
(http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/programs/linguistics/ba_linguistics/goals_ba_linguistics/index.htm) and for
the M.A. Linguistics program
(http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/programs/linguistics/ma_linguistics/goals_ma_linguistics/index.htm). The
map specifies the courses in which each learning outcome is introduced, reinforced and advanced, as
well as the assessment tools used for each. The assessment tools are varied and appropriate for the
level at which each learning objective is assessed.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
64
The LLD Department supports student learning in a number of ways: through one-on-one help by
professors during office hours and via email; through tutoring for students of introductory level (LING 101,
111, 112, LLD 107) courses; and, through referral to various university resources (Writing Center, LARC)
for assistance with other skills. The LLD Student Association, with the help of the faculty, organizes cocurricular activities, such as colloquia and social events that support student learning of broader issues,
such as the dynamic nature of language and its role in society.
Based on the rubric, the program learning outcomes assessment is judged as developed on this
dimension. To improve on the assessment process, the Linguistics Program will work in presenting the
alignment of curricular and co-curricular activities explicitly with revisions on the existing curricular map.
Assessment Planning
The assessment activities for the Linguistics Program follow a plan presented in the 2007-08 Self Study.
The current plan assesses all 15 learning outcomes within a five-year period. It addresses each learning
outcome by specifying the semester in which data is to be collected, discussed, and improvement
changes implemented. The plan is presented to the faculty at the beginning of each semester and
accommodations are made if courses planned for data collection are not offered in a particular semester.
Data for each outcome are presented to the Department Curriculum Committee for discussion and
curricular or assessment changes are decided in that forum. As is currently implemented, the plan is
sustainable.
Based on the rubric, the program learning outcomes assessment is judged as highly developed on this
dimension. The next plan will be a result of the Program’s Self Study in 2013-14.
The Student Experience
Students in the Linguistics Program have access to the Program Learning Outcomes and the map
showing the outcome-courses correspondence through the Department’s website. They also receive,
through course syllabi, a specification of course-specific student learning outcomes reflecting the
Program’s Learning Outcomes. However, the correspondence between the course-specific outcomes and
the program outcomes is not being made explicit in the syllabi. It is left up to individual instructors to
discuss the correspondence with their students. Moreover, students participate in the revision of
outcomes only through their representative in the Curriculum Committee.
Based on the rubric, the program learning outcomes assessment is judged as emerging on this
dimension. To improve the assessment process, the Linguistics Program will have to devise ways to
make students more acquainted with the Program Learning Outcomes and to get them to be more
involved in the process from curriculum design to self-assessment.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
65
THE ROAD TO 2014 FOR THE LINGUISTICS PROGRAM
S12
Discuss student
self-assessment
5
Evaluate the
degree to which
students use
learning
outcomes to
self-assess 5
F12
Collect from
instructors rubrics or
other criteria for
various levels of
achievement for
each outcome 1,2
Create a new
assessment plan for
the next 5-year cycle
4
S13
Revise
assessment plan
to reflect rubrics
1, 2
Revise alignment
of curricular & cocurricular map 3
F13
Publish
student selfassessment
strategies on
departmental
website 5
S14
Publish
revised
outcome map
in department
website 1, 2, 3
Notify
Undergraduate
Studies of
revised
outcome map
1, 2, 3
Devise specific
strategies for helping
students self-assess
5
NOTE: The superscripts refer to the dimensions of the assessment process as follows:
1. Comprehensive list; 2. Assessable outcomes; 3. Alignment; 4. Assessment Planning; 5. The Student Experience
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
66
D2: Linguistics Student Self-Assessment
STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS IN THE LINGUISTICS PROGRAMS
Fall 2013
Submitted by Soteria Svorou
In evaluating the degree to which BA Linguistics and MA Linguistics students use Program Learning Outcomes
(PLOs) to self-assess, in Spring 2012 we conducted a survey, using Survey Monkey, in which students addressed a
number of relevant questions (see Appendix A). This was the initial step in establishing our students’ status with
regard to self-assessment, with the resources available to them at the time. As a second step, in Spring 2013, another
survey was conducted in one graduate and one undergraduate linguistics class using a similar survey instrument to
understand the effect of certain changes made in publicizing the PLOs. Results from the two surveys are discussed
in the sections that follow.
Program Learning Outcomes for the two programs are available in the LLD department’s website. It has been our
expectation that students would familiarize themselves with the department website and specifically with the
Program Learning Outcomes of their program. Additionally, all greensheets contain Student Learning Outcomes for
each specific course.
Spring 2012 Survey Results
The results from the 2012 survey were tabulated cumulatively for students of all three programs of the department,
BA Linguistics, MA Linguistics, and MA TESOL, so no program-specific results could be reported for that survey.
However, given the actual results and also considering the common way of disseminating of program outcomes
information (website), it is realistic to conclude that the picture that emerges applies to students of our department in
general.
A total of 44 students (out of 135) participated in the survey, the majority of them from the TESOL program. This
represents 31% of the students in the department during the Spring 2012 semester.
#
Answer
Response
%
1
BA
Linguistics
5
11%
2
MA
Linguistics
10
23%
3
MA TESOL
29
66%
Total
44
The majority of the respondents (22) were first year students, either
graduate or undergraduate, while 6 were graduating in S12 semester.
The rest (15) were second year students.
Question 3, “How often do you refer to your course greensheets?” shows that the greensheet is an important tool for
our students, as the majority of them (77%) use it frequently or all the time.
Question 3
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
67
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Never
2
5%
2
Every now and then
8
18%
3
Frequently
23
52%
4
All the time
11
25%
Total
44
This is in contrast to visiting the website as a source of information (Question 4), as the great majority of students
either visit it infrequently or never (93%).
Question 4
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Never
9
20%
2
Every now and then
32
73%
3
Frequently
1
2%
4
All the time
2
5%
Total
44
SLO Awareness and Use for Self-Assessment
The regular and frequent use of course greensheets (where SLOs are included as per University policy) seems to
contribute to the heightened awareness of the Student Learning Objectives (Question 5), with 63% of the students
being aware of them and 32% having studied them carefully.
Question 5
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Not aware
2
5%
2
Have heard about them
5
11%
3
Have seen them on the greensheet
23
52%
4
Have studied them carefully
14
32%
Total
44
Awareness of SLOs did not translate, however, into frequent use of these to monitor progress in the course
(Question 7). Only 23% of the respondents use the SLOs frequently or all the time, while almost half (49%) never
use them. Of the ones who use them (Question 8), the majority (81%) find them useful or somewhat useful.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
68
Question 7
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Never
21
49%
2
Every now and then
12
28%
3
Frequently
9
21%
4
All the time
1
2%
Total
43
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Not useful
5
16%
2
Somewhat useful
15
47%
3
Useful
11
34%
4
Very useful
1
3%
Total
32
Question 8
PLO Awareness and Use for Self-Assessment
66% of the respondents were aware of the Program Learning Objectives either through hearsay or by visiting the
website and 27% have actually studied them carefully (Question 6). However, only 14% of respondents frequently
use them for self-assessment (Question 9), while 42% never use them and 44% only use them every now and then.
Of the ones who use PLOs (Question 10), the majority (85%) finds them useful or somewhat useful.
Question 6
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Not aware
3
7%
2
Have heard about them
14
32%
3
Have seen them on the website
15
34%
4
Have studied them carefully
12
27%
Total
44
Question 9
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
69
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Never
18
42%
2
Every now and then
19
44%
3
Frequently
6
14%
4
All the time
0
0%
Total
43
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Not useful
4
13%
2
Somewhat useful
15
47%
3
Useful
12
38%
4
Very useful
1
2%
Total
32
Question 10
In response to an invitation for comments (Question 11), 12 respondents offered the following suggestions:
Suggestion: At the beginning of each class, throughout a semester, a professor could take 2 minutes to refer back to
the green sheet goals and objectives and show the students which ones are related to the topic for that day.
Great faculty. I've enjoyed all my classes and learned a lot.
SLOs are often written in esoteric language, so I don't understand them when I first enter the course (which is when
I read the whole greensheet). By the time I understand what they mean, the class is already over. I also trust that the
instructor is teaching me what I'm supposed to know, so I don't really worry about the SLOs.
I chose the MA TESOL program because it was the closest thing I could find to fulfill my own personal goals. I
don't really care if I'm fulfilling the university's goals for me or the department's goals for me. I care about how
useful my education will be once I go out to do what I want to do. So far I am generally really pleased with what I
have learned. I think it will all be very helpful.
As a working MA TESOL student, my time is in short supply. And, as I work in the TESOL field, I tend to selfassess more based on my job performance and how much I am able to apply what I learn at SJSU in my own
classroom. SLOs and Program Goals & Objectives are helpful, especially when new to the LLD program; however,
they do feel a bit ethereal compared to my every day teaching practice and my weekly LLD assignments.
I assessed my academic progress against my own internal standards and not against SLO's for the courses or
Program. I saw very little connection between these goals and my actual grades or instructor feedback against
his/her standards for the course.
It is often hard to self-assess whether I am actually learning something. Tests don't give me a good indication.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
70
I'm not really sure what "student academic self-assessment" is all about, and maybe I've missed hearing about it. All
I do is see what courses I need and talk to my advisor at the start of the year. I would like to take this opportunity to
say, though, that I wish there were more elective courses geared specifically towards MA TESOL. I'm not sure how
some of the linguistics courses that are offered will help someone teach English to a language learner. I do wish
that Ling 122 "English as a World Language" was offered as an elective. The description in the SJSU catalog
sounds interesting as well as meaningful to a MA TESOL student.
While I routinely study the SLOs and Program Goals and Objectives on each greensheet at the beginning of the
semester, during the semester I mostly monitor my progress by relying on the feedback I receive on my assignments,
as assignments are relevant to SLOs and PGOs. Every now and then I re-read the greensheet if in doubt about
something, and before asking an instructor for clarifications.
I think the course readers for MA TESOL are a little bit outdated and not revised constantly . The professors seem
not estimate the time correctly for a student to finish reading of articles before any class. They assign too many
readings while students don’t have enough time to read. The number of articles should be more selective or focused
to the students' actual needs and interest. The quality and deep understanding are more important than the quantity.
it's hard to critically assess yourself academically; the only thing I can assess somewhat accurately is the letter grade
I will get after passing a course.
It definitely serves as a good tool for monitoring our academic progress.
A
A couple of comments (italicized above) are irrelevant to the question. The rest give some good suggestions that can
be summarized by the following:



It’s hard to self-assess; tests and grades are not necessarily a good measure of progress, although
feedback on assignments is.
The language of the SLOs and PLOs is “ethereal” and “esoteric” and does not help in self-assessment.
Instructors could point out the relevant SLOs and PLOs at the beginning of each class.
Spring 2013 Survey Results and Comparison with the initial 2012 survey
In addressing the issue of PLO publicity, in two classes, LING 112 Introduction to Syntax and LING 203 Semantic
Structures, Program Learning Outcomes relevant to the courses were included in the greensheet and were discussed
on the first day of class. Towards the end of the semester, the students enrolled in the two classes completed a
survey (Appendix B) on academic self-assessment on paper during class. The results of the two surveys are reported
below for each survey item in tables comparing the two classes.
LING 112 serves students in different programs. It is a core class in the BA and the Minor program, a prerequisite
for the MA Linguistics program, and an elective for the MA TESOL program. Of the 17 students responding to the
survey, 9 were in the BA Linguistics (8 junior and 1 senior), 4 in the MA Linguistics (1st semester), and 4 in the MA
TESOL program (one 1st year; three 2nd year). Of the 12 responders in LING 203, all were MA Linguistics program
and 7 were in their first year of studies and the rest were in their last semester.
Results will be reported separately by level, BA responses and MA responses, as well as the cumulative percentage.
The motivation is to see if there’s a difference in self-assessment based on the level of the program.
Use of Greensheets
Both undergraduate and graduate students find course greensheets useful (Question 3) as all refer to them for
information at least ‘every now and then’ but mostly ‘frequently’ or ‘all the time’. This result is similar to findings
from the 2012 survey.
Question 3
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
71
#
Answer
LING 112
Response
BA
LING 112
Response
MA
Total LING
112
responses
LING 112
Cumulative
%
LING
203
respons
es
LING
203 %
Total
Respons
es
2013
2012
Total %
Total %
1
never
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
5%
2
every now and
then
3
2
5
29%
2
17%
7
24%
18%
3
frequently
5
4
9
53%
7
58%
16
55%
52%
4
all the time
1
2
3
18%
3
25%
6
21%
25%
Total
9
8
17
100%
12
100%
29
100%
100%
Use of Departmental Website
The departmental website as a source of information is not as important (Question 4) as course greensheets. Almost
one fifth of the students never visit the site, more than half visit it only ‘every now and then’, and 17% of students
visit it frequently. This last result represents a significant increase from the 2012 results.
Question 4
#
Answer
LING 112
Response
LING 112
Response
MA
Total LING
112
Responses
LING 112
Cumulative
%
LING 203
Response
s
LING
203 %
Total
Respon
ses
2013
Total %
2012
Total
%
BA
1
never
3
1
4
23%
2
17%
6
21%
20%
2
every now
and then
4
5
9
53%
8
66%
17
59%
73%
3
frequently
2
1
3
18%
2
17%
5
17%
2%
4
all the time
0
1
1
6%
0
0%
1
3%
5%
Total
9
8
17
100%
12
100%
29
100%
100%
Awareness and Use of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) for Self-Assessment
All but one student are aware of the Student Learning Objectives in their courses (Question 5), primarily through the
greensheets, but only one graduate student reports having studied them carefully, which shows a big discrepancy
compared to the 2012 reported attention (32%) to the SLOs, and something that needs to be addressed. Awareness,
however, does not entail actual use of SLOs for self-assessment. About half of the responders report using them
infrequently - a 20 percentage points increase over the 2012 results - and only four students (14%) use them to
assess their progress in the course with high frequency (Question 7). More than one third of the students report that
they never use the SLOs for self-assessment, which, however, is 11 percent lower than those who reported so in the
2012 survey. Of those who report using the SLOs for self-assessment, presumably do so because they find them
useful (Question 8). One person (5%) does not find them useful at all; yet, it (5%) is a decrease from the 2012
results of 16%.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
72
Question 5
#
Answer
LING 112
Respons
e
LING
112
Respon
se MA
Total
LING 112
respons
es
LING 112
Cumulativ
e%
LING
203
Respon
ses
LING
203 %
Total
Respons
es
2013
Total
%
2012
Total
%
BA
1
not aware
0
1
1
6%
0
0%
1
3.5%
5%
2
have heard about
them
0
2
2
12%
2
17%
4
14%
11%
3
have seen them
on the website
1
1
2
12%
0
0%
2
7%
n/a
4
have seen them
on the greensheet
8
4
12
70%
9
75%
21
72%
52%
5
have studied them
carefully
0
0
0
0%
1
8%
1
3.5%
32%
Total
9
8
17
100
12
100%
29
100%
100
%
Question 7
Answer
#
LING 112
Respons
e
LING 112
Respons
e MA
Total
LING 112
response
s
LING 112
Cumulativ
e%
LING 203
Respons
es
LING
203 %
Total
Respon
ses
2013
Total
%
2012
Total
%
BA
1
never
2
4
6
35%
5
42%
11
38%
49%
2
every now and
then
5
3
8
47%
6
50%
14
48.3%
28%
3
frequently
1
1
2
12%
1
8%
3
10.3%
21%
4
all the time
1
0
1
6%
0
0%
1
3.4%
2%
Total
9
8
17
100%
12
100%
29
100%
100%
Question 8
#
1
Answer
not useful
LING
112
Respon
se BA
LING 112
Respons
e MA
Total
LING 112
response
s
LING 112
Cumulativ
e%
LING 203
Respons
es
LING
203 %
0
1
1
8.3%
0
0%
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
Total
Response
s
1
2013
Total
%
5%
2012
Total
%
16%
73
#
Answer
LING
112
Respon
se BA
LING 112
Respons
e MA
Total
LING 112
response
s
LING 112
Cumulativ
e%
LING 203
Respons
es
LING
203 %
Total
Response
s
2013
Total
%
2012
Total
%
2
somewhat
useful
2
1
3
25.2%
3
43%
6
32%
47%
3
useful
4
3
7
58.2%
4
57%
11
58%
34%
4
very useful
1
0
1
8.3%
0
0%
1
5%
3%
Total
7
5
12
100%
7
100%
19
100%
100%
Awareness and Use of Program Learning Objectives (PLOs) for Self-Assessment
In terms of awareness of Program Learning Outcomes (Question 6), all but two students report being aware of them
to different degrees: one quarter has simply heard of them while another quarter is aware of them through the
greensheet and the rest have actually studied them carefully. The website seems to be less important as a source of
PLOs information in the responses in LING 112, (only one student has seen them there) as compared to the graduate
class, where the website is a more significant source for some 42% of the students. The greensheet is also a source
of information for the 2013 respondents. As for the use of PLOs for self-assessment (Question 9), the tendency is
for students to use them infrequently to never for self-assessment, a result similar to one in the 2012 report. Only 3
students report using them frequently. Students who report using the PLOs for self-assessment (Question10), the
majority find them useful or somewhat useful.
Question 6
#
Answer
LING
112
Respons
e
LING
112
Respon
se MA
Total
LING 112
response
s
LING 112
Cumulativ
e%
LING
203
Respon
ses
LING
203 %
Total
Response
s
2013
2012
Total %
Total
%
BA
1
not aware
0
1
1
5.88%
1
8%
2
7%
7%
2
have heard
about them
3
2
5
29.4%
2
17%
7
24%
32%
3
have seen
them on the
website
0
1
1
5.88%
5
42%
6
21%
34%
4
have seen
them on the
greensheet
4
1
5
29.4%
3
25%
8
27%
n/a
5
have studied
them carefully
2
3
5
29.4%
1
8%
6
21%
27%
Total
9
8
17
100%
12
100%
29
100%
100%
Question 9
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
74
#
Answer
LING
112
Respons
e
LING
112
Respon
se MA
Total LING
112
responses
LING 112
Cumulativ
e%
LING 203
Respons
es
LING
203 %
Total
Respons
es
2013
Total
%
2012
Total
%
BA
1
never
2
2
4
25%
6
50%
10
36%
42%
2
every now and
then
5
3
8
50%
6
50%
14
50%
44%
3
frequently
1
2
3
19%
0
0%
3
11%
14%
4
all the time
1
0
1
6%
0
0%
1
3%
0%
Total
9
7
16
100%
12
100%
28
100%
100%
Question 10
#
Answer
LING 112
Respons
e
LING
112
Respon
se MA
Total
LING 112
response
s
LING 112
Cumulativ
e%
LING 203
Response
s
LING
203 %
Total
Respons
es
2013
2012
Total %
Total
%
BA
1
not useful
0
1
1
7.5%
0
0%
1
5%
13%
2
somewhat
useful
2
1
3
23%
4
67%
7
37%
47%
3
useful
4
4
8
62%
2
33%
10
53%
38%
4
very useful
1
0
1
7.5%
0
0%
1
5%
2%
Total
7
6
13
100%
6
100%
19
100%
100%
Summary of findings




