Student Achievement Assessment Committee
Department of Romance Languages
Spanish Majors and Spanish Education
a) Linguistic Proficiency:
- Grammar: Ability to communicate effectively through appropriate utilization of grammatical functions.
- Reading: Ability to understand the main thesis and
Student Achievement Assessment Committee
Department of Romance Languages
Spanish Majors and Spanish Education
a) Linguistic Proficiency:
- Grammar: Ability to communicate effectively through appropriate utilization of grammatical functions.
- Reading: Ability to understand the main thesis and main supporting ideas as well as some nuances ofwritten materials.
- Writing: Ability to develop and sustain a topic coherently in writing.
b) Knowledge of Hispanic Literatures and Cultures:
- Ability to present original research on Hispanic literatures and cultures in written form.
2. Measurement and Settings
a) Linguistic Proficiency:
- Grammar and Reading: Students were asked to take the "University of Wisconsin College-Level Placement Test for Spanish (Grammar and Reading Comprehension)." Most of the students graduating in December 2001 and May 2002 had taken the same test when they entered the program. Our objective is to compare results and draw conclusions.
- Writing: Students were asked to turn in an outcomes portfolio consisting of one paper from one of their earliest classes as majors in our program and one paper that represented their best work up until that point. At the same time, they were asked to write a brief statement commenting on the development of their writing skills in Spanish using the two documents in their portfolio as evidence for their evaluations.
Also, students were asked to participate in an assessment interview to discuss their outcomes portfolio and the Spanish program. The interviews were conducted as conversations; however, during the course of the interview, faculty asked each student six questions: 1) Why did s/he select the two pieces presented in the portfolio? (i.e., how are the papers representative of the students' beginning efforts and their best work in Spanish?); 2) What s/he see as her/his particular strengths as a Spanish major (e.g., linguistic ability, cultural skills, critical thinking, etc.)?; 3) What areas did s/he believe needed improvement as a Spanish major?; 4) What areas would s/he would have liked to have learned more about?; 5) What experiences in the Spanish program had particularly formative (e.g., classes AYA program, Sigma Delta Pi, etc.)?; and 6) What else would s/he like to tell us about her/his experience as a Spanish major at BGSU? Faculty members responded to the students' remarks on Questions #2 and #3 by offering their own evaluation of the students' strengths on the basis of the outcomes portfolio.
b) Knowledge of Hispanic Literatures and Cultures:
- We use the same instruments employed to assess the linguistic proficiency in writing. Students were asked to turn in an outcomes portfolio and to participate in an assessment interview. Questions #2 and #3 from the previous section were modified in the following way: 2a) What did s/he see as her/his particular strengths in terms of knowledge of Hispanic literatures and cultures?; and 3a) What areas of this knowledge did s/he believe needed improvement?. Faculty members responded to the students' remarks on Questions #2a and #3a by offering their own evaluation of the students' strengths on the basis of the outcomes portfolio.
After having completed all the interviews, faculty members reported the results of the assessment process. Based on the evaluation of both the grammar/reading diagnostic test and the portfolios, the faculty believed the students have met the Spanish program's learning outcomes.
- Grammar/Reading Diagnostic Test: Nine of the ten graduating students took both Entrance and Exit tests. All of those who took the tests show improvement in their scores (see Appendix). The lowest improvement was 1.5% and the highest was 38%. Over 50% of the student showed an improvement of 25% or more.
Four of the nine students received scores of 90-100% (69-77 correct answers of 77 total questions). Two received scores 80-89% (62-68 correct answers of 77 total questions). Two students received scores of 70-79% (54-61 correct answers of 77 total questions). One student received a score of 66% (51 correct answers of 77 total questions).
The most common grammatical errors (Questions 21 & 30) were about higher level functions (past subjunctive in subordinate clauses after an indefinite or negative antecedent and long possessive forms respectively). At their level of linguistic proficiency, students are not expected to exhibit mastery of those functions. Other common errors were questions testing the uses of the subjunctive (Questions 7, 23, & 27), special syntactic constructions (Question 35), and problematic semantic distinctions (Questions 5 & 37).
- Portfolios: Faculty saw an outstanding level of improvement among the ten students who presented their portfolios and participated in the assessment interviews. An analysis of the papers revealed a noticeable improvement between the first and second papers. In their second papers, the students utilized more complex grammatical structures and more coherent discourse, with extensive and sophisticated vocabulary. They also demonstrated their knowledge and understanding of Hispanic literatures and cultures.
- Evaluation of the Hispanic Program: Nine of the ten graduating students returned the Spanish Program Evaluation form. The average rating of their experience in the Spanish program is 3.3 (4 being 'excellent' and 1 'poor').
The majority stated that the strengths of the program are: 1) The Study Abroad experience (AYA Spanish), 2) Variety of classes offered, 3) the professors,