academic program: assessment report 2013-2014 program: assessment report 2013-2014 ... direct and...

Academic Program: Assessment Report 2013-2014

Unit/Department: Spanish / LLC Division: College of Arts and Sciences

P&OD 2.11.10 1

Component Description

Program Mission Statement

From your Program Assessment Plan (Statement should articulate the unit/ program mission in support of the institutional mission and include a clearly defined purpose appropriate to collegiate education.)

The Department of Languages, Literature, and Composition provides a significant component of the liberal arts curriculum at USC Upstate. Programs and curricula are designed to foster personal and intellectual growth, to enhance awareness of cultural diversity, and to enrich the cultural life of USC Upstate students, the USC Upstate community, and the greater metropolitan area. The Department is committed to the highest level of quality in the performance of this mission.

The USC Upstate Spanish program aims to teach and facilitate communication in Spanish, provide knowledge and understanding of the Hispanic cultures, build multilingual communities, draw comparisons between various cultural and linguistic systems, and expand our students’ educational experience by connecting Spanish with other disciplines in the University. The Spanish curriculum is designed to prepare students for a competitive global marketplace, particularly in view of the international nature of the Upstate community and the growing Hispanic population in the United States.

Goal 1

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to the program.)

Students graduating in Spanish at USC Upstate will be able to demonstrate speaking and listening proficiency in Spanish.

Objectives SLO’s (student learning outcomes)

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals.

Students will demonstrate competence in syntax and rules of discourse in varying linguistic tasks as measured by the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines—Speaking.

Assessment Methods

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

Students will take the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview.



P&OD 2.11.10 2

Assessment Criteria

Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)

Students must pass the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview with a score of Advanced Low or above.

Assessment Results

Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)

During the 2013-2014 academic year seven students took the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) via telephone between November 5, 2013 and November 12, 2013. Of the seven, one scored at Advanced High, one at Advanced Mid, three at Intermediate High, two at Intermediate Mid. The five students (71%) at the Intermediate level did not reach our benchmark. The two students at Advanced High and Advanced Mid (29%) exceeded our benchmark. If we were to separate these results into Spanish and Spanish education majors, of the six Spanish majors, two (33%) scored at or above the Advanced Low level thereby meeting our benchmark. The one Spanish education major scored at Intermediate Mid, thereby not meeting the benchmark of Advanced Low. When compared to previous years, these results are low, however, they are collectively higher than 2012-2013. This year no students scored lower than Intermediate Mid, which is an improvement. The two students who were able to meet the benchmark this year were either native or heritage speakers of Spanish.



P&OD 2.11.10 3

Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment?

First, we will continue to administer a mock OPI in Spanish 310: Advanced Oral Practice. The first one was administered in Fall 2013, and we will be able to track our students’ improvement in oral proficiency in next year’s assessment report as this first cohort takes a real OPI in this year’s Spanish 490: Senior Seminar. One change that will be made in 2014-2015 is that the scores to the mock OPI were never distributed to the students. This year the students will be informed of their scores. The idea is that if the students know their mock OPI scores, they will take a more active role in improving their oral proficiency by practicing their Spanish outside of the classroom. They could do this through service learning projects in the Hispanic community or through study abroad.

Second, the Spanish faculty will re-evaluate the Spanish 201 and Spanish 202 curriculum. In the second year, not only do students learn more complex grammar, they also solidify those grammar topics learned during the first year. There needs to be less emphasis on drill-and-kill exercises at the 200-level and more emphasis on both written and oral communication skills. This idea will be discussed as we scrutinize what we do in these two classes.

Finally, we will continue to encourage our students to immerse themselves in the language, whether that be by becoming more involved with the Hispanic community in the Upstate area or immersing themselves in the Hispanic culture through study abroad opportunities.



P&OD 2.11.10 4

Implementation of Previous Years’ Action Plan

Which of the modifications indicated in the previous years’ reports were implemented this year and what was the impact?

In the 2012-2013 Assessment Report, it was reported that the hiring of Steven Lownes, an instructor trained in administering the OPI, would allow us to implement a mock OPI in Spanish 310: Advanced Oral Practice, a requirement for both Spanish and Spanish education majors. During the fall semester Mr. Lownes worked with Gabrielle Drake, the instructor of Spanish 310, to administer the mock OPIs.

There were 16 students enrolled in the class. Of the sixteen:

3 students scored at Advanced High (19%) 2 students scored at Advanced Mid (12.5%) 1 student scored at Advanced Low (6%) 1 student scored at Intermediate High (6%) 3 students scored at Intermediate Mid (19%) 6 students scored at Intermediate Low (37.5%)

Looking at these results, 6 students (37.5%) at the Advanced level would meet or exceed our benchmark if they were taking the official OPI in Spanish 490: Senior Seminar. The 10 students (62.5%) at the Intermediate level would not meet the benchmark. As of right now, I cannot speak to this mock OPI’s impact. What it has provided is a baseline for measurement. At least 4 of these students are currently enrolled in Spanish 490. They will take an official OPI at the end of Fall 2014. We will finally be able to track if students are improving their oral proficiency skills over the course of a year.



P&OD 2.11.10 5


Goal 2


Students graduating in Spanish at USC Upstate will be able to demonstrate the ability to write in different styles.