Level of studies (undergraduate or graduate) is not a factor in self-assessment
Students have not been viewing our website as much as we would want them to.
Although students are aware of SLOs and PLOs to varying degrees, they do not use them to selfassess. Potential reasons may be that they do not find the formulation of these objectives conducive to
self-assessment.
Including PLOs in their greensheets may raise their awareness further.
Next steps



Enrich the content of the website for greater usability and information dissemination
Make SLOs and PLOs more accessible and usable
Include PLOs in all greensheets
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
75

Develop and publish specific self-assessment strategies
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
76
D3: TESOL program and WASC
Application of WASC Rubric
to the SJSU MA TESOL Program: Assessment of Learning Outcomes
October 2011
Prepared by Scott Phillabaum
Analysis of Individual Criteria
o
Comprehensive List – Developed
Our examination of the MA TESOL Program Learning Objectives reveals a set of well-organized and welldefined goals that places reasonable outcomes within a framework of institution-wide goals. Moreover, our
goals are consonant with those of comparable MA TESOL programs around the country. Future teachers of
English as a Second Language require knowledge of language structure, language learning, language
instruction, as well as the means for understanding and synthesizing this knowledge in actual teaching. Our
goals are crafted according to these broad considerations and with the aim of producing teachers who integrate
such knowledge into their practice. Finally, our Program Learning Objectives include the apprenticeship of our
students into the specific practices that characterize the professional community they will soon be joining.
o
Assessable Outcomes – Emerging
Although our learning outcomes cover a wide scope of knowledge and are very comprehensive within the
discipline, the outcomes are not as explicit as they could be in indicating how students will demonstrate their
learning. As written, the learning outcomes rely heavily on student “demonstration” of various understandings
and abilities, but they do not state explicitly how students will demonstrate such understanding or ability. The
specific means by which students demonstrate these understandings is generally left to individual instructors
and appear in the Course Goals and Objectives of individual syllabi.
o
Alignment –Developed
The MA TESOL Learning Objectives have been designed in such a way that each objective is introduced,
reinforced, and advanced in different courses as students progress through the program. This alignment between
required coursework and learning objectives is reflected in a curriculum map that shows the relationship
between required courses and the programs’ learning objectives. Pedagogical tasks in all coursework are
designed to foster and encourage student growth and development and to provide students with feedback on
their ongoing development.
o
Assessment Planning –Developed
The MA TESOL Program has a multi-year assessment plan that states which learning objectives will be
assessed in which courses each semester. This means that each semester the MA TESOL Program is engaged in
assessing a subset of the program goals and objectives. The semester after specific learning objectives have
been examined in particular courses, an assessment report is prepared along with suggestions for improvements.
The department curriculum committee then discusses this report and specific recommendations are made for
implementation during the following semester. This plan is revisited at the start of each semester in the
department curriculum committee.
o
The Student Experience – Developed
Students in the MA TESOL Program are made aware of learning objectives in a number of ways. Programs
goals and objectives are widely available on the department webpage, they are included in the course syllabi,
and students actively use them to guide their progress in classes. Moreover, students are represented at
curriculum committee meetings where the ongoing assessment, described in part iv above, takes place. This
provides them with a means of input on curriculum development and assessment.

