FINAL
Compressed Course and Program Assessment Plan and Schedule for Fall 2011—Spring 2012
Directions: Complete one plan for each two (2) program outcomes to be assessed in an annual cycle.
Division: Humanities
Program: English as a Second Language
Course(s): ESLG 001, ESLG 002
Program Faculty Collaborating on Assessment (Save and submit minutes of meetings as support for all relevant steps below):
Lori Netti
#1: Due Sept. 1, 2011;
Submit to Program
Faculty, Div. Dean and
Div. Liaison
Program Mission (reflecting
goals and values for students)
and Program Student Learning
Outcomes. Identify plans for
sharing with stakeholders
Mission Statement
The mission of the English as a Second Language (ESL) program is to improve the English language abilities of
international students with insufficient TOEFL (or comparable) test scores. Students who complete the ESL program
will have language skills at the upper-intermediate level.
Program Learning Outcomes
Students who complete course work in the ESL program will be able to:
•
•
•
comprehend basic standard spoken English.
illustrate intermediate reading comprehension skills.
compose an organized, expressive essay.
A first meeting covering a brief overview of assessment and requirements was followed with another meeting for an
assessment audit. After that, the Dept. Chair attended an assessment workshop.
The Mission Statement and Program Outcomes will be posted to the VU ESL page and the ESL Department Google
Site.
#2: Due Sept. 15, 2011;
Submit to Program
Faculty, Div. Dean and
Div. Liaison
Program Student Learning
Outcomes and Course
Activities/Assignments to be
assessed. Identify the “who”
and “why” of the decision
Outcome 1: Comprehend basic standard spoken English.
Activity: Movie comprehension questions.
Outcome 2: Illustrate intermediate reading comprehension skills.
Activity: Newspaper article comprehension questions.
Since this is a single-person department, the decision was made by the Chair. The activities to be assessed seemed
easiest to measure for a first project.
1
FINAL
#3: Due Sept. 30, 2011;
Submit to Program
Faculty, Div. Dean and
Div. Liaison
At Least 2 Assessment
Measurement Instruments
(assessment tools such as
rubrics, reflective activities,
surveys, etc.,) and Success
Standards for EACH Direct
Measure
Outcome 1: Comprehend basic standard spoken English.
Movie verbal comprehension questions
Project A: Direct Assessment: Written survey of student comprehension and perceived effectiveness.
Success standard: 60% of students will find questions comprehensible and effective.
Project B: Indirect Assessment: Journal of student reaction.
Outcome 2: Illustrate intermediate reading comprehension skills.
Newspaper verbal comprehension questions
Project A: Direct Assessment: Written survey of student comprehension and perceived effectiveness.
Success standard: 60% of students will find questions comprehensible and effective.
Project B: Indirect Assessment: Journal of student reaction.
#4: Due Sept. 30, 2011;
Submit to Program
Faculty, Div. Dean and
Div. Liaison
Assessment Administration Plan:
What courses will be assessed,
sample size, due dates for
assessment and scoring, person
responsible for oversight, faculty
involved in assessment and
scoring, etc.
Outcome 1: Comprehend basic standard spoken English.
Courses assessed: ESLG 001
Sample size: 8
Due date for assessment: December 9, 2011
Outcome 2: Illustrate intermediate reading comprehension skills.
Courses assessed: ESLG 002
Sample size: 8
Due date for assessment: December 9, 2011
Responsible/involved party is the Chair, the lone department member.
#5: Due Dec. 15, 2011;
Submitted to
program/department
members, Div. Liaison,
Div. Dean, and Amy
Hatton.
All student activities and scoring
results to be saved for analysis
and discussion
ESLG 001, ESLG 002
Direct Assessment: Survey of students in Listening and Reading Modules
Sample size: 4
Indirect Assessment: Journal of student reaction to Listening and Reading modules kept.
2
FINAL
#6: Due Feb. 1, 2012:
Submit to
program/department
members, Div. Dean
and Div. Liaison
Analysis and summaries or
reports of analysis of student
results. Identify trends,
strengths, weaknesses.
Outcome 1: Comprehend basic standard spoken English.
Project A: ESLG 001 Survey: 75% found the Movie Module Questions comprehensible and effective. This is above
the goal of 60%. This tells me the questions are good. They are neither too difficult nor too easy. Steven Krashen,
leading Second Language Acquisition expert, calls this i+1, and it is crucial to learning.
Project B: Journal: Satisfactory student progress was observed in their knowing what is being asked, responding, and
responding correctly.
Outcome 2: Illustrate intermediate reading comprehension skills.
Project A: ESLG 002 Survey: 75% found the Reading Module Questions comprehensible and effective. This is above
the goal of 60%. Again, this tells me the questions are good, neither to difficult nor too easy (i+1 achieved).
Project B: Journal: Satisfactory progress was observed in students both understanding and responding to questions.
The one trend on all surveys was the student response to “Number of questions asked”. All students thought there
should be more questions, so that will be done starting in Fall 2012.
#7: Due Feb. 1, 2012:
Submit to Program
Faculty, Div. Dean, and
Div. Liaison, and Amy
Hatton.
#8: Due Feb. 15, 2012:
Submit to Program
Faculty, Div. Dean and
Div. Liaison, and Amy
Hatton.
Strengths and weaknesses of
assessment methods, tools,
processes, and identify how to
make improvements for future
assessments.
Improvement Plans for Fall 2012
or next time assessed course is
offered. Include plan for faculty
involvement, prof. development,
changed curricula (if any),
collaboratively agreed upon
instructional tools,
methodologies, etc.
The sample size was smaller for two reasons. There were fewer students enrolled in the modules than anticipated,
and some students had left the program and were unavailable.
The surveys worked better than I had hoped, given the few who took it. The survey was simple enough for students
to understand it with their limited language proficiency. Questions were sufficiently clear, direct and focused to get
the desired information. The only “weakness” was the late date at which it was administered.
The journal was a good tool for revealing the gradual student progress that doesn’t always show up on the
curriculum’s proficiency tests. I didn’t recognize any weakness with this tool.
I will use both tools for Fall 2012. Next semester I will give the survey earlier to be sure every student has a chance to
complete one.
No big changes will be made immediately due to insufficient data. It would be irresponsible to alter too much with
only four surveys and a single period of journal observation. Based on the survey results, however, the number of
questions asked will be increased.
The surveys and journal will be re-implemented in Fall 2012 to get additional numbers for analysis.
3
FINAL
#9: Due Feb. 1, 2013:
Submit to Program
Faculty, Div. Dean and
Div. Liaison
Results of Actions Taken to be
used in follow-up report
As of December 11, 2012:
Outcome 1: Comprehend basic standard spoken English.
The questions were not altered last year as not enough data had been compiled after the first year. Of the
data from two years, 66% of students surveyed found the questions comprehensible and effective, which
was the goal. The observation journal indicates that 100% of the students were eventually understanding
the questions and improving their overall listening comprehension.
Outcome 2: Illustrate intermediate reading comprehension skills.
The questions were not altered last year as not enough data had been compiled after the first year. The
two years of data indicate the goal of 60% of students finding the questions to be comprehensible and
effective had been met, with 66% of students answering they agreed with that statement. The
observation journal found 100% of students eventually understood the questions and improved their
reading comprehension.
4