DEPARTMENT OF MODERN
AND CLASSICAL LANGUAGES
ASSESSMENT
REPORTS FOR STUDENT LEARNING
|
III. Changes to
Procedures or Curriculum Based on Assessment |
|
|
II. Achievement
of Departmental Objectives for Students A. Undergraduate-- |
In the undergraduate
programs, the Department of Modern and Classical Languages used course-imbedded
assessments exclusively (except for the students in the Teacher Education
Concentration, who were assessed with a proficiency exam) for both General Georgia State
University Outcomes and the assessment of departmental majors. Graduates were evaluated on their
end-of-study writing (thesis, pedagogical research project or research
paper). Instructors of the courses in which outcomes were assessed evaluated the
relevant skills in the key assignments listed in the Department’s Assessment
Plan and e-mailed on Excel files to our
Administrative Assistant who tabulated the results (because of miscommunication
and administrative glitches, the assessments for General Georgia State University Outcomes were
done in very few courses). The assessment procedures for the academic
year 2004-2005, as well as the procedures for analyzing the data collected of
the various skills central to the mission of the Department are described in
detail in the Department’s Assessment Plan (attached).
II. Achievement
of departmental student learning objectives
1. Majors
a. All majors
at the end of the first level (3000)
It is to be noted that
these are not end-of-study assessments (as are the ones in the various
concentrations, in section A, 1, b).
The only courses that are required for all majors, since students
can take different courses to fulfill their major requirements at the 4000 level,
are the 3000-level courses, which are all prerequisite to taking any 4000-level
courses. Thus, only our 3000-level
courses were appropriate to test the basic skills of all students at the same
level.
For outcome 1: listening (ability to understand a
proficient speaker) 42 students were tested; the mean score was 4.46, 76.1% were rated as good (4), excellent (5) or outstanding (6).
For
outcome 2: speaking (correctly and
with good pronunciation) 77 students were tested; the mean score was 3.80 (64.2%).
For outcome 3: reading (comprehending texts) 117
students were tested; the mean score was 4.02
(70.2%).
For outcome 4: writing (clearly and with correct
grammar) 153 students were tested; the mean score was 3.89 (64.5%).
For outcome 5: culture (knowledge of target cultures) 80
students were tested; the mean score was 3.74
(62.8%).
For outcome 6: literature (knowledge of target
literature and literary analysis) 142 students were tested; the mean score was 3.71 (62.1%).
b. Major concentrations
at the end of the advanced level (4000)
For the outcome in the
Literature Concentration (critical
skills in target literatures) 82 students were tested; the mean score was 4.52 (77%).
For the outcome in the
Business Concentration (knowledge of
business concepts and cross-cultural behaviors) 28 students were tested; the
mean score was 4.22 (74%).
For the outcome in the
Teacher Education Concentration (language
proficiency and teaching skill) 26 students were tested; the mean score was 4.29 (89.5%).
2. General
Georgia State University Outcomes
For all assessments,
17 students were tested.
For outcome 1: communication, the mean score was 4.45 (94.8%).
For outcome 2: collaboration, the mean score was 4.77 (97.4%).
For outcome 3: contemporary issues, the mean score was
4.48 (97.4%).
For outcome 4: technology, the mean score was 5.06 (96.9%).
B. GRADUATES
For all assessments,
16 students were evaluated: 3 in French, 5 in German and 8 in Spanish.
For outcome 1: writing and editing skills, the mean
score was 5.03 (94.8%).
For outcome 2: research and data collecting skills,
the mean score was 5.06 (97.4%).
For outcome 3: critical thinking skills, the mean
score was 4.48 (97.4%).
For outcome 4: knowledge
about literary, linguistic, cultural and philosophical theories and concepts,
the mean score was 5.06 (96.9%).
III. Changes to procedures, curriculum or assessment goals
Although some changes may be needed in
procedures, curriculum or assessment goals, the Department has not met, as yet,
to evaluate their need or discuss them. We have set up a committee to assess,
as early as possible in the learning process, what we may be able to do to
remedy the problems our students encounter, to encourage them to continue and
perhaps major in a language, or at least get to the level where they can enjoy
a subject-matter-oriented upper division course. One possibility we discussed is finding a single book we could
use for both first and second year language, perhaps slowing down and limiting
the amount of material that needs to be covered, so that it can be done more
thoroughly and be integrated more successfully by students, and so we not have
to redo and they to restudy it at each level. Another subject of discussion was
better training and supervising of our teaching assistants under a master
teacher, to make them more successful in imparting knowledge and interesting
students. We are aware that many
students are perhaps too goal oriented in certain ways and not enough in
others. They often want to achieve
maximum success with a minimum amount of work.
We hope to find a way to inspire them to do the amount of preparation
that is necessary to achieve the success that they intended, by helping them
enjoy the work and be successful the first time they do it.