Plan for Specific Goals Advancing
The three areas that we will focus on advancing between Spring 2012 and Spring 2014 are: (1)
Comprehensive List, (2) Assessable Outcomes, and (3) The Student Experience. We will also include a
review of (4) Alignment and (5) Assessment Planning.
LLD Program Planning Report 2013-2014
77
SPRING 2012
 Examine learning
outcomes in
terms of
recommendations
from TESOL
Inc., the
professional
association of
Teachers of
English to
Speakers of
Other Languages.
1
 Revisit learning
outcomes and
determine which
outcomes can be
made more
explicit. 2
 Set plan to
evaluate the
alignment
between
pedagogical tasks
in individual
courses and
specific learning
outcomes. 4
FALL 2012
 Discuss learning
outcomes and their
relation to TESOL
Inc.’s national
standards. 1
SPRING 2013
 Adapt or add
learning outcomes to
bring into alignment
with TESOL Inc.’s
national standards. 1
 Explore ways to
make learning
outcomes more
explicit. 2
 Collect rubrics and
other criteria
statements from
faculty regarding
levels of
 Discuss student
achievement for
self-assessment. 3
each learning
outcome. 2
 Evaluate the degree
to which students
 Devise specific
use learning
strategies for student
outcomes to selfself-assessment.
assess. 3
Include these in
FALL 2013
 Review draft
of revised
learning
outcomes and
finalize
revisions. 1 2 3
45
SPRING 2014
 Publish revised
learning outcomes
to department
website. 1 2 3 4 5
 Submit revised
learning outcomes
to university for
publication on
university website
and in university
catalog. 1 2 3 4 5
 Distribute revised
learning objectives
to students. 1 2 3 4 5
revised learning
 Discuss possible
outcomes. 3
formalization of
learning outcomes  If necessary,
and specific
formalize alignment
pedagogical tasks. 4
of learning
outcomes and
 Review the current
specific pedagogical
multi-year
tasks. 4
assessment plan
and evaluate the
 If necessary, amend
procedure used for
current multi-year
reporting
assessment plan and
assessment, and for
means for reporting
planning and
and planning. 5
implementing
improvements. 5
 Produce initial draft
of revised learning
outcomes. 1 2 3 4 5
Note: The superscript numbers in the table refer to the following learning outcome criteria:
1
Comprehensive List
Planning
2
Assessable Outcomes
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
3
The Student Experience
4
Alignment
5
Assessment
Pg. 78
D4: MA Linguistics Comprehensive Exam Results
MA Linguistics Culminating Experience: Comprehensive Exam Results S09-F13
The MA Linguistics Comprehensive Exam consists of three parts. Each part assesses a different combination of
Program Learning Objectives (PLOs), as specified in the map below:
COMPS PART
PART I: Phonetics & Phonology
PART II: Syntax and Semantics
PART III: Psycholinguistics
PART III: Sociolinguistics
PART III: Historical Linguistics
PART III: SLA
PART III: Computational Linguistics
PART III: Morphology
Semester
Exam Part
PLOs assessed
1A, 1B, 1E, 2A, 2D
1C, 1D, 2A, 2D
3D, 2D
3C, 2D
3E, 2D
3B, 2D
3A, 2D
2A, 2D
# students
passed
# students
failed
Spring 2009
PART I
PART II
PART III: Comp Ling
Historical Ling
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
Fall 2009
PART I
PART II
PART III: Comp Ling
Sociolinguistics
Historical Ling.
PART I
PART II
PART III: Comp Ling
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Historical Ling
PART I
PART II
PART III: Comp Ling
SLA
Historical Ling
Morphology
PART I
PART II
PART III: Comp Ling
Morphology
SLA
Historical Ling
PART I
PART II
PART III Morphology
PART I
PART II
PART III: Comp Ling
SLA
3
3
1
1
1
6
7
1
1
1
4
5
4
1
1
1
1
7
8
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
1
1
0
0
0
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
1*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1*
0
0
Comments
*Passed in F10
One student failed the
whole exam
*passed in F12
Pg. 79
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Historical Ling
Sociolinguistics
PART I
PART II
PART III: SLA
PART I
PART II
PART III: Comp Ling
SLA
Morphology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
PART I
PART II
PART III: Comp Ling
SLA
TOTAL
2
1
2
1
1
10
9
3
2
3
1
0
3
4
3
1
45
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3 PART I
1 PART III
1 PART II
One student failed the
whole exam
REFLECTIONS:
Passage rate: Of the 45 students who took the comprehensive exam in the past ten semesters, only two failed
more than one part. Of those, one retook and passed the exam the following semester, the other did not attempt
again. Three other students failed Part I, two of them passed it on the second attempt, the third one will be taking
it in S14.
Difficulties: For those few students who have had a failure, the most difficult part of the exam appears to be Part I:
Phonetics and Phonology. In answering Part I, students overwhelmingly prefer the phonology problem over the
theoretical question. In Part II, there’s generally a bias of preference towards semantics.
Elective choice: In Part III, the choices in descending order have been the following: Comp Ling (12), Historical (10),
Morphology (10), SLA (7), Sociolinguistics (4), Psycholinguistics (2).
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 80
D5: MA TESOL Comprehensive Exam Results
The MA TESOL Comprehensive Exam consists of three parts. Each part assesses a different combination of Program
Learning Objectives (PLOs), as specified in the map below:
COMPS PART
PART 1: Language Structure and Language Development
PART II: Social/Psychological Contexts of Language Learning and Teaching
PART III: Pedagogical Issues
Semester
Pass
Fail
Spring 2008
16
0
Fall 2008
8
3
1: (2, 3)
1: (1, 3)
1: (1)
Spring 2009
26
1
1: (3)
Fall 2009
11
1
1: (1)
Spring 2010
17
0
Fall 2010
8
1
1: (3)
Spring 2011
10
2
1: (1)
1: (2)
Fall 2011
11
3
1: (1, 2)
1: (1)
1: (3)
Spring 2012
10
0
Fall 2012
6
0
Spring 2013
18
1
1: (3)
Fall 2013
6
2
1: (2, 3)
1: (3)
147
14
TOTALS
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
PLOs Assessed
1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 5C
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 5B, 5C
3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 5A, 5B, 5C
Parts failed
Pg. 81
Number of Failures per Exam Part
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
6
4
8
Reflections
The great majority of students pass the comprehensive exam on their first attempt. Of the 147 students
that took the exam in the past 12 semesters, only 14 (9%) have failed on their first attempt. Of those,
four students failed more than one part, hence they had to retake the entire exam, and ten students
failed one part only. If number of failures of a part is interpreted as its degree of difficulty, then Part 3:
Pedagogical Issues, is the most difficult part with eight failures, followed by Part I: Language Structure
and Language Development.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 82
D6: List of Master’s theses completed in 2009-2013
All theses can be obtained in full text from http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/linguistics_grad/
M.A. Linguistics Theses
Student
Title
Year
Antonio Hernandez
Boom and Whoosh: Verb of
Explosion as a change-ofstate class
Plurality Cues and NonAgreement in English
Existentials
Grading Non-Gradable
Adjectives: A "Totally Unique"
Corpus Study
A Study on Taiwanese
International Students and
Taiwanese American
Students: The Interface
between Naming and Identity
Evaluating the Contribution of
Hashtags to Sentiment
Analysis of Microblogs,
“A Phonetic, Phonological,
and Morphosyntactic Analysis
of the Mara Language
Academic Writing
Development Through
Dialogues Between Tutors
and Second-language
Learners
Left-isolation from a
construction grammar
viewpoint
Forms and functions of
Englishisms in Japanese
women's fashion magazines,
Englishisms in post-Soviet
Russian : linguistic markers of
historical change,
2013
Thesis Committee
Chair
Dr. Soteria Svorou
2013
Dr. Soteria Svorou
2013
Dr. Soteria Svorou
2012
Dr. Rosemary Henze
2012
Dr. Hahn Koo
2010
Dr. Daniel Silverman
2010
Dr. Rosemary Henze
2009
Dr. Soteria Svorou
2009
Dr. Peter Lowenberg
2008
Dr. Peter Lowenberg
Robin Melnick
Laura Maggia Panfili
Yi-An Chen
Elena Grossfeld
Michelle Arden
Fabio de Oliveira
Coehlo
Shelley Crocker
Yumie Sase
Yuliya Thompson
Award
H&A, SJSU, CSU
Research competition
winner
Student Research
Competition, College of
Humanities and the
Arts and SJSU
M.A. TESOL Theses
Student
Dominika Bialek
Youngmin Seo
Title
Maintenance of Polish Language and
Culture among First Generation Polish
Immigrants Living in the Southern San
Francisco Bay Area, California.,
"I'm Korean, living in the United
States",
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Year
2012
Thesis Committee Chair
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan
2009
Dr. Rosemary Henze
Award
Pg. 83
D7: LLD/ENGL 100A impact on 100W performance in comparison to Passage of WST
Analysis of ENGL 100A or LLD 100A Impacts on 100W
(prepared by Institutional Effectiveness and Analytics, 08/05/2013)
Note: Included Students with 1st WST Essay Score between 1 and 7
Hypothesis 1: Do the performances of 100A students and passed WST students differ significantly in regard to their
100W grades?
Tabel 1 shows the mean comparison and grade distribution of 100W courses between 100A and passed WST
students. The quantity point of 100W final grades was used to indicate the achievement scores. The analysis
suggested that there is no significantly difference in 100W achievement scores between these two groups.
** Based on the independent t-test, we concluded that there is no evidence of a systematic difference between
these two groups because p > .05. According to Cohan (1988), this is a small effect that 100A grades can be used to
predict 100W achievement.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 84
E.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS, PLANNING FORMS, CULMINATING EXPERIENCES
E1. B.A. Linguistics Major
Linguistics undertakes the scientific study of the nature, structure, and function of language. Linguists analyze the
structure of the world's languages, study how languages change over time, describe regional and social varieties of
standard languages, and attempt to understand the workings of the human mind by studying the acquisition of
language(s) by children and adults. Knowledge gathered through the study of the various facets of language can be
applied to the development of effective language teaching methods and materials as well as to the development of
computer systems that can process natural language and can recognize and synthesize speech.
A total of 36 semester units of linguistics coursework are required for the major. These units include:
A. 21 Units of Core Courses
LING 101
LING 111
LING 112
LING 113
LING 114
LING 125
LING 162
Introduction to Linguistics ................................................................................3 units
Introduction to Phonetics .................................................................................3 units
Introduction to Syntax ......................................................................................3 units
Introduction to Phonology................................................................................3 units
Introduction to Semantics and Discourse ........................................................3 units
Introduction to Historical Linguistics ................................................................3 units
Introduction to Morphology .............................................................................3 units
Total:
21 units
B. 15 Units of Electives
Elective courses must be chosen in consultation with a major advisor. Students may select 15 units of electives, 12
units of which must be in Linguistics. These courses may be chosen from the following list, or from relevant courses
from other departments:
LING 107
LING 108
LING 115
LING 124
LING 161
LING 165
Patterns of English
Intro to Second Lang Development & Teaching
Corpus Linguistics
Introduction to Speech Technology
Psycholinguistics
Introduction to Natural Language Processing
LING 166 Sociolinguistics: Cross-Cultural Communication
LLD 100W Writing Workshop (SJSU Studies Z)
One of the following SJSU Studies courses:
LING 122 English as a World Language (Area V)
LING 123 Sound & Communication (Area R)
LING 129 Culture, Language & Ethnicity in U.S. (Area S)
Specialization Within The Linguistics Major
Linguistics majors may choose an area of specialization within the field of linguistics. By carefully selecting electives (in
consultation with their advisor), students have the opportunity to prepare for further graduate study and/or for future
employment in academia or industry. Informal emphases within the major are: (1) General Linguistics; (2)
Computational Linguistics (LING 115, 124, 165); and (3) TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) (LING
107, 108, 161 and 166).
Language Requirement
The language requirement is one year of college-level coursework in a language other than the student's native
language, or demonstrated equivalent competence. Courses in American Sign Language may meet this requirement.
Other Requirements
Please consult the "General Catalog" for information concerning general university requirements for General Education
courses, Physical Education courses, supporting courses and electives. The total number of units required for this
degree is 120.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 85
Planning Form
BA Linguistics
3
Third Year
1
First Year
Fall
Core GE
Core GE
Core GE-Ling Elective - Ling 20/21/22
Support for the Major - Foreign Language
03
03
03
05
Units
14
Spring
Core GE
Core GE
Support for the Major - Foreign Language
Core GE
03
03
05
03
Units
14
Fall
 Ling 101
 Ling 111
Ling Elective
Ling Elective
SJSU Studies/Ling elect. – Lld 100W
Units
03
03
03
03
03
15
Spring
 Ling 112
Ling 162
SJSU Stud./Ling elect. – Ling 122/123/129
General Elective
General Elective
Units
03
03
03
03
03
15
4
Fourth Year
2
Second Year
Fall
Core GE
Core GE
Core GE
Core GE
Core GE
Physical Ed
03
03
03
03
03
01
Units
16
Spring
Core GE
Core GE
Core GE
Core GE
Core GE
Physical Ed
03
03
03
03
03
01
Units
16
Fall
 Ling 113
Ling 114
SJSU Studies
General Elective
General Elective
Units
03
03
03
03
03
15
Spring
Ling 125
SJSU Studies
General Elective
General Elective
General Elective
Units
03
03
03
03
03
15
Core General Education
Support for the major
SJSU Studies (6 of 12 units counted in major)
Linguistics Major Requirements
Physical Education
General Electives
Total units to graduate
48
10
06
36
02
18
120
 Prerequisite for all major classes
 Prerequisite for Ling 113, 125
 Prerequisite for Ling 125
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 86
E2. M.A. Linguistics
Students working toward an M.A. in Linguistics may concentrate on a variety of interdisciplinary areas. For example,
students interested in computers can concentrate on artificial intelligence, speech synthesis and machine speech
recognition, and cognitive linguistics. Other areas of linguistics on which a student may focus include comparative
linguistics or language variation and change. Electives chosen under advisement allow students to pair linguistics with
related offerings in departments such as Anthropology, Communication Studies, Engineering, Humanities, Foreign
Languages, Mathematics and Computer Science, or Psychology.
Requirements for Admission to Conditionally Classified Standing
Students holding an accredited Baccalaureate degree and who otherwise satisfy the admissions requirements for the
Graduate School of San José State University are eligible for admission as a "conditionally classified student". For
students with Baccalaureate degrees from a university where English is not the principal language of instruction, this
includes scores from a standardized English proficiency test: for the TOEFL, a minimum score of 90 on the internetbased test (or 577 on the paper-based test or 233 on the computer based test); for IELTS, a minimum score of 7.0;
and for Pearsons, a minimum score of 68. Students must have a grade point average of at least 3.0 in the last 60
semester (90 quarter) units.
Students admitted as "Conditionally Classified" may complete the requirements for classified standing after admission
to the program concurrently with program courses; however, no more than twelve (12) units completed before the
semester in which classified standing is attained may be counted towards the M.A. degree.
Requirements for Admission to Classified Standing
Students holding an accredited Baccalaureate degree with a grade point average of at least 3.0 in the last 60 semester
(90 quarter) units and who otherwise satisfy the admissions requirements for the Graduate School of San José State
University (for students with Baccalaureate degrees from a university where English is not the principal language of
instruction, this includes a minimum score from a standardized English proficiency test: for the TOEFL, a minimum
score of 90 on the internet-based test (or 577 on the paper-based test or 233 on the computer test); for IELTS, a
minimum score of 7.0; and for Pearsons, a minimum score of 68) are eligible for admission as "Classified" if they also
have completed the equivalent of San José State University's Introduction to Linguistics (LING 101), Introduction to
Phonetics (LING 111), Introduction to Syntax (LING 112), with a 3.0 (B or better in each course) grade point average.
These courses are all upper division courses. Lower division courses taken elsewhere are not equivalent.
Requirements for Admission to Candidacy
A student may be admitted to candidacy after completing a minimum of nine (9) units of graded work beyond
prerequisites as a graduate student in 100 or 200 level courses. The GPA in all courses taken after the receipt of their
bachelor’s degree must be at least 3.0 “B”. They must also have satisfied San José State University’s competency in
written English requirement. This requirement may be satisfied in one of the following ways:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Satisfactory completion of the CSU baccalaureate graduation requirement of competency in Written English
(100W course)
Satisfactory completion of LLD 250W
Approval by the Associate Dean or the AVP for Graduate Studies and Research of a (peer-reviewed)
professional publication or graduate thesis in which the candidate is a sole author
Satisfactory completion of a discipline-specific upper-division writing course at another university judged by
the AVP for Graduate Studies and Research to be equivalent in content and writing requirement to the SJSU
100W.
Additionally, they must have demonstrated proficiency in any language, including English, other than their native
language. This requirement may be met by successful completion of the second year of college-level courses in an
Indo-European language or the first year of college-level courses in a non-Indo-European language.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 87
Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Linguistics
Students are required to complete a total of 30 units. Units to be counted toward the M.A. degree may not include
more than six (6) units transferred from other institutions or taken through Open University. Students have the option
of completing the M.A. Linguistics under one of two plans.
Plan A (Thesis Option). Completion of 30 units (18 core units; 12 elective units: 1–6 units of 299 and electives).
The thesis option allows a student to pursue research in an area of common interest to the student and a faculty
member. A thesis proposal may grow out of a course or be developed in a LING 298, and must be approved by the
student’s Thesis Committee. LING 299 then serves as an opportunity to implement the thesis proposal. See Catalog
for details.
Plan B Completion of 30 units (18 core units; 12 elective units); passing of a comprehensive examination.
Degree course requirements are as follows:
A. Completion of the Core Courses
LING 113
Introduction to Phonology
LING 114
Introduction to Semantics & Discourse
LING 201
Phonology: Theory and Application
LING 202A
Syntactic Theory
LING 203
Semantic Structures
LING 213
Linguistic Field Methods
3
3
3
3
3
3
18 units
(LING 101, 111- prereqs)
(LING 101 - prereq)
(LING 101, 111, 113 - prereqs)
(LING 101, 112 - prereqs)
(LING 101, 114 – prereq)
(LING 101, 111, 112, 113 – prereqs)
B. Electives under advisement
12 units
Students should plan carefully with an advisor for interdisciplinary electives from other departments, which may enrich
or supplement Linguistics subareas. At least 3 units must be at the 200 level. A minimum of 60% must be letter-graded
coursework.
Departmental Electives (with advisor's approval)
LING 115
LING 124
LING 125
LING 161
LING 162
LING 165
LING 166
LING 202B
LING 204
LING 240
LING 297
LING 298
LING 299
LLD 230
LLD 270
LLD 271
LLD 295
LLD 297
Corpus Linguistics
Computers and Spoken Language
Intro to Historical-Comparative Linguistics
Psycholinguistics
Introduction to Morphology
Computers and Written Language
Sociolinguistics: Cross-cultural Communication
Current Issues in Syntax
Sound Patterns of English
Language Change
Computers and Language
Individual Studies
Master's Thesis or Project
Seminar in Linguistics (check with advisor before taking the class)
Second Language Acquisition
Intercultural Communication and SLA
Cross-cultural literacy
English in the Global Context
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Units
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Pg. 88
1
First Year
Graduate Student
Planning Form
Status at admission: Conditionally Classified
MA Linguistics
Department of Linguistics and Language Development (LLD)
http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/
Main Office: (408) 924-4413
Fall
 Ling 101 (prerequisite)
 Ling 111 (prerequisite)
 Ling 112 (prerequisite)
 Ling 114 Intro to Semantics & Discourse (core)
03
03
03
03
Units
12
Spring
Ling 203 Semantic Structures
LLD 250W (Satisfies GWAR – Ling elective)
Ling Elective
File “Change of Classification” form w/ GAPE
Units
03
03
03
09
2
Second Year
1. Contact the LLD office to make an appointment with an
Academic Advisor.
2. Discuss Graduation Plan: Thesis or non-thesis
Non-Thesis Plan: 18 core, 12 electives
Thesis Plan: 18 core, 6 electives, 6 units Ling 298/299
3. Plan electives. Possible course clustering:
Computational Linguistics Certificate  Ling 115, 124, 165
TESOL Certificate  LLD 270, 271 (with the addition of Ling
107, LLD 280, 283)
General Linguistics Ling 125, 161, 162, 166
Thesis Plan  2 electives, Ling 298, Ling 299
4. If you need to, begin work of the Foreign Language
Requirement.
4. Upon completion of prerequisites, fill out “Change of
Classification form”
5. Upon completion of 9 units in the program (beyond
prerequisites,) fill out “Petition for Advancement to Graduate
Candidacy” form. This must be done the semester before
you’re planning to graduate by a certain published date.
6. The semester you’re graduating, fill out “Application to
Graduate” form.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Fall
Ling 113 Intro to Phonology (core)
Ling 202 Syntactic Theory (core)
Ling Elective
File “Graduate Candidacy” form w/GAPE
Units
Spring
Ling 201 Phonology: Theory & Applications (core)
Ling 213 Field Methods (core)
Ling Elective
Apply to graduate
Units
03
03
03
09
03
03
03
09
Graduation Requirements
Prerequisites
Core requirements
Electives
Total units to graduate
09
18
12
30
 Prerequisite for all major classes
 Prerequisite for Ling 113, 201
 Prerequisite for 201
 Prerequisite for 202
 Prerequisite for 203
Pg. 89
E3. M.A. IN TESOL
The TESOL degree prepares students for teaching English to speakers of other languages in a variety of settings
both here and abroad: a) English as a Second Language (ESL) in community colleges, b) ESL in adult programs, c)
ESL in community-based organizations (e.g., refugee programs, job training), d) ESL or English for Specific Purposes
(ESP) in college undergraduate programs or intensive English programs, e) ESP in industry, f) English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) for foreign students, and g) EFL overseas. In addition, students may go on to pursue further
degrees in TESOL or applied linguistics.
Requirements for Admission to Conditionally Classified Standing
Students holding an accredited Baccalaureate degree and who otherwise satisfy the admissions requirements for
the Graduate School of San José State University are eligible for admission as a "conditionally classified student."
In the case of students with Baccalaureate degrees from a university where English is not the principal language of
instruction, this includes scores from a standardized English proficiency test: for the TOEFL, a minimum score of 90
on the internet-based test (or 577 on the paper-based test or 233 on the computer test); for IELTS, a minimum
score of 7.0; and for Pearsons, a minimum score of 68. Students must have a grade point average of at least 3.0 in
