Los Angeles Valley College
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Cycle Report
Courses and Programs
Discipline:
Italian
Program/Course:
Department:
Italian 3, Sections 8135/8323
(Combined sections)
SLO Representative: Rafael Arias
Semester/Year:
Department Chair:
Foreign Language
Fall 2011
June Miyasaki
Student Learning Outcome Assessed
Using the vocabulary and structures learned, students will be able to perform
intermediate communicative functions involving analysis and basic abstract
concepts in Italian orally and in writing.
Students will be able to recognize the relationship between culture and
language use, identify common traits of the target culture, and examine the
similarities and differences of these common traits with their own culture.
Description of Assessment Method
a. Describe the assessment tool and how the
data was analyzed (e.g., student activity,
rubric elements, etc.).
a. The students’ ability to perform communicative functions orally was
determined by assessing their performance in oral presentations in Italian
summarizing and analyzing short stories from Italian literature using different
tenses and the vocabulary mastered from the stories read. All presentations
were done individually and lasted about 10 minutes. All presentations were
required to have the same structure: Summary of the story, analysis and
synthesis. Students had to answer, in Italian, questions from fellow students.
The students’ ability to perform communicative functions in writing was
determined by assessing the students’ performance in a written 350 word
composition in Italian on a story by Italian writer Giovanni Verga. Students
had to use the grammatical structures and the vocabulary mastered in class.
An oral and a writing rubric were used to assess the students’ productions
(see Foreign Language SLO Assessment Plan attached for rubrics and
writing topics). As per the rubrics used, the students’ oral and written
performance was assessed as 1 (not achieving the SLO); 2 (minimally
achieving the SLO); and 3 (clearly achieving the SLO) [For specific
descriptors of what constitutes a 1, 2, and 3, please refer to the rubrics
attached in the Foreign Language SLO Assessment Plan).
The students’ ability to recognize and compare cultural traits of the foreign
language cultures was assessed by correctly answering a set of 6 cultural
questions. The department agreed that answering 4-6 correct answers
b. Describe the sampling methodology (i.e.,
would indicate the student’s attainment of the cultural SLO.
how sampling was done, number of
b. Combined sections of Italian 3 and Italian 3 Honors were offered in Fall
students and faculty/staff involved out of the 2011.
total)
18 out of 18 students in these sections took part in the assessment.
c. Describe how inter-rater reliability was
achieved
c. Since the two sections of Italian 3 were combined and taught by the same
professor, no interrater reliability was necessary.
Assessment Results
Describe the relevant findings of the data analyses.
a. Describe the data according to the
Number of Students in this section:
18
assessment tool used
Number of Students assessed in this section: 18
Oral SLO Assessment:
Based on the students’ performance in this activity, was the student able to
perform intermediate communicative functions in the target language orally.
(Yes) Percentage of Students scoring 5-9 points: 17 out of 18 students
(95%) did achieve the SLO (obtaining either a 2 or a 3 as per the rubric).
(No) Percentage of Students scoring 3-4 points: 1 student (5%) did not
achieve the SLO (obtaining a 1 as per the rubric).
SLO Covering the Culture of Italy:
6 questions were asked on the final exam covering the culture of Italy.
78% of students (14 out of 18) achieved the cultural SLO by answering
correctly either 4, 5 or 6 questions.
22% of students (4 out of 18) did not achieve the cultural SLO.
Writing SLO Assessment:
(Yes) Percentage of Students scoring 2-3 points (as per the FL rubric):
16 students out of 18 or 89%.
(No) Percentage of Students scoring 1 point (as per the FL rubric):
2 students out of 18 or 11%.
Based on this assessment, it seems evident that a great majority of the
Italian 3 students assessed are achieving the SLOs of the course. The data
indicates that 95 % of the students are achieving the Oral and 89% of the
students are achieving the Written SLOs for the course.
About 11% of the students are not. This datum seem to indicate that Italian 3
students are well prepared to perform communicative skills both orally and in
writing in the target language. Regarding the Cultural SLOs it is the weakest
of the three and more work needs to be done. 78% of the students seem to
achieve the SLOs, while 22% of the students are not. These results are very
much in line with the other FL courses, where the culture SLO seems to be
the weakest in student achievement terms. The 4 students who did not
achieve the cultural SLOs were often absent during the semester (due to
their job commitments). The material for the cultural SLOs was extensively
reviewed in class and students were advised that their knowledge of Italian
culture would be assessed during the final exam.
How Results were Used for Course/Program
Improvement
a. Describe how the results are going to be
used for the improvement of teaching,
learning, or institutional effectiveness based
on the data assessed.
a. Recommendations to Improve the Cultural SLO:
- Make culture (readings, video, food, etc.) part of every week activities.
- Assign cultural assignments throughout the semester.
- Cover the culture as interwoven with the grammatical drills.
- Add cultural questions in every quiz or exam.
No recommendations are being made for the oral and written part of the
SLOs since the results are good.
b. Describe how results will be shared with
others in the discipline/area.
b. The results obtained in these assessments will be shared with the other
FL faculty in departmental meetings as there is only one professor teaching
Italian 3 at Los Angeles Valley College.
ORAL ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
POINTS
3
2
1
LEVEL FLUENCY
Fluent. The student speaks
very clearly without
hesitation.
Generally fluent. The
student speaks with some
hesitation.
Not fluent. The student hesitates
frequently.
COMPREHENSIBILITY
Comprehensible.
The speaker uses
appropriate language to
convey the main idea of
this item clearly.
Pronunciation and
intonation sound natural.
Generally
comprehensible. The
message is unclear in
places. The language used
is inadequate to make the
message totally clear.
Problems with
Incomprehensible.
The message could only be
understood by a sympathetic
native speaker. The language
used is often distorted by
interference from native
language. Problems with
LEVEL OF
EXPRESSION
Appropriate. Functions,
grammar, and vocabulary
are used correctly.
pronunciation do not
prevent communication.
pronunciation distort meaning
and inhibit communication in
some instances.
Generally appropriate.
Minor problems in usage
do not distort meaning or
inhibit communication.
Not appropriate. Problems in
usage significantly distort
meaning or inhibit
communication.
Total points ________________/9
ORAL SLO ASSESSMENT
NO
(Score 3-4)
Based on the student's score on their linguistic
performance, was the student able to perform oral
elementary everyday communicative functions in the
target language?
Number of students/out of
YES
(Score 5-9)
Number of students/out of
COMMENTS: _________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
ARIAS
WRITING ASSIGNMENTS HOLISTIC SCORING RUBRIC
Level 1:
Does Not Meet
Expectations
$
$
$
$
Message communicated with difficulty and is unclear.
Vocabulary is often inappropriate, leading to
miscommunication.
Significant patterns of error.
Self-correction is rare and usually unsuccessful.
Level 2:
Meets Minimal
Expectations
$
$
$
$
Level 3:
Meets/Exceeds
Expectations
$
$
$
$
$
Message generally comprehensible.
Vocabulary is appropriate, with mostly complete sentences.
Generally accurate, although some patterns of error may be
evident
Occasional self-correction may be successful.
Message effectively and clearly communicated requiring no
or minimal interpretation from the reader
A variety of vocabulary and complete sentences effectively
used.
Mostly accurate, showing no significant pattern of error.
Self-correction increases comprehensibility.
Few or no errors in spelling, use of diacritical marks,
punctuation, and/or capitalization