the last 60 semester (90 quarter) units.
Students admitted as "conditionally classified" may complete the requirements for classified standing after
admission to the program; however, no more than twelve (12) units completed before the semester in which
classified standing is attained may be counted towards the M.A. degree.
Requirements for Admission to Classified Standing
Students holding an accredited Baccalaureate degree and who otherwise satisfy the admissions requirements for
the Graduate School of San José State University (in the case of students with Baccalaureate degrees from a
university where English is not the principal language of instruction, this includes scores from a standardized
English proficiency test: for the TOEFL, a minimum score of 90 on the internet-based test (or 577 on the paperbased test or 233 on the computer test); for IELTS, a minimum score of 7.0; and for Pearsons, a minimum score of
68) are eligible for admission as "classified" if they have completed at least six (6) semester units equivalent to San
José State University's Introduction to Linguistics (LING 101) and Patterns of English (LING 107) with a 3.0 (B) grade
point average.
Requirements for Admission to Candidacy
In addition to the Academic Requirements in the Graduate Catalog, candidates must have:
 demonstrated proficiency in any language, including English, other than their native language. This
requirement may be met by successful completion of the first year of college-level courses (or their
equivalent, e.g., ACTFL 2) in a foreign language.
 demonstrated competency in written English. This is a university requirement for candidacy which must be
satisfied by successfully completing LLD 250W (one of the core courses) with a grade of B or better.
Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in TESOL
Students are required to complete a total of 30 units. Students must pass a comprehensive examination or
complete a Master’s thesis. Units to be counted toward the M.A. degree may not include more than six (6) units
transferred from other institutions or taken through Open University. Students have the option of completing the M.A.
TESOL under one of two plans.
Plan A (Thesis Option). Completion of 30 units (24 core units; 6 elective units: 1– 3 units of 299 and one elective).
The thesis option allows a student to pursue research in an area of common interest to the student and a faculty
member. A thesis proposal may grow out of a course or be developed in a LLD 298, and must be approved by the
student’s Thesis Committee. LLD 299 then serves as an opportunity to implement the thesis proposal. See Catalog for
details.
Plan B Completion of 30 units (24 core units; 6 elective units); passing of a comprehensive examination.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 90
Degree course requirements are as follows:
LLD 250W
LLD 260
LLD 261
LLD 270
LLD 271
LLD 280
LLD 282
LLD 283
Advanced Academic English
English Structures for Teaching I
English Structures for Teaching II
Second Language Acquisition
Intercultural Communication and
Second Language Acquisition
Methods and Materials for TESOL
Practicum in TESOL
Curriculum and Assessment in TESOL
2 electives, or 1 elective and
LLD 299
Thesis
3 units (required for advancement to candidacy)
3 units (LING 107; LING 101-prereqs)
3 units (LLD 260-prereq)
3 units
3 units
3 units
3 units
3 units
3 units
Electives may be selected from the following:
LLD 230
LLD 289
LLD 290
LLD 291
LLD 292
LLD 293
LLD 294
LLD 295
LLD 297
LING 111
LING 112
LING 113
LING 114
LING 125
LING 161
LING 162
LING 166
LING 201
LING 202A
LING 202B
LING 203
LING 213
Topics in Linguistics/TESOL
Classroom Techniques for TESOL Professionals
Foundations of ESP
ESP Course Design
Special Topics in ESP
Developmental Reading/Writing: Principles & Practices
Analyzing Classroom Language
Cross-Cultural Literacy
English in the Global Context
Introduction to Phonetics
Introduction to Syntax
Introduction to Phonology
Semantics
Introduction to Historical-Comparative Linguistics
Psycholinguistics
Introduction to Morphology
Sociolinguistics
Phonology: Theory and Application
Advanced Syntax
Current Issues in Syntactic Theory
Semantics
Linguistic Field Methods
Courses from other departments may be used as electives, with graduate advisor approval.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 91
E4. MA Comprehensive Exam Information
LLD Comprehensive Exam
Basic Exam Outline
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part I
Part II
Part II
M.A. LINGUISTICS
Phonetics/Phonology
Syntax/Semantics
Psycholinguistics or Sociolinguistics or
Historical Linguistics or Computational
Linguistics (one question) or Morphology
or Second Language Acquisition or
Intercultural Communication
M.A. TESOL
Analysis of Language Structure and
Language Development
Social and Psychological Contexts of
Language Learning and Teaching
Pedagogical Issues
Exam Administration
Friday, April 25, 10 A.M.
 Go to the pick-up room (TESOL: CL 479;
LING: CL 481)
 Attend a brief orientation regarding the exam (up
to one hour)
 Pick up the exam questions.
Monday, April 28, 5:00 P.M.
 Turn in the completed exam questions to the
LLD Office (CL 473).
 Submit three (3) copies of each of the three
questions.
 For those who have asked for test
accommodation, the deadline will be different as
determined by the Accessible Education Center.
Exam Policies
University Policies
 The Department would like to emphasize that we
adhere strictly to the rules against plagiarism as
set forth in the SJSU Catalog
(http://info.sjsu.edu/static/catalog/policies.html)S
hould a student plagiarize on the Comprehensive
exam, the Department will take disciplinary
action, including granting the student an “F” in
the exam and referring the student to the
University’s Judicial Affairs Officer. In addition,
students must write their answers without any
informational help from any person at all, and
without any help (either informational or
editorial) from other students in or graduates of
LLD.
 Students needing test accommodation should
obtain documentation from the Accessible
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Education Center and notify the appropriate
coordinator at least two weeks before the exam
date. They should note that under no
circumstances will the extended deadline be
extended any further.
Department Policies
 Students fill out the “Petition to take the
Comprehensive Examination” at the
beginning of the semester they are planning
to take the exam. Students must have
completed or are currently completing the
core courses in the semester they are taking
the comprehensive exam.
 The 5:00 P.M deadline for submission of the
answers is VERY STRICT.
 Exams are graded anonymously and by two
readers per question.
 In case of failure: Students occasionally fail
one or more parts of the Comprehensive
Examination, generally because they have:
a) misunderstood some course content, b)
misread the question, c) presented their
answer in an unclear manner, d) failed to
adopt a suitably academic tone and mode of
presentation, applying theory and citing the
literature where appropriate, e) devoted little
time in exploring a question, f) plagiarism,
g) failed to turn in answers to all three
questions, or h) missed the 5:00 P.M.
deadline.
In case of failure, a student will receive a
written notice. He or she should see the
appropriate coordinator to get verbal
feedback. If a student fails one part of the
exam, he or she should petition the faculty
to retake that part only. If a student fails
more than one part of the exam, he or she
should petition the faculty to retake all three
parts.
 A student who has failed a part or the whole
exam may retake the exam as many times as
the exam is offered within the universitymandated time limit on coursework.
Grading
Criteria
Students often ask what the grading criteria
are. The following are the main points that
are considered in evaluating a student’s
work:
 Accuracy – Is what you say accurate?
 Completeness – Have you addressed all
parts of the question?
 Authoritativeness – Can you support
your claims with reference to the
literature? (If you can, you should.)
Pg. 92
 Elegance – Is your response well
composed, organized, edited, and
proofread?
Grading Scale
4 = High Pass
Below 2 = Fail
3 = Pass 2 = Low Pass
Each question will be read by two readers.
Original scores may be given in increments
of .5. An average is taken for the final score.
Results
Grades are generally available on the second
Monday after the exam is submitted, unless
special arrangements have been made for
some students, in which case the
announcement of results may be delayed.
Written feedback is given ONLY if a part or
parts of the exam is failed. If you would like
verbal feedback on your exam, see the
appropriate coordinator. The grades you
receive on the exam do not appear on your
transcript. The coordinators simply notify
Graduate Applications and Program
Evaluations (GAPE) on your fulfillment of
the Culminating Experience.
Preparing for the exam
Before the exam date
 Make arrangements for accommodation.
 Review class material.
 Make index of topics with articles/ chapters
covering each topic.
 Be familiar with bibliography distributed in
each class.
 Form study groups to help each other with
review.
 You may review previous exam questions
but only for style.
The week before the exam
 Take care of your living space.
 Make arrangements for family and
roommates to be away during your
important weekend.
 Plan meals ahead of time.
 Make sure a back-up computer system and
supplies are available.
 Relax the day before the exam and get a
good night’s sleep.
 Call the LLD office if you decide not to take
the Comps at the last minute.
After you pick up the exam
 Read each question very carefully. Make a
decision on which you are going to answer.
 Budget your time wisely! Avoid spending
too much time on one question and
neglecting another.
 Apply and synthesize all the information
from your MA work.
 Support all your claims with references from
the literature. If you cite someone
specifically, give the reference in the text
and in a reference list at the end.
 If you have a counter position other than
what is advocated by the present field, make
sure you argue your position well.
 Make sure that you have answered all parts
of each question. Failure to answer any part
of a question can result in a failing score.
Exam Format
 Do not identify yourself by name or
anything unique to you on any portion of
your essays.
 Use normal 1-inch margins.
 Double space.
 Use a 12-point font.
 On every page, give your identification
number (the number you will be given when
you pick up the exam), page number (e.g.
page 2 of 5), and the number of the exam
part and subpart being addressed (e.g. PART
II, Question 2). Be sure to follow the
numbering of the exam itself.
 Unless otherwise specified, a reasonable
length for answers should be between four
(4) and (6) typed pages.
 Make three copies of each question, each
copy collated and stapled.
 Paper clip each set of questions. You should
have three sets, each consisting of three
copies of the same essay.
Important Contact Information
LLD Office
408/924-4413
Dr. Scott Phillabaum
408/924-7095
Scott.Phillabaum@sjsu.edu
Dr. Roula Svorou
408/924-1379
Roula.Svorou@sjsu.edu
E5. LLD Guidelines for the MA Thesis Option
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 93
As a culminating experience, M.A. candidates in the Department of Linguistics and Language Development may
elect either to take the Comprehensive Examination or to write a Master's Thesis, not both. The thesis option should
not be chosen lightly. Students wishing to write a thesis must:
 Have a specific research question that they wish to explore.
 Have demonstrated the capacity to write well and complete projects on time, and have received adequate
preparation to do effective research.
 Find an LLD tenured or tenure track faculty member who is interested in and knowledgeable on that topic,
willing to guide the student, and available for three consecutive semesters (not counting summer and winter) in
order to help the student develop a viable proposal and chair their committee.
 Register for from one to three units of LLD 298 or LING 298: Individual Studies in order to explore the
feasibility of the research question. This work should be guided by the faculty member who will be the student's
thesis chair if the student decides to submit a thesis proposal. (298 units count as elective credit whether a thesis
proposal is submitted or not.) (This step may not be necessary if the student has already worked on the research
question as part of a term paper for a class and the thesis chair agrees that the student can work independently to
develop the proposal.)
 Find at least two other faculty members who also are interested in the topic and knowledgeable on it, willing to
assist the student, and available for the two consecutive semesters during which the student is writing the thesis
in order to complete their committee. These two faculty members must be approved by the chair of their
committee and may be from another department. If they are part-time faculty, the chair of the committee has to
have them sign off on the form titled “Voluntary Service on Thesis Committee.”
 File an "Intent to Do a Master's Thesis" form in the LLD office by the intent deadline (the same as the Comps
petition deadline). (Intent forms are available in the LLD office and at the LLD website.)
 Attend a Master's Thesis orientation session. Orientation sessions are offered approximately on the sixth week of
every semester.
 Submit to the chair of the thesis committee three copies of a thesis proposal five pages in length (double-spaced)
plus a bibliography. Proposals should follow the following format:
 Cover sheet with the proposed title, your name, and the date
 Need for the study
 Overview of the literature
 Research question(s) or hypothesis(es)
 Research design (method of data collection and method of data analysis)
 Timeline for completion
 Bibliography (of books, chapters, and journal articles) – in two parts:
 References already read
 Potentially relevant references
Proposals are due to the thesis committee chair during the semester in which the student is taking LLD 298
or LING 298 or the semester s/he filed the “Intent to Do a Master’s Thesis” form if the student is not taking
298 units. The thesis committee chair will then confer with the members of the proposed thesis committee
to see if they feel that the thesis proposal is viable and compelling enough for the student to pursue.
Fall
Nov. 1: Student submits draft proposal to committee
Spring
April 1: Student submits draft proposal to committee
Nov. 15: Committee members provide feedback to student
April 15: Committee members provide feedback to student
Nov. 30: Student submits final proposal to committee
April 30: Student submits final proposal to committee
Note:
In case the methodology of the proposed thesis requires use of human subjects, then approval must be
obtained from the Human Subject Review Board. When the thesis proposal is submitted to the chair of the thesis
committee, the student must attach a note stating whether or not Human Subject approval will be necessary for the
thesis research and, if so, when the protocol will be submitted to the Human Subject Review Board. (Within two
weeks of submitting the thesis proposal to the chair of the thesis committee would be an appropriate time frame.)
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 94
Also note that the student and the chair of the thesis committee must take an on-line short course and test in order
to be certified by IRB prior to submitting the protocol for review by IRB. The “Human Subjects – Institutional
Review Board Packet for Investigators” is available in Graduate Studies, Student Services Center, or on-line at
http://www.sjsu.edu/gradstudies/Research/irb.html
 If the proposal is accepted, register for from one to three units of LLD 299 or LING 299: Master's Thesis in the
semester after doing LLD 298 or LING 298. Please note that (a) students may take a total of six units of
298/299 in their university career, and (b) 299 units will count as elective credits after the Master's Thesis has
officially been passed; until that time, students will need to do the paperwork for an incomplete in 299 (which
will become a no credit if a year passes without the submission of a thesis).
 Develop a draft thesis and share it with all committee members, allowing enough time for them to provide
feedback and for the student to make substantive as well as editorial changes before the deadline for the final
thesis.
 Submit a completed thesis to the Graduate Studies office in the required format and by the deadlines. A copy of
“General Instructions for Master’s Theses” (typing instructions) is available in Graduate Studies and at
http://www.sjsu.edu/gradstudies/forms/thesisguidenew.pdf
A typical timeline for thesis completion would be the following:
Semester A: Locate a potential thesis chair; sign up for from 1 to 3 units of LLD 298 or LING 298: Individual
Studies (Credit/No Credit); explore the feasibility of the research question; locate at least two other committee
members and obtain approval for them; file an "Intent to do a Master's Thesis"; attend the thesis orientation;
submit a thesis proposal by November 1st (for Fall) or April 1st (for Spring) of the 298 semester.
Semester B: Sign up for from 1 to 3 units of LLD 299 or LING 299: Master's Thesis (Credit/No Credit); do data
collection and analysis; begin writing.
Semester C: If you had not taken up to 3 units of 298, sign up for from 1 to 3 units of LLD 299 or LING 299;
finish writing; submit draft to thesis chair; revise draft; submit revised draft to all committee members, allowing
at least 2 weeks for them to review and provide feedback; do final revisions based on their feedback; submit final
copy to Graduate Studies by the university deadline (ca. April 10th for Spring semester and Nov. 15th for Fall
semester. Check the Graduate Studies website for more information on guidelines and submission dates by
visiting: http://www.sjsu.edu/gradstudies/forms/thesisguidenew.pdf
Additional Information
Sample theses may be found in the LLD Library, the Graduate Studies Office and the King Library. Students are
urged to look at several theses during the 298 semester in order to gain an idea of the quality and quantity of work
required.
The LLD-approved style guide is American Psychological Association (APA). The Publication Manual of the
American Psychological Association is available in the Spartan Bookstore as a reasonable price.
Thesis work must be original. Please consult the university website on academic integrity at:
http://sa.sjsu.edu/student_conduct
A thesis is in the public domain. The completed thesis will be filed in the university library and must reflect current
research on the topic. The fact that the San José State University library may not have certain references will not
excuse thesis writers from including those references in the thesis; that is, thesis writers must be prepared to use
interlibrary loan or to visit other libraries in the area for research purposes, as they will inevitably need to do so.
In case the thesis is not completed and approved by Graduate Studies within the semester that the student is enrolled
in a 299 course, the student will receive and RP grade and would need to register for 1 unit of LING/LLD 290
during the following semester if the student is not enrolled in any other course during that semester. For more
information see http://info.sjsu.edu/web-dbgen/narr/catalog/rec-1363.html
Last revised: 8/13
E6. Comparison of SJSU’s Linguistics programs with programs from other universities
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 95
B.A. Linguistics
SJSU
Fresno
State
SDSU
UC
Berkeley
U Oregon
Ohio State
# Units in Major
# Units / course
# Required units
36
3
18
36-54
3
18
27
35
4 or 3
20
43
4
31
45
5
25
Intro Linguistics
LING 101 (R)
Required
Required
Required
Required
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Syntax
Morphology
Historical Ling.
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Field Methods
Computational Speech
Computational –
Written Lg.
Corpus Ling.
Discourse
Analysis
Language
Acquisition
Foreign Lang.
Requirement
LING 111 (R)
LING 112 (R)
LING 114 (R)
LING 112 (R)
LING 162 (E)
LING 125 (R)
LING 161 (E)
LING 166 (E)
Elective
Required
N/A
Required
N/A
Elective
N/A
Required
Elective
Elective
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
N/A
Elective
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
n/a
Required
LING 165 (E)
Elective
Elective
N/A
Required
prereq.
Required
Required
N/A
Required
Elective
Elective
Elective
Elective
Elective
Elective
LING 124 (E)
Elective
Elective
N/A
Elective
LING 115 (E)
N/A
Elective
Required
N/A
Required
Elective
N/A
3
semesters
No
requirement;
only
encouragem
ent for
proficiency
in a foreign
language
GE courses taken
in major
2
Unable
to
determin
e; BUT
Interdisci
plinary
Languag
e Studies
Electives
track
0
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Required
Required
Required
Elective
N/A
N/A
2 Lgs: 2 years of
one; 1 year of
other
5 units
Up to 4
Pg. 96
F.
ASSESSMENT OF THE LINGUISTICS PROGRAMS FOREIGN LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT
F1: BA Linguistics Foreign Language Assessment
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to one-year college level study in a language other than their native
language.
This Program Learning Objective has been assessed by reviewing student files. Forty-seven files of graduates
between 2009 and May 2013 have been reviewed. The following observations have been made: 24 students have
completed the requirement at SJSU, taking courses in the World Languages department. Seven of those completed
a Minor in Chinese, Japanese, or German, and four students were Double Majors in Linguistics and German. The
rest of the students satisfied the requirements either by taking courses in community colleges (19) or by being
native speakers of a language other than English (4), in which case English was their foreign language. The foreign
languages studied include German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cantonese,
Arabic, and ASL.
F2: MA Linguistics Foreign Language Assessment
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to a two-year of an Indo-European or a one-year of a non-IndoEuropean language college level study in a language other than their native language.
This Program Learning Objective has been assessed by reviewing student files. Forty-two files of graduates
between May 2009 and May 2013 have been reviewed. The following observations have been made: The great
majority of students (41) had joined the program already having completed the requirement in a variety of ways.
Six students have completed BA degrees in a foreign language (French, German, English) and one has completed a
Minor. Others have taken foreign language courses during their undergraduate careers in a variety of universities.
Twenty-two international students with native languages other than English have fulfilled the requirement by
being advanced users of English and having scored a minimum TOEFL score of 90 (or IELTS 7.0) upon entering the
program. Our international students are speakers of languages such as Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian,
Assyrian, Marathi, Korean, Japanese, Mandarin, Bahasa Indonesian, Tagalog, and Arabic.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 97
G. ALUMNI SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND RESULTS
G1: BA Linguistics Alumni Survey
BA Linguistics Alumni Survey - Initial Report
Last Modified: 12/02/2013
1. In describing and transcribing speech sounds of the world's languages and understanding the
physiology/acoustic principles involved in their production, I have had
#
Answer
Response
%
excellent
1
5
45%
preparation
2
adequate
preparation
6
55%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
11
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.55
Variance
0.27
Standard Deviation
0.52
Total Responses
11
2. In analyzing linguistic sound patterns in terms of their structure and function, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
5
50%
2
adequate
preparation
5
50%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
10
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 98
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.50
Variance
0.28
Standard Deviation
0.53
Total Responses
10
3. In analyzing sentence structure in any language and recognizing the typological diversity of
syntactic phenomena, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
6
60%
2
adequate
preparation
3
30%
3
inadequate
preparation
1
10%
Total
10
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.50
Variance
0.50
Standard Deviation
0.71
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
10
Pg. 99
4. In analyzing the meaning of words and sentences and elaborating on the role of linguistic and
pragmatic context in their interpretation and understanding the role of theories in the analysis of
semantic data, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
3
30%
2
adequate
preparation
6
60%
3
inadequate
preparation
1
10%
Total
10
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.80
Variance
0.40
Standard Deviation
0.63
Total Responses
10
5. In identifying linguistics changes, discussing linguistic, social, and psychological explanations to
language variation and change, using the comparative method to reconstruct ancestors of related
languages, and explaining the genetic and typological classification of languages, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
6
60%
2
adequate
preparation
3
30%
3
inadequate
preparation
1
10%
Total
10
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 100
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.50
Variance
0.50
Standard Deviation
0.71
Total Responses
10
6. In analyzing words and their internal structure in terms of their meanings, their sound properties,
and the pressures that influence their change over time, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
6
60%
2
adequate
preparation
4
40%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
10
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.40
Variance
0.27
Standard Deviation
0.52
Total Responses
10
7. I have taken computational linguistics courses
#
1
Answer
Yes
2
No
Total
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Response
3
%
30%
7
70%
10
100%
Pg. 101
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.70
Variance
0.23
Standard Deviation
0.48
Total Responses
10
8. In discussing issues in speech synthesis, speech recognition, natural language processing,
producing synthesized speech, and developing speech recognition and natural language processing
programs, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
1
33%
2
adequate
preparation
1
33%
3
inadequate
preparation
1
33%
Total
3
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
2.00
Variance
1.00
Standard Deviation
1.00
Total Responses
3
9. I have taken a psycholinguistics course
#
1
Answer
Yes
2
No
Total
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Response
7
%
70%
3
30%
10
100%
Pg. 102
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.30
Variance
0.23
Standard Deviation
0.48
Total Responses
10
10. In evaluating theories of first and second language acquisition and language processing, I have
had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
5
71%
2
adequate
preparation
2
29%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
7
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.29
Variance
0.24
Standard Deviation
0.49
Total Responses
7
11. I have taken a sociolinguistics course
#
1
Answer
Yes
2
No
Total
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Response
6
%
60%
4
40%
10
100%
Pg. 103
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.40
Variance
0.27
Standard Deviation
0.52
Total Responses
10
12. In identifying language-related social problems in areas such as education, the law, the
workplace, etc., and discussing the feasibility of various empirically-based solutions, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
4
67%
2
adequate
preparation
2
33%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
6
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.33
Variance
0.27
Standard Deviation
0.52
Total Responses
6
13. I have taken courses in English grammar and second language teaching
#
1
Answer
Yes
2
No
Total
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Response
8
%
80%
2
20%
10
100%
Pg. 104
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.20
Variance
0.18
Standard Deviation
0.42
Total Responses
10
14. In identifying English structural patterns and understanding the psycholinguistic factors that
affect second language development and use, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
6
75%
2
adequate
preparation
2
25%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
8
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.25
Variance
0.21
Standard Deviation
0.46
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
8
Pg. 105
15. Do you feel that you have received a quality education in the Linguistics Program? Please
comment.
Text Response
Yes, while not expansive in category, what was available was covered well and very thorough.
Yes
Yes I did. By the time I graduated, I felt that I learned overview of linguistics well
Yes. However, for in Spring 2007 I enrolled in Linguistics 111 and it was taught by Richey Colleen and I earned a
C+, however, I do not feel that the teaching method was grounded on any sort of pedagogical theory and whatever
methodology the “teacher” had, though she may have been mentored in building her lesson plans, I felt that the
part where on each test/quiz where we were to identify a vocalization of some sort and write down whether or
not it matched some IPA symbol was too subjective, as if in a course for studying music and were to “name that
tune”, where no previous familiarization of “tunes” played by the teacher were given for take home evaluation
and familiarization. That said, I do feel—being fair—that the teacher was well prepared with the needed
knowledge as a researcher and future teacher, but for beginners, using such an apparatus as a testing method in
class was not actually the best way to test a student in their ability to “hear” those sounds as represented in the
IPA chart. What I would have done, better, now that I myself have been through a teacher training, since earning
my graduate degree in MATESOL, is allow students to collaborate in pairs, at least, to determine the sound signals
for whether they were this sound or that sound, whereby such collaboration related to how research is done in
the real-world. Except for the case study that a research might be doing on their own, it is rare not work in a
team or gather correspondence and review from peers, experts or the like when presenting data in either a book,
report, forum or when cataloging such sound data for future reference and/or analyzing. Here I am only being
candid in my response and am not ranting or slamming a particular teacher, who at the time and now, I respected
and appreciated for the diversity they brought to the SJSU Linguistic program. Continuing, SJSU did not do wrong
in hiring Dr. Silverman, one of the best professors I have had ever in my twenty-year academic career, where Dr.
Silverman brings true scholarship and real-world qualities of professorship to the classroom and makes it so that
it is attainable by students to reach beyond themselves in the challenging and intriguing problem sets Dr.
Silverman uses in his classrooms. Here in the latter I am trying to compliment and both promote Dr. Silverman
as one of many stars, but a very bright one, of the SJSU Linguistic Department.
I feel that my education in Linguistics as well as TESOL has helped me to analyze language effectively. In my work
as a translator and transcriber, I frequently find myself thinking back to concepts I learned in my classes to
understand the material I work on day to day. I also am able to explain concepts to my colleagues when they do
not understand a linguistic concept.
Factoring in the financial burdens on the school, yes.
All of my professors in the Linguistics Program were experts in their field, and all provided the best instruction
imaginable.
Hello, Roula. This is, unanonymously, Teal. With 2 exceptions, i was very pleased with SJSU Linguistics'
professors. Exception 1: Thom Heubner had such a profound need for community acceptance of his same-sex
attraction, that occasionally he made irrational statements to try to pretend that the practice of sodomy was a
civil rights' issue. As the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King stated before Congress: "I've met ex-homosexuals but
never an ex-Negro." Exception 2: Reiko Kataoka. I already wrote extensively about her failings. If you want a
copy, tell me. I'm grateful to have had many exceptional professors, including: Sharmin Khan, Peter Lowenberg,
Kevin Moore, Roula Svorou, Kenneth VanBik, Swathi Vanniarajan.
Yes, I feel as though the program suffers from low studet numbers, causing fewer classes to be offered. However,
my experience has been enriching, especially in my Phonetics, Phonology, and Psycholinguistics courses.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 106
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
9
16. Is there any area that you felt was not adequately covered in the Program?
Text Response
No.
Education curriculum (for TESOL purpose)
I'd like to have had the change to dig deeper in statistics for the language researcher, some sort of preparatory
class, if you would, for such use in "getting ready" for computation linguistic classes. But Dr. Hahn Koo and his
predecesor, Dr. John Fry did an excellent job in bring the students up to speed in using statistics for their courses.
N/A
No
No.
No.
The importance and prevalence of computational and other applied linguistics should be stressed much more.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
8
17. Have you had adequate orientation and advising in the Program? Please comment.
Text Response
Hmm. Review sessions before the start of the year established how things would go (curriculum-wise). Anything
beyond that, would really depend on my own will, so pretty adaquate.
N/A
Yes, Dr. Roula Svorou was always very patient particularly with my quaint inqiuries which to other students
might have seemed overtly obvious, however, upon speaking and disussing with other classmates, I discovered I
was not the only one with "dumb" quesions, but possibly due to age, I didn't care and wasn't shy in asking them.
Yes! Dr. Ohala was very helpful while I was working towards my BA as far as scheduling and academic advising
My advising was great!
Advising was always very simple and straight-forward.; I have no complaints.
yes
My advisor gave me very helpful career advice. Altough overall, my advisor seemed uninterested in course
advising and wished to concentrate solely on teaching and research. I understand this, but the Chair should make
sure each advisor wants to be involved.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 107
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
8
18. Did you receive career or further-degree assistance from the Program (i.e., job information and
resources)? Please comment.
Text Response
No, because I realized it wasn't a topic I wanted to continue with.
No, but I wish I had while I was still a student.
no
Yes, the email list was helpful, but I have found my own job and niche in language research and teaching, but such
lead was bulstered by SJSU email list.
I did not receive these resources.
No
No. It would have been helpful to know the full extent of what types of careers were open to me.
No. After graduation, i did join the Career Center for employment help.
Yes, yet I didn't pursue much.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
9
19. Upon graduation, I went on for a further degree.
#
1
Answer
Yes
2
No
Total
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Response
3
%
30%
7
70%
10
100%
Pg. 108
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.70
Variance
0.23
Standard Deviation
0.48
Total Responses
10
20. Please specify the degree and university where you continued your education.
Text Response
MATESOL (CSU East Bay)
MA TESOL, SJSU (did not complete)
MA Ling, SJSU
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
3
21. The preparation I received in the BA Linguistics program has been
#
1
Answer
Useful
Response
3
%
100%
2
Neutral
0
0%
3
Useless
0
0%
Total
3
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
1
Mean
1.00
Variance
0.00
Standard Deviation
0.00
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
3
Pg. 109
22. Upon graduation, I sought employment in a linguistics/humanities-related field.
#
1
Answer
Yes
Response
3
%
43%
2
No
4
57%
Total
7
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.57
Variance
0.29
Standard Deviation
0.53
Total Responses
7
23. I have held the following position(s).
Text Response
N/A
Bending Over while the Dept. tried to figure out how to handle credit for classes taken more than 10 years ago.
Fortunately, because of arthritis & a desire for clarity, i wasn't able to hold that position long
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
2
24. I chose a career outside of the field of linguistics because of difficulties in securing a job in the
linguistics field.
#
1
Answer
Yes
Response
2
%
50%
2
No
2
50%
Total
4
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 110
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.50
Variance
0.33
Standard Deviation
0.58
Total Responses
4
25. Please explain.
Text Response
Yes/no. It would be difficult to find a job that didn't include teaching, because many people in the program chose
to go into teaching, and it didn't seem like there were a plethora of other jobs for this major. Ultimately, my
interest and the lack of opportunities (when not securing a masters) made me look for a different field of work.
I have had much difficulty finding entry-level positions in TESOL and I am not sure where to start.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
2
26. Please explain.
Text Response
I didn't know what my options were with a BA.
I am struggling with my job search right now. I still would like to pursue a linguistics/education/humanities
career, however. Of course, I remain open to other unrelated fields.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
2
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 111
27. If you have any further comments, please add them here.
Text Response
Not a bad program, would have really liked to have taken a lot of other courses in the field, but the ones I was
interested in were seldom offered every semester. I think the program is great for individuals going into
teaching, but not ideal for anyone that is not interested in that aspect.
N/A
I'll spare you e.g. my portfolio nearly fit a four-inch "D-ring" binder.
Have a great Thanksgiving, Roula!
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
4
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 112
G2: MA Linguistics Alumni Survey
MA Linguistics Alumni Survey - Initial Report
Last Modified: 11/30/2013
1. In describing and transcribing speech sounds of the world's languages and understanding the
physiology/acoustic principles involved in their production, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
14
82%
2
adequate
preparation
2
12%
3
inadequate
preparation
1
6%
Total
17
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.24
Variance
0.32
Standard Deviation
0.56
Total Responses
17
2. In analyzing linguistic sound patterns in terms of their structure and function, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
13
76%
2
adequate
preparation
4
24%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
17
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 113
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.24
Variance
0.19
Standard Deviation
0.44
Total Responses
17
3. In analyzing sentence structure in any language and recognizing the typological diversity of syntactic
phenomena, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
14
82%
2
adequate
preparation
3
18%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
17
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.18
Variance
0.15
Standard Deviation
0.39
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
17
Pg. 114
4. In analyzing the meaning of words and sentences and elaborating on the role of linguistic and pragmatic
context in their interpretation, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
12
71%
2
adequate
preparation
5
29%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
17
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.29
Variance
0.22
Standard Deviation
0.47
Total Responses
17
5. In understanding current linguistic theories, comparing and evaluating different theoretical approaches to the
analysis of linguistic data, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
7
41%
2
adequate
preparation
7
41%
3
inadequate
preparation
3
18%
Total
17
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 115
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.76
Variance
0.57
Standard Deviation
0.75
Total Responses
17
6. In carrying out independent empirical, experimental, or theoretical research involving formulating a research
project, presenting a literature review, using appropriate methodology, collecting data pertinent to the project,
and interpreting the data, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
9
53%
2
adequate
preparation
8
47%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
17
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.47
Variance
0.26
Standard Deviation
0.51
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
17
Pg. 116
7. In using library and electronic research resources effectively, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
10
59%
2
adequate
preparation
7
41%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
17
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.41
Variance
0.26
Standard Deviation
0.51
Total Responses
17
8. I have taken computational linguistics courses
#
1
Answer
Yes
2
No
Total
Response
11
%
65%
6
35%
17
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.35
Variance
0.24
Standard Deviation
0.49
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
17
Pg. 117
9. In discussing issues in speech synthesis, speech recognition, and natural language processing, producing
synthesized speech, and developing speech recognition and natural language processing programs, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
4
36%
2
adequate
preparation
5
45%
3
inadequate
preparation
2
18%
Total
11
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.82
Variance
0.56
Standard Deviation
0.75
Total Responses
11
10. I have taken a psycholinguistics course
#
1
Answer
Yes
Response
4
%
24%
2
No
13
76%
Total
17
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.76
Variance
0.19
Standard Deviation
0.44
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
17
Pg. 118
11. In evaluating theories of first and second language acquisition and language processing, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
2
50%
2
adequate
preparation
2
50%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
4
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.50
Variance
0.33
Standard Deviation
0.58
Total Responses
4
12. I have taken a sociolinguistics course
#
1
Answer
Yes
Response
5
%
29%
2
No
12
71%
Total
17
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.71
Variance
0.22
Standard Deviation
0.47
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
17
Pg. 119
13. In identifying language-related social problems in areas such as education, the law, the workplace, etc., and
discussing the feasibility of various empirically-based solutions, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
2
40%
2
adequate
preparation
2
40%
3
inadequate
preparation
1
20%
Total
5
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.80
Variance
0.70
Standard Deviation
0.84
Total Responses
5
14. I have taken a historical linguistics course
#
1
Answer
Yes
2
No
Total
Response
10
%
59%
7
41%
17
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.41
Variance
0.26
Standard Deviation
0.51
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
17
Pg. 120
15. In identifying linguistic changes, discussing linguistic, social, and psychological explanations to language
variation and change, using the comparative method to reconstruct ancestors of related languages, and
explaining the genetic and typological classification of languages, I have had
#
1
Answer
excellent
preparation
Response
%
8
80%
2
adequate
preparation
2
20%
3
inadequate
preparation
0
0%
Total
10
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.20
Variance
0.18
Standard Deviation
0.42
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
10
Pg. 121
16. Do you feel that you have received a quality education in the Linguistics Program? Please comment.
Text Response
Yes, I love the laboratory/experimental approach
Absolutely. I loved the linguistics at sjsu and now work as a linguist. I use the information taught in those courses
every day.
Yes, I did receive good quality education, and I also gained a lot of knowledge in the Linguistics Program.
I do feel I received a quality education in this Program. I am very satisfied with the course organization, content,
and instructor.
Definitely. The program is comprehensive, yet the elimination of some computational linguistics classes is
disappointing.
I feel the MA program at SJSU gave me an excellent understanding of Linguistics on all levels
Yes, I do feel I received a quality education. The professors in the program are knowledgeable in their content
area as well as caring about student preparation.
I do feel I have received a quality education. I have not found fallbacks my current employment as an instructor.
Although, I would have liked more work with etymology.
Yes, I'm very satisfied
I feel I have received a solid education in the Linguistics Program. Not only did this help me get reasonably good
grades at SJSU, but also helped me be a better instructor in my country.
Yes. I love our department.
Yes, I feel that I received a quality education in the Linguistics Program.
Yes, the education equips me with linguistic knowledge
Lacking in preparation for jobs in the Software industry.
Yes, the program was continuously engaging and inspiring.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
15
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 122
17. Is there any area that you felt was not adequately covered in the Program? Please comment.
Text Response
etymology, orthograthy
No
No
No, I think the Program is quite comprehensive as long as all courses are offered at least once a year.
There are so many different theories of syntax and SJSU's courses all fall on one end of the continuum. I think
such a focus is pretty typical within a department, but I would have appreciated a bigger picture of how these
frameworks fit with others and what else is out there.
The cutback in Computational Linguistics classes is disappointing given that it is an important field.
I think more could have been done to connect the computational linguistics material to the rest of the
coursework (eg. Phonology, RRG, Cognitive), specifically as they can be applied to jobs in linguistics job
Due to budget cuts, many elective courses in the department were cancelled.
Etymology would have been useful. Specially for my line of work.
The content in the LING 165 class was too complicated to follow unless you had had previous training on the
topic.
Can't think of any!
I was sorry that Ling 101 was not offered one semester. I think it is an excellent, necessary pre-req to
understanding everything else.
No, I felt that the Linguistics education I received was comprehensive.
I hope that graduate-level sociolinguistics courses can be offered in the future
Industry specific courses and preparation is not included.
Perhaps more on what's going on in the mainstream of the field in syntax
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
16
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 123
18. Did you receive adequate orientation and advising in the Program? Please comment.
Text Response
Yes, my supervisor was very helpful
Yes. My advisor was incredibly helpful.
Yes, I received excellent advising from the Linguistics Coordinator. Dr. Svorou is very nice and helpful.
I did. I am very thankful with my academic and program advisers, Daniel and Roula.
Yes, I even felt over-oriented by attending the same orientation session at the start of both years.
Yes. The orientation was informative and advisors were always helpful.
orientation, Yes, but I would say that advising could have been better and more proactive. However this is
directly linked to the fact that the hand full of professors are given the responsibility of advising so many
students on top of their other responsibilities. We need advisors who specialize in advising, or at least advisors
that have time to do so.
Yes, the department offered many informational meetings as well as one-on-one advising.
Svorou was an excellent advisor.
Yes
Absolutely. The Professors were all very helpful and nurturing; tutors too.
Yes. Excellent advising
Yes, I received adequate orientation and advising in the Program. I found the orientation and advising to be
consistently helpful and informative.
Yes, the advising is very useful for me to understand the program
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
14
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 124
19. Did you receive career or further-degree assistance from the Program (i.e., job information and resources)?
Please comment.
Text Response
In emails, yes
No.
Yes
Not really. That would have been quite helpful.
no
Some was provided through the listserv. Also, professors were happy to discuss these topics during office hours.
no, this was probably one of the things that could have most helped me a great deal. it has been a rough job
market, any additional resources, support, or advice could possibly have made a big difference. I would have
liked to have a better idea coming out of the program (potentially through advising) as to how I could have best
focused my interests, skills, coursework in a more efficient way would have been very much appreciated. I feel
like I have talent that is being waisted.
The facebook page advertised job, grant and scholarship opportunities. The professors were also available to
discuss job information or offer other resources, such as recommendations.
Not quite because I was already planning on staying in academia.
no
No
NO
NA
Yes, I periodically received emails containing job information and other important announcements that were
relevant to students in the Linguistics Program.
not really
Yes, from the Career Counseling Center and from the LLDSA job panel discussions.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
16
20. Upon graduation, I went on for a further degree.
#
1
Answer
Yes
Response
3
%
19%
2
No
13
81%
Total
16
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 125
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.81
Variance
0.16
Standard Deviation
0.40
Total Responses
16
21. Please specify the degree and university where you continued your education.
Text Response
Wright Institute, Doctorate of Psychology
Currently enrolled in a linguistics PhD program a the University of Washington
Linguistics, University of Florida
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
3
22. The preparation I received in the MA Linguistics program has been
#
1
Answer
Useful
Response
3
%
100%
2
Neutral
0
0%
3
Useless
0
0%
Total
3
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
1
Mean
1.00
Variance
0.00
Standard Deviation
0.00
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
3
Pg. 126
23. Upon graduation, I sought employment in a linguistics/humanities-related field.
#
1
Answer
Yes
2
No
Total
Response
11
%
85%
2
15%
13
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.15
Variance
0.14
Standard Deviation
0.38
Total Responses
13
24. I have held the following position(s).
Text Response
Linguistic Content Developer
Lecturer in the Department of English Language and Linguistics at Jordan University of Science and Technology.
Language Specialist, Language Consultant, Language Instructor, and now moving into Translation and
Interpretation
Teacher, Speech annotator
English accent reduction trainer, Google Ads Rater, Annotator
Adjunct faculty
University Lecturer, Language Trainer at a mining company, and a General Training Coordinator at a mining
company.
Academic tutor
Transcriber >> Speech Analyst >> Program Manager >> Program Manager II
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
9
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 127
25. I chose a career outside of the field of linguistics because of difficulties in securing a job in the linguistics
field.
#
1
Answer
Yes
Response
0
%
0%
2
No
2
100%
Total
2
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
2
Max Value
2
Mean
2.00
Variance
0.00
Standard Deviation
0.00
Total Responses
2
26. Please explain.
Text Response
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
0
27. Please explain.
Text Response
I already had a career outside of linguistics - in teaching. My pursuit of a linguistics masters was to help
enlighten my teaching as well as satisfy personal curiosity and interest.
I already have a career. I studied linguistics because I am interested in language.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
2
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 128
28. If you have any further comments, please add them here.
Text Response
The program was wonderful and I had the best learning experience.
Overall, I am very satisfied. Some career counseling/fairs would have been helpful. Thanks!!
I very much appreciate my education that I got in the program, I feel it left me with a top notch understanding of
Linguistics and I am continuing to try to learn more and apply what I've learned professionally and I am
continuing to pursue some of the Linguistics research that I began while in the MA program. I do wish there had
been more support for students pursuing projects within the domain of labs/ reading groups..
Up to the time I Graduated from SJSU LLD, I have no doubt the program was very successful and really helped me
in my career back home.
Great program.
The department does not adequately prepare students for the real applications of Linguistics in today's work
environment. There should be more emphasis on Computational Linguistics, more guest lectures from
companies working on Speech Technology. Speech Recognition is a fast growing field, and I feel that we are
missing the opportunity of training students to be a part of this field.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
6
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 129
G3: MA TESOL Alumni Survey
MA TESOL Alumni Survey - Initial Report
Last Modified: 11/26/2013
1. Understanding the major elements of the structure of human languages, including the sound system, word
formation, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and discourse.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
6
30%
2
Adequate
Preparation
12
60%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
2
10%
Total
20
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.80
Variance
0.38
Standard Deviation
0.62
Total Responses
20
2. Analyzing the English language for teaching purposes including the sound system, word formation, syntax,
semantics, pragmatics, and discourse.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
9
45%
2
Adequate
Preparation
9
45%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
2
10%
Total
20
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 130
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.65
Variance
0.45
Standard Deviation
0.67
Total Responses
20
3. Understanding the psycholinguistic factors (e.g., cognitive and affective variables) that affect second language
acquisition and use.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
6
30%
2
Adequate
Preparation
11
55%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
3
15%
Total
20
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.85
Variance
0.45
Standard Deviation
0.67
Total Responses
20
4. Understanding the global and socio-cultural factors that affect language teaching and learning.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
7
35%
2
Adequate
Preparation
12
60%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
1
5%
Total
20
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 131
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.70
Variance
0.33
Standard Deviation
0.57
Total Responses
20
5. Understanding contemporary TESOL methods and their historical antecedents.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
8
40%
2
Adequate
Preparation
11
55%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
1
5%
Total
20
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.65
Variance
0.34
Standard Deviation
0.59
Total Responses
6.
20
Integrating listening, speaking, reading, and writing in language instruction.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
4
21%
2
Adequate
Preparation
9
47%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
6
32%
Total
19
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 132
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
2.11
Variance
0.54
Standard Deviation
0.74
Total Responses
7.
19
Preparing sound and comprehensive lesson plans and units for a variety of purposes.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
6
33%
2
Adequate
Preparation
6
33%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
6
33%
Total
18
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
2.00
Variance
0.71
Standard Deviation
0.84
Total Responses
8.
18
Being cross-culturally aware and facilitating effective interaction among diverse ethnic groups.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
6
33%
2
Adequate
Preparation
11
61%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
1
6%
Total
18
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 133
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
1.72
Variance
0.33
Standard Deviation
0.57
Total Responses
9.
18
Varying curricula (e.g., survival English, academic English) according to the needs of the learner.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
4
22%
2
Adequate
Preparation
7
39%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
7
39%
Total
18
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
2.17
Variance
0.62
Standard Deviation
0.79
Total Responses
18
10.
Using appropriate classroom materials (i.e., evaluating and adapting prepared materials and
supplementing them when necessary).
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
4
22%
2
Adequate
Preparation
8
44%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
6
33%
Total
18
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 134
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
2.11
Variance
0.58
Standard Deviation
0.76
Total Responses
11.
18
Assessing language level and achievement of the learner.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
2
11%
2
Adequate
Preparation
7
39%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
9
50%
Total
18
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
2.39
Variance
0.49
Standard Deviation
0.70
Total Responses
12.
18
Preparing you to secure employment in the field of TESOL.
#
1
Answer
Excellent
Preparation
Response
%
3
17%
2
Adequate
Preparation
5
28%
3
Inadequate
Preparation
10
56%
Total
18
100%
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 135
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
2.39
Variance
0.60
Standard Deviation
0.78
Total Responses
13.
18
Since graduating, have you been employed in the field of TESOL?
#
1
Answer
Yes
2
No
Total
Response
12
%
67%
6
33%
18
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.33
Variance
0.24
Standard Deviation
0.49
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
18
Pg. 136
14. Please list the position.
Text Response
ESL Instructor
PT faculty at CA community colleges
University ESL Lecturer
ESL Instructor at an IEP
Lecturer
English Instructor at Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai campus & Lecturer for University of Nebraska, Lincoln at
Xi'an Jiaotong University City College
English Language Learner Teacher/Instructional Coach At a SJ Middle School
Tutor. language trainer for all aspects at all levels.
Private tutor
English teacher
Middle Scool Teacher, ESL
IEP instructor
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
12
15. Is the position full-time or part-time?
#
1
Answer
Full-time
Response
5
%
42%
2
Part-time
7
58%
12
100%
Total
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.58
Variance
0.27
Standard Deviation
0.51
Total Responses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
12
Pg. 137
16. Is this by choice or the result of not finding a full-time position?
#
1
Answer
By choice
Response
1
%
14%
2
Unable to find
full-time
position
6
86%
Total
7
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.86
Variance
0.14
Standard Deviation
0.38
Total Responses
7
17. Please add details about your answer to the previous question.
Text Response
I have 4 jobs.
There is no full time employment due to CA fiscal crisis.
It seems like there are very few full-time positions in the Bay Area because there are several MA TESOL grads and
several schools. We're all willing to work part-time (it's better than nothing), so most people I know juggle 2-3
part-time jobs at many of the same schools. As a result, many of us are working full-time hours, with more hours
commuting between jobs, for less pay and no benefits.
In order to be a full time instructor many colleges want you to work as a part-timer for 5-7 years.
It's the way many schools are these days. They want PT faculty at cheap rates, often not wiling to pay for what
the quality an MA TESOL graduate could deliver. Some even take teachers with little to no training.
I am still working full time at my previous job, but plan on transitioning soon
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
6
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 138
18. Did you choose a career outside the field of TESOL because of difficulties in securing a job in TESOL?
#
1
Answer
Yes
Response
4
%
67%
2
No
2
33%
Total
6
100%
Statistic
Min Value
Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.33
Variance
0.27
Standard Deviation
0.52
Total Responses
6
19. Please add details about your answer to the previous question.
Text Response
I am a Teacher/Mentor for ESL learners. I also work as a teacher in a private summer school where all the
children are ESL. I really have wanted to use my TESOL skills in on-line teaching but in trying every which way to
get employment for the last 18 months have given up, despite sending countless resumes etc. I have published a
book, "Dez of 1906" available on Amazon and have two more in the works. They will all be available in Spanish
also. I certainly don't regret my Master of Arts in TESOL but would love to teach it.
I have not been employed in the TESOL field, not for lack of preparation, but because I have reached the limit in
teaching units. TESOL has been a great compliment that has prepared me to teach other languages.
Temporarily working as a security guard
I think more support should be made to get hired in the area of TESOL even after graduation.
I worked as assistant professor and I taught Arabic as a second language rather than English as a Second
Language. Because I am preparing to write my dissertation, I resigned from my job to focus on school.
The MA TESOL program at SJSU is a bit outdated compared to other MA TESOL programs. The content is not stateof-the-art and mostly theoretical, which is right in the books only and sometimes ridiculous in reality. Only a few
professors at MA TESOL SJSU are practical. The training method was so solid, and on the the surface only, not
flexible. The classroom evironment with real practices and knowledge transferred from professors should have
been done and is more meanigful than bookish knowledge. My comment may be strong but it reflects the reality
if the program wants to survive in future.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
6
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 139
20. Please add any additional comments or suggestions that you have about the MATESOL program.
Text Response
There should be classroom observations and practice teaching and lesson planning required for every class.
I think incorporating what language teachers will encounter in the field (Ss questions), will help ESL teachers to
be better prepared. I think outfitting grammar analysis class with real life grammar questions will be most
helpful.
Employment is a concern. Apparently, Peter Master had connections with industry and developed programs for
ESL in the work place. It's too bad that has not been continued. It gave work to students and graduates of the
MATESOL program.
While it is clearly communicated that we don't understand how students learn, very little effort went in to
teaching us how to teach. Lesson planning is mostly absent from the program. And when it required, no
instruction is given on how to do it - it seems to be considered something we should already know. Most
professors are extremely knowledgeable, friendly, and willing to give of their time. But when dealing with
troubles in lesson planning, when I asked for advice, I was told to Google it. I expect more from a professor than
such a dismissive response.
The program needs to focus more on lesson plan preparation, material adaptation and actual classroom teaching
instead of doing it in mostly a theoretical context (i.e. in the classroom for made-up target learners)
I really enjoyed the program and felt it was time well-spent. I felt under-prepared in some areas, but I think that
was partly because I chose electives that I wasn't interested in, just to get the times I needed and finish on-time.
In retrospect I wish I'd researched more about my electives before registering.
The MATESOL SJSU program should offer serious courses on teaching composition (similar to certificate in the
teaching composition offered at SFSU) and courses on teaching integrated skills: listening, speaking, writing, and
reading.
Though I enjoyed almost all of my courses, I felt in general there was a more academic than practical focus for the
program. I did not feel particularly prepared to being teaching. I think the Practicum component needs to be
much more integrated for the entirety of the program.
More classroom experience and a teaching credential attached.
I think students should have more chances to practice their teaching in the real classroom context.
It would be good to have some time on teaching pronunciation; most of what I know, I learned from my
independent study after graduating.
I thought it was really great at the things that I marked as "adequate" preparation for the most part are those
things that I feel are learned with experience in addition to the preparation received.
Students need to be given more opportunities to work in the classroom.
MA TESOL program is an excellent experience at SJSU and the education that I am currently receiving from USF is
weak. I miss SJSU and my knowledgeable professors!
Both theory and practice play important roles in TESOL preparation.
The teaching material has to be changed. It was outdated.
Statistic
Total Responses
Value
16
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 140
H.
PLO-ULG MAPS
University Learning Goals (ULGs)
1.
Specialized Knowledge
a. Depth of knowledge required for a degree, as identified by its program learning outcomes.
2.
Broad Integrative Knowledge
a. Mastery in each step of an investigative, creative or practical project (e.g. brainstorming, planning,
formulating hypotheses or complex questions, designing, creating, completing, and communicating).
b. An understanding of the implications of results or findings from a particular work in a societal context
(e.g. social or economic implications of a scientific finding).
c. Students graduating with a baccalaureate degree will have demonstrated an understanding of critical
components of broad academic areas, the arts, humanities, social sciences, and sciences and their
integration.
3.
Intellectual Skills
a. Fluency in the use of specific theories, tools, technology and graphical representation.
b. Skills and abilities necessary for life‐long learning: critical and creative thinking, effective communication,
conscientious information gathering and processing, mastery of quantitative methodologies, and the
ability to engage effectively in collaborative activities.
4.
Applied Knowledge
a. The ability to integrate theory, practice, and problem‐solving to address practical issues.
b. The ability to apply their knowledge and skills to new settings or in addressing complex problems.
c. The ability to work productively as individuals and in groups.
5.
Social and Global Responsibilities
a. The ability to act intentionally and ethically to address a global or local problem in an informed manner
with a multicultural and historical perspective and a clear understanding of societal and civic
responsibilities.
b. Diverse and global perspectives through engagement with the multidimensional SJSU community.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 141
H1: BA Linguistics PLO-ULG Map
BA Linguistics
Goals
BA Linguistics PLOs
University Learning Goals
1A
1. To transmit
knowledge of the
structure and
function of
language, and its
use and change in
various cultural
and social settings.
2A
2B
2C
3A
3B
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
PLO 1A: Transcribe, using the
International Phonetic Alphabet, and
produce speech sounds of the world’s
languages. Apply concepts of acoustic
theory in analyses of speech data;
PLO 1B: Analyze linguistic sound
patterns in terms of their function,
their structure, and the pressures that
influence their change over time;
PLO 1C: Analyze words and their
internal structure in terms of their
meanings, their sound properties, and
the pressures that influence their
change over time;
PLO 1D: Analyze sentence structure in
any language in terms of grammatical
relations and constituent structure,
and recognize the typological diversity
of syntactic phenomena;
PLO 1E: Analyze the meaning of
words and sentences, elaborate on
the role of linguistic and pragmatic
context in the interpretation of
meaning, and understand the role of
theories in the analysis of semantic
data;
PLO 1F: Identify phonological,
morphological, syntactic and semantic
changes in the history of a language,
discuss the contribution of social
factors to language variation and
change, explain the genetic and
typological classification of languages,
and use the comparative method to
reconstruct ancestors of related
languages;
2. To help
students develop
critical thinking
skills, analytical
skills, and reading,
writing and
research skills.
PLO 2A: Analyze phonetic,
phonological, morphological,
syntactic, semantic, and historical
linguistics data;
PLO 2B: Critically evaluate competing
approaches to the analysis of linguistic
data;
PLO 2C: Use library and electronic
research sources effectively;
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
PLO 2D: Use reading and writing skills
effectively;
Pg. 142
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency
equivalent to one-year college level
study in a language other than their
native language.
3. To help
students develop
an understanding
of the relationship
between linguistic
theories and areas
such as artificial
intelligence,
cognitive science,
language
acquisition and
learning, and
language policy.
PLO 3A: Discuss issues in speech
synthesis, speech recognition, natural
language processing, and develop
speech recognition, speech synthesis
and natural language processing
programs;
PLO 3B: Evaluate theories of first and
second language acquisition, and
second language teaching;
PLO 3C: Identify language-related
social programs in areas such as
education, the law, the workplace,
etc., and discuss the feasibility of
various empirically-based solutions.
4. To help
students develop
an appreciation for
the diversity and
dynamic nature of
human languages
and cultures in the
U.S. and the world.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 143
H2: MA Linguistics PLO-ULG Map
MA Linguistics
Goals
MA Linguistics PLOs
University Learning Goals
1A
1. To transmit
in-depth
knowledge of
the structure
and function of
language and its
use and change
from various
theoretical
perspectives.
2A
2B
2C
3A
3B
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
PLO 1A: Transcribe, using the
International Phonetic Alphabet, and
produce speech sounds of the world’s
languages. Apply concepts of acoustic
theory in analyses of speech data;
PLO 1B: Analyze linguistic sound
patterns in terms of their function,
their structure, and the pressures that
influence their change over time;
PLO 1C: Analyze sentence structure of
typologically diverse languages using
current formalism and explain how
syntactic and semantic structures
interface.
PLO 1D: Analyze the meaning of
linguistic expressions, elaborate on the
role of linguistic, pragmatic, and
cultural context in the interpretation of
meaning, and understand the role of
theories in the analysis of semantic
data;
PLO 1E: Show an understanding of
current linguistic theories; compare
and evaluate different theoretical
approaches.
2. To instill in
students and
train them in
advanced critical
thinking skills,
analytical skills,
and reading,
writing and
research skills.
PLO 2A: Extract patterns from complex
data sets, motivate categorization
procedures, and apply learned
analytical principles over such patterns.
PLO 2B: Carry out independent
empirical, experimental or theoretical
research involving formulating a
research project, presenting a
literature review, using appropriate
methodology, collecting data pertinent
to the project, and interpreting the
data;
PLO 2C: Use library and electronic
research sources effectively;
PLO 2D: Use oral, reading, and writing
skills effectively;
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency
equivalent to a two-year of an IndoEuropean
or a one-year of a non-IndoLLD - Program Planning
Report – 2013-2014
European language college level study
in a language other than their native
language.
Pg. 144
3. To develop an
understanding of
the relationship
between
linguistic
theories and
areas such as
artificial
intelligence,
cognitive
science,
language
acquisition and
learning,
intercultural
communication,
language
change, and
language policy.
PLO 3A: Discuss issues in speech
synthesis, speech recognition, natural
language processing, and develop
speech recognition, speech synthesis
and natural language processing
programs;
PLO 3B: Evaluate theories of first and
second language acquisition, and
second language teaching;
PLO 3C: Apply linguistics knowledge to
address societal issues related to
language variation and diversity, and
intercultural communication;
PLO 3D: Recognize the relation
between language and cognition and
evaluate theories of their interaction.
PLO 3E: Identify phonological,
morphological, syntactic and semantic
changes in the history of a language,
discuss the contribution of social
factors to language variation and
change, explain the genetic and
typological classification of languages,
and use the comparative method to
reconstruct ancestors of related
languages.
4. To instill in
students an
appreciation for
the diversity and
dynamic nature
of human
languages and
cultures in the
U.S. and the
world.
(Addressed by all of the above PLOs)
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 145
H3: MA TESOL PLO-ULG Map
MA TESOL Goals
MA TESOL PLOs
University Learning Goals
1A
1. Knowledge of
language and skills
required to understand
and explain language
systems.
PLO1A: Students will analyze
language as a system consisting of
phonology, morphology, syntax,
semantics, lexis, pragmatics, and
discourse and articulate the
relationships between the various
intrasentential levels and features
of English structure.
PLO1B: Students will correlate the
knowledge and analytical skills in
objective 1a with four skills of
reading, writing, listening and
speaking with sufficient precision to
teach and assess proficiency in
English as a non-native language.
2. Knowledge of
language learning –
Knowledge of current
theories concerning
cognitive, affective, social,
and cultural factors
central to the acquisition
and use of second
languages.
PLO2A: Students will demonstrate
an understanding of the role of
pragmatic knowledge and
knowledge of text structure in the
comprehension, production, and
acquisition of a second language.
2A
2B
2C
3A
3B
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
PLO2B: Students will demonstrate
an understanding of the
intersection between culture,
language, language learning and
teaching, and language use with
particular reference to English as a
global language.
PLO2C: Students will apply
theoretical knowledge of second
language acquisition in second
language learning/acquisition
contexts.
3. Knowledge and skills
of language instruction –
Knowledge of curriculum
frameworks, teaching
methods, and proficiency
assessment instruments
for teaching English as a
non-native language.
PLO3A: Students will identify the
instructional strategies that go with
the established teaching methods
and apply them to various language
learning and teaching situations.
PLO3B: Students will critically
evaluate the teaching of actual ESL
classes with regard to teaching
strategies and activities and with
regard to goals 1 and 2.
PLO3C: Students will demonstrate
an understanding of the theory and
practice of needs analysis,
curriculum design, and assessment
techniques.
PLO3D: Students will develop ESL
curriculum for diverse target
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
groups, design supplementary
materials for use with particular
Pg. 146
instructional strategies, and
develop language tests and
assessment instruments, by
synthesizing the objectives of goals
1 and 2 and the teaching strategies
in objective 3a.
4. Ability to understand
and analyze the processes
of linguistic and cultural
globalization and their
impact on English
language learning,
teaching, and
communication.
PLO4A: Students will critically
examine concepts such as race,
ethnicity, identity, and culture and
their relationship to language
teaching and learning in the context
of a globalized world.
5. Effectively teach
English learners in a
variety of contexts and
maintain an active
professional role as a
teacher- scholar.
PLO5A: Students will complete a
one-semester supervised practicum
in which they plan lessons and
teach English to an actual ESL class.
PLO4B: Students will design syllabi
that create classroom and program
environments that foster global
cultural consciousness.
PLO5B: Students will carry out
independent research.
PLO5C: Students will effectively
write and present for professional
audiences.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 147
I.
PLO-COURSE MATRICES
I1: BA Linguistics PLO-Course Matrix
BA LINGUISTICS PLOs
PLO 1A: Transcribe, using the International Phonetic Alphabet,
and produce speech sounds of the world’s languages. Apply
concepts of acoustic theory in analyses of speech data;
PLO 1B: Analyze linguistic sound patterns in terms of their
function, their structure, and the pressures that influence their
change over time;
PLO 1C: Analyze words and their internal structure in terms of
their meanings, their sound properties, and the pressures that
influence their change over time;
PLO 1D: Analyze sentence structure in any language in terms of
grammatical relations and constituent structure, and recognize
the typological diversity of syntactic phenomena;
PLO 1E: Analyze the meaning of words and sentences, elaborate
on the role of linguistic and pragmatic context in the
interpretation of meaning, and understand the role of theories in
the analysis of semantic data;
PLO 1F: Identify phonological, morphological, syntactic and
semantic changes in the history of a language, discuss the
contribution of social factors to language variation and change,
explain the genetic and typological classification of languages, and
use the comparative method to reconstruct ancestors of related
languages;
PLO 2A: Analyze phonetic, phonological, morphological,
syntactic, semantic, and historical linguistics data;
PLO 2B: Critically evaluate competing approaches to the analysis
of linguistic data;
PLO 2C: Use library and electronic research sources effectively;
PLO 2D: Use reading and writing skills effectively;
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to one-year college
level study in a language other than their native language.
PLO 3A: Discuss issues in speech synthesis, speech recognition,
natural language processing, and develop speech recognition,
speech synthesis and natural language processing programs;
PLO 3B: Evaluate theories of first and second language
acquisition, and second language teaching;
PLO 3C: Identify language-related social programs in areas such
as education, the law, the workplace, etc., and discuss the
feasibility of various empirically-based solutions.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
COURSES
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 111 (Reinforced)
LING 125 (Reinforced)
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 113 (Reinforced)
LING 125 (Reinforced)
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 162 (Reinforced)
LING 125 (Reinforced)
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 112 (Reinforced)
LING 125 (Reinforced)
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 114 (Reinforced)
LING 125 (Reinforced)
ASSESSMENT
Transcription exercises, quizzes,
midterm exam, final exam, term
paper
Initial assessment, data analysis
problems, quizzes, midterm
exam, final exam
Data analysis problems, mini
projects, midterm exam, final
exam
Syntactic analysis problems,
mini projects, midterm exam,
final exam
Semantic analysis problems,
mini projects, midterm exam,
final exam
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 113 (Reinforced)
LING 125 (Reinforced)
Historical data analysis
problems, mini projects,
midterm exam, final exam
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 112 (Reinforced)
LING 113 (Reinforced)
LING 114 (Reinforced)
LING 162 (Reinforced)
LING 125 (Reinforced)
LING 112 (Introduced)
LING 113 (Introduced)
LING 114 (Introduced)
LLD 100W (Introduced)
LING 114 (Reinforced)
LING 125 (Reinforced)
LLD 100W (Introduced)
All courses (Reinforced)
Foreign language courses
at any college; English
proficiency for native
speakers of a language
other than English
LING 115 (Introduced)
LING 124 (Introduced)
LING 165 (Introduced)
LING 108 (Introduced)
LING 161 (Introduced)
LING 125 (Introduced)
LING 122 (Introduced)
LING 129 (Introduced)
LING 166 (Introduced)
Data analysis problems, mini
projects, midterm exam, final
exam
Homework assignments, term
paper, mini projects
Homework assignments,
annotated bibliographies
Part of the evaluation of every
written assignment or exam
College transcript
Homework problems, midterm
exam, final exam, parser, speech
synthesizer
Midterm exam, final exam, mini
project, term paper
Sociolinguistic data collection
and analysis reported in a term
paper, midterm exam, final
exam
Pg. 148
I2: MA Linguistics PLO-Course Matrix
MA LINGUISTICS PLOs
PLO 1A: Transcribe, using the International Phonetic
Alphabet, and produce speech sounds of the world’s
languages. Apply concepts of acoustic theory in
analyses of speech data;
PLO 1B: Analyze linguistic sound patterns in terms of
their function, their structure, and the pressures that
influence their change over time;
PLO 1C: Analyze sentence structure of typologically
diverse languages using current formalism and explain
how syntactic and semantic structures interface.
PLO 1D: Analyze the meaning of linguistic expressions,
elaborate on the role of linguistic, pragmatic, and
cultural context in the interpretation of meaning, and
understand the role of theories in the analysis of
semantic data.
PLO 1E: Show an understanding of current linguistic
theories; compare and evaluate different theoretical
approaches.
PLO 2A: Extract patterns from complex data sets,
motivate categorization procedures, and apply learned
analytical principles over such patterns.
PLO 2B: Carry out independent empirical,
experimental or theoretical research involving
formulating a research project, presenting a literature
review, using appropriate methodology, collecting
data pertinent to the project, and interpreting the
data.
PLO 2C: Use library and electronic research sources
effectively;
PLO 2D: Use reading and writing and oral skills
effectively;
PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to a twoyear of an Indo-European or a one-year of a non- IndoEuropean college level study in a language other than
their native language.
PLO 3A: Discuss issues in speech synthesis, speech
recognition, natural language processing, and develop
speech recognition, speech synthesis and natural
language processing programs;
PLO 3B: Evaluate theories of first and second language
acquisition, and second language teaching;
PLO 3C: Apply linguistic knowledge to address societal
issues related to language variation and diversity, and
intercultural communication.
PLO 3D: Recognize the relation between language and
cognition and evaluate theories of their interaction
PLO 3E: Identify phonological, morphological, syntactic
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
COURSES
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 111 (Reinforced)
LING 213 (Advanced)
ASSESSMENT
Transcription exercises, transcription
project, midterm exam, final exam, term
paper
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 113 (Reinforced)
LING 201 (Reinforced)
LING 213 (Advanced)
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 112 (Reinforced)
LING 202 (Advanced)
LING 213 (Advanced)
LING 101 (Introduced)
LING 114 (Reinforced)
LING 203 (Advanced)
LING 213 (Advanced)
Initial assessment, data analysis problems,
midterm exam, final exam, research
papers
LING 201 (Advanced)
LING 202 (Advanced)
LING 203 (Advanced)
LING 112 (Introduced)
LING 113 (Introduced)
LING 114 (Introduced)
LING 201 (Advanced)
LING 202 (Advanced)
LING 203 (Advanced)
LING 213 (Advanced)
LING 201 (Introduced)
LING 202 (Introduced)
LING 203 (Introduced)
LING 298 (Reinforced)
LING 299 (Advanced)
Research papers, comprehensive exam,
master’s thesis
LLD 250W (Introduced)
All 200-level courses
(Reinforced)
LLD 250W (Introduced)
All courses (Reinforced)
Foreign language
courses at any college;
English proficiency for
native speakers of a
language other than
English
LING 115 (Introduced)
LING 124 (Introduced)
LING 165 (Introduced)
LING 298 (Advanced)
LING 161 (Introduced)
LLD 270 (Advanced)
LING 125 (Introduced)
LING 166 (Introduced)
LLD 271 (Reinforced)
LING 161 (Introduced)
Homework assignments, annotated
bibliographies
LING 101 (Introduced)
Data analysis problems, midterm exam,
Data analysis problems, mini projects,
midterm exam, final exam, research paper
Semantic analysis problems, mini projects,
midterm exam, final exam, research paper
Data analysis problems, mini projects,
midterm exam, final exam, research
papers, comprehensive exam, master’s
thesis
Research proposal, annotated
bibliography, term paper
Master’s thesis
Part of the evaluation of every written
assignment exam, or term paper
College transcript
Homework problems, midterm exam, final
exam, parser, speech synthesizer
Midterm exam, final exam, mini project,
term paper
Sociolinguistic data collection and analysis
reported in a term paper, midterm exam,
final exam
Midterm exam, final exam, term paper
Pg. 149
and semantic changes in the history of a language,
discuss the contribution of social factors to language
variation and change, explain the genetic and
typological classification of languages, and use the
comparative method to reconstruct ancestors of
related languages.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
LING 125 (Reinforced)
final exam, term paper
Pg. 150
I3: MA TESOL PLO-Course Matrix
MA TESOL PLOs
Course
Assessment
PLO 1A: Students will analyze
language as a system consisting of
phonology, morphology, syntax,
semantics, lexis, pragmatics, and
discourse and articulate the
relationships between the various
intrasentential levels and features of
English structure.
LING 101 (introduced)
LING 107 (introduced)
LLD 260 (reinforced)
LLD 261 (reinforced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
Problem-solving analyses of language data, particularly
English language data
PLO 1B: Students will correlate the
knowledge and analytical skills in
objective 1a with four skills of
reading, writing, listening and
speaking with sufficient precision to
teach and assess proficiency in
English as a non-native language.
LING 107 (introduced)
LLD 260 (reinforced)
LLD 261 (reinforced)
LLD 280 (advanced)
LLD 283 (advanced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
Collection and analysis of primary English language data
PLO 2A: Students will demonstrate
an understanding of the role of
pragmatic knowledge and knowledge
of text structure in the
comprehension, production, and
acquisition of a second language.
LLD 270 (introduced)
LLD 280 (reinforced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
LLD 283 (advanced)
Reviews of the research literature on SLA
PLO 2B: Students will demonstrate
an understanding of the intersection
between culture, language, language
learning and teaching, and language
use with particular reference to
English as a global language.
LLD 271 (introduced)
LLD 280 (reinforced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
PLO 2C: Students will apply
theoretical knowledge of second
language acquisition in second
language learning/acquisition
contexts.
LLD 270 (introduced)
LLD 280 (reinforced)
LLD 283 (advanced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
Oral presentations on specific English language structures
Mid-term and final exams focusing on synthesis and
application of concepts to specified learning and teaching
contexts
Data-oriented interlanguage problems which the students
investigate to identify the use of learning strategies, and to
derive probable psychological processes governing strategy
use
Research projects that help students learn and use the
knowledge and skills necessary to pose questions, collect
and analyze data, find a pattern in the learner language, and
derive probable hypothesis
Critical book reviews from bibliographies collected
Research projects, in which students synthesize what was
learned and display knowledge and skill in collecting,
analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data
Oral presentations in which students discuss possible
pedagogical implications of their research.
Annotated bibliographies, using electronic data bases
Culture journals: students “adopt a culture” and write it in
both a direct (international) and indirect (reading &
research) manner.
PLO 3A: Students will identify the
instructional strategies that go with
the established teaching methods
and apply them to various language
learning and teaching situations.
LLD 270 (introduced)
LLD 280 (reinforced)
LLD 283 (reinforced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
Reflective journals in which students record their developing
beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge based on their readings
and class discussions, and share their thoughts with other
students.
Program evaluations in which students study existing
instructional programs and critique them using developing
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 151
PLO 3B: Students will critically
evaluate the teaching of actual ESL
classes with regard to teaching
strategies and activities and with
regard to goals 1 and 2.
LLD 280 (introduced)
LLD 282 (reinforced)
PLO 3C: Students will demonstrate
an understanding of the theory and
practice of needs analysis, curriculum
design, and assessment techniques.
LLD 280 (introduced)
LLD 283 (reinforced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
knowledge and skills.
Analytical journal based on 12-week tutoring experience
with non-native learner of English.
Oral presentations in which students discuss possible
pedagogical implications of their research.
Needs analyses involving selection of a group of language
learners in an institutional setting and an analysis of their
needs.
Classroom interactional analyses in which students observe
ESL classes to report on teacher, learner, and observer
perspectives of classroom events.
PLO 3D: Students will develop ESL
curriculum for diverse target groups,
design supplementary materials for
use with particular instructional
strategies, and develop language
tests and assessment instruments, by
synthesizing the objectives of goals 1
and 2 and the teaching strategies in
objective 3a.
LLD 280 (introduced)
LLD 283 (reinforced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
PLO 4A: Students will critically
examine concepts such as race,
ethnicity, identity, and culture and
their relationship to language
teaching and learning in the context
of a globalized world.
LLD 270 (introduced)
LLD 280 (reinforced)
LLD 271 (advanced)
PLO 4B: Students will design syllabi
that create classroom and program
environments that foster global
cultural consciousness.
LLD 271 (introduced)
LLD 280 (reinforced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
Research projects in which students develop the rationale,
write a lesson plan and design teaching materials for an ESL
lesson of their choice.
Students will develop a detailed curriculum based on the
results of their needs analysis.
Test construction, including the construction of a battery of
tests, following different test formats, and administration of
them on a group of learners. Program re-evaluation, in
which students synthesize their knowledge and skill to
evaluate the newly developed instructional program.
Students select specific theories and do a critical literature
review to trace their historical development in order to see
and assess their role in language learning and teaching.
Students select a particular concept, conduct a critical autoethnographic study to understand and assess how the
concept has shaped their language learning and teaching
experience.
Students focus on select features of cultural globalization to
do a data-oriented mini-ethnographic study to understand
and explain how globalization is shaping policies and
practices of English language teaching.
Students design a mini cultural syllabus with specific goals
and objectives, and plan a set of classroom strategies that
focus on creating global cultural consciousness in the
learner.
PLO 5A: Students will complete a
one-semester supervised practicum
in which they plan lessons and teach
English to an actual ESL class.
LLD 270 (introduced)
LLD 283 (reinforced)
LLD 282 (advanced)
Portfolios, written records kept by students of all their work,
which are used to monitor their own progress to be turned
in for summative assessment.
Peer teaching, also involving constructive criticism of peers
and written analyses of lesson by self and peers.
PLO 5B: Students will carry out
independent research.
LLD 250W
(introduced)
LLD 280 (reinforced)
LLD 271 (advanced)
Peer teaching in which students teach min-lessons in a
language other than English to their classmates.
Practice teaching, including videotaping, analysis and written
reports on their experiences.
Program profiles in which students produce written analyses
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 152
PLO 5C: Students will effectively
write and present for professional
audiences.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
LLD 250W
(introduced)
LLD 280 (reinforced)
LLD 271 (advanced)
of the instructional programs they are part of.
Students will pass a weekend-long comprehensive
examination or write a thesis.
Pg. 153
J:
LLD DEPARTMENT MISSION AND GOALS
This statement is available on the Department website.
In fulfilling the mission of California State University as implemented by San José State University, the mission of
the Department of Linguistics and Language Development is to foster understanding of language structure and
use in the context of a technological and multi-cultural society.
The Department of Linguistics and Language Development emphasizes the following goals:
Instructional
1. For all students:
a. Acquisition of effective English Language skills for use in academic and professional settings.
b. Development of methods of critical inquiry appropriate to a variety of intellectual endeavors.
c. An appreciation of the diversity and dynamic nature of languages and cultures in the U.S. and the
world, including the context-specific appropriateness of varieties of English.
2. For students of language development courses and advanced composition courses, an in-depth knowledge of
academic English, including:
a. An understanding of the interrelationship between critical thinking/literacy in academic and
professional settings.
b. An ability to produce appropriate and effective reader-based and genre-based written English.
3. For Linguistics majors, an in-depth knowledge of linguistics including:
a. An understanding of the processes of comprehension, production, acquisition, variation and change
within human languages.
b. An ability to analyze a range of primary data in major areas of linguistics research to determine the
ways in which language relates to cognition and society.
c. An understanding of the relationship between linguistic theories and areas such as computational
linguistics, cognitive science, language acquisition and learning, and language policy.
4. For TESOL majors, an in-depth knowledge of theories and practices of language teaching and learning, including:
a. An understanding of the structures and functions of varieties of English in specific social settings.
b. An understanding, supported by field-based data, of the processes of first and second language
development.
c. An ability to integrate theory and practice as an informed and reflective practitioner.
Scholarship and Professional Service
As a department, we aim:
• To foster a climate in which individual and collaborative research and scholarship can be carried out and
disseminated in all components of the department.
• To grow individually and collectively as academic and teaching professionals.
• To foster an environment of collegial exchange in which creative solutions to departmental, university,
community and societal issues may emerge.
• To contribute to and promote interaction among the academic and social communities of which we are
a part.
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 154
K:
ASSESSMENT PLANS FOR 2014-2019
K1: BA Linguistics Assessment Plan 2014-2019
BA LINGUISTICS PLO ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
2014-2019
PLO
PLO 1A
F14
LING 101
PLO 1B
LING 101
PLO 1C
PLO 1D
LING 101
LING 101
PLO 1E
PLO 1F
LING 101
LING 101
PLO 2A
LING 101
PLO 2B
PLO 2C
PLO 2D
PLO 2E
PLO 3A
PLO 3B
PLO 3C
S15
F15
S16
LING 111
LING 112
LING 112
LING 111
LING 108
LING115
S17
LING 125
F17
LING 125
LING 113
S18
F18

LING 125
LING 125


LING 114
LING 125
LING 125


LING 114
LING 162
LING 114
LING 114
LING 114
LING 162
LING 125

LING 113



LING 113
LING 125
LING 113
LING 166
LING124
LING165
LING 161
LING 108
LING 125
LING 166
S19

LING 162
LING 112
LING 112
LING 101
F16
FILES



For the first eight semesters, we will conduct assessment by course, assessing all PLOs relevant for each. For the last two
semesters, we will conduct assessment by PLO, considering data from all courses relevant, and make adjustments to our
curriculum accordingly, thus “closing the loop.”
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 155
K2: MA Linguistics Assessment Plan 2014-2019
MA LINGUISTICS PLO ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
2014-2019
PLO
PLO 1A
PLO 1B
PLO 1C
PLO 1D
PLO 1E
PLO 2A
F14
LING101
LING101
LING101
LING101
S15
LING 112
LING 112
PLO 2B
PLO 2C
PLO 2D
PLO 2E
PLO 3A
PLO 3B
PLO 3C
PLO 3D
PLO 3E
LING 101
LING 112
F15
LING 213
LING 213
LING 213
LING 213
S16
LING111
LING 213
LING 203
LING 203
LING 203
LING 213
LING 203
LING 203
LING 115
LING 213
LING 111
LING 203
F16
S17
F17
S18
LING 113
LING 202
LING 201
LING 202
LING 113
LING 202
LING 202
LING 202
LING 201
LING 201
LING 114
LING 114
LING 114
LING 125
LING 115
LING 124
LLD 271
LING 125
LING 166
LING 113
LING 202
F18






S19


LING 201
LING 201
LLD 250W
LING 161
LING 201
LLD 250W

FILES





LING 165
LING 161
LLD 270
LING 166
LING 161
LING 101
LING 125
For the first eight semesters, we will conduct assessment by course, assessing all PLOs relevant for each. For the
last two semesters, we will conduct assessment by PLO, considering data from all courses relevant, and make
adjustments to our curriculum accordingly, thus “closing the loop.”
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 156
K3: MA TESOL Assessment Plan 2014-2019
MA TESOL PLO ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
2014-2019
PLO\SEM
PLO 1A
PLO 1B
PLO 2A
PLO 2B
PLO 2C
PLO 3A
PLO 3B
PLO 3C
PLO 3D
PLO 4A
PLO 4B
PLO 5A
PLO 5B
PLO 5C
F14
S15
LLD260
LLD260
F15
LLD270
LLD271
LLD270
LLD270
LLD270
LLD271
LLD271
S16
LLD261
LLD261
F16
LLD280
LLD280
LLD280
LLD280
LLD280
LLD280
LLD280
LLD280
LLD280
LLD280
LLD270
LLD271
LLD270
LLD280
LLD280
S17
LLD282
LLD282
LLD282
LLD282
LLD282
LLD282
LLD282
LLD282
LLD282
LLD282
LLD282
F17
LLD283
LLD283
S18
LING 107
LING 107
LLD283
LLD283
F18
S19











LLD283
LLD283
LLD283
LLD250W
LLD250W



For the first eight semesters, we will conduct assessment by course, assessing all PLOs relevant for each. For the last two
semesters, we will conduct assessment by PLO, considering data from all courses relevant, and make adjustments to our
curriculum accordingly, thus “closing the loop.”
LLD - Program Planning Report – 2013-2014
Pg. 157