At various points within the course of study of Spanish at USC Upstate, students will be able to:

2a. Write with clarity and precision on assigned texts. 2b. Demonstrate an ability to write for various audiences.

Assessment Methods


1. SPAN 309 and SPAN 314 will each require students to write documents

showing different writing styles/purposes. Two of these papers will be included in the students’ portfolios.

2. A paper from one upper-division literature course other than SSPN 301 will become a part of the students’ portfolios.

Assessment Criteria


The Spanish faculty used the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric consistent with ACTFL standards to assess written papers (See Attachment 1). The benchmarks for literary analysis papers are: approaches standard; meets standard; exceeds standard in ACTFL terminology. These correspond to weak (high/low), average, and excellent (high/low) respectively on the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric. Under our current plan, an acceptable level of achievement would be meets standards or above.



P&OD 2.11.10 6

Assessment Results


Of the six students that submitted portfolios in Spanish 490: Senior Seminar, only one student submitted papers from both Spanish 309: Advanced Spanish Language I and Spanish 314: Advanced Spanish Language II. Two students submitted to papers from Spanish 309. The remaining three students submitted one paper from Spanish 309. The students’ papers were rated as follows: Student Q38963880 (Spanish education major) 1) No SPAN 314 composition included in the portfolio 2) SPAN 309 (completed in Costa Rica): Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 3 3 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 3 3 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Language and Style/Voice 3 / 2 2.5 Mechanics 3 / 2 2.5 Total Average 2.8 (approaches standard) Student T25011626 (Spanish major) 1) No SPAN 314 composition included in portfolio 2) SPAN 309: Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 3 3 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 3 3 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Language and Style/Voice 2 / 2 2 Mechanics 2 / 2 2 Total Average 2.6 (approaches standard) Paper #2 Benchmark assessment from SPAN 309 reported in the 2012-2013 assessment report Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 4.5 / 4 4.25 Clarity of Purpose 4.5 / 4 4.25 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Language and Style/Voice 3 / 3.5 3.25 Mechanics 3 / 3.5 3.25 Total Average 3.8 (meets standard)



P&OD 2.11.10 7

Student D32625824 (Spanish major) 1) No SPAN 314 composition included in portfolio 2) SPAN 309: Paper #1 Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 4 / 3 3.5 Clarity of Purpose 4 / 3.5 3.75 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Language and Style/Voice 4 / 4 4 Mechanics 4 / 4 4 Total Average 3.85 (meets standard) Paper #2 Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 4 / 4 4 Clarity of Purpose 4 / 4 4 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Language and Style/Voice 4 / 3 3.5 Mechanics 4 / 4 4 Total Average 3.9 (meets standard) Paper #3 Benchmark assessment from SPAN 309 reported in the 2012-2013 assessment report Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 5 / 5 5 Clarity of Purpose 5 / 5 5 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Language and Style/Voice 3.5 / 3.5 3.5 Mechanics 3 / 3.5 3.25 Total Average 4.15 (exceeds standard) Student J52734378 (Spanish major) 1) No SPAN 314 composition included in portfolio 2) SPAN 309: Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 2 / 2 2 Clarity of Purpose 2 / 2 2 Organization of Content 2 / 2 2 Language and Style/Voice 3 / 3 3



P&OD 2.11.10 8

Mechanics 2 / 2 2 Total Average 2.2 (approaches standard) Student G12908456 (Spanish major) (native/heritage Spanish speaker) 1) SPAN 309: Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 5 / 4 4.5 Clarity of Purpose 5 / 5 5 Organization of Content 5 / 5 5 Language and Style/Voice 5 / 5 5 Mechanics 5 / 4 4.5 Total Average 4.8 (exceeds standard) 2) SPAN 314: Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 5 / 4 4.5 Clarity of Purpose 5 / 3 4 Organization of Content 5 / 4 4.5 Language and Style/Voice 5 / 4.5 4.75 Mechanics 5 / 4.5 4.75 Total Average 4.5 (exceeds standard) Student E44273323 (Spanish major) 1) No SPAN 314 composition included in portfolio 2) SPAN 309: Paper #1 Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 5 / 3 4 Clarity of Purpose 5 / 3 4 Organization of Content 5 / 3 4 Language and Style/Voice 4 / 3 3.5 Mechanics 4 / 4 4 Total Average 3.9 (meets standard) Paper #2 Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 4 / 2 3 Clarity of Purpose 4 / 2 3 Organization of Content 4 / 2 3 Language and Style/Voice 5 / 4 4.5



P&OD 2.11.10 9

Mechanics 5 / 4 4.5 Total Average 3.6 (meets standard) Paper #3 Benchmark assessment from SPAN 309 reported in the 2012-2013 assessment report Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 5 / 5 5 Clarity of Purpose 5 / 5 5 Organization of Content 5 / 5 5 Language and Style/Voice 5 / 4.5 4.75 Mechanics 4 / 3.5 3.75 Total Average 4.7 (exceeds standard) Of the nine compositions included in the portfolios, four papers (44.4%) met the benchmark and two papers (22.2%) exceeded the benchmark. Three papers (33.3%) did not meet the benchmark. In the Fall 2012 offering of Spanish 309: Advanced Spanish Language I, we collected essays during the first days of the semester. When applicable, those scores are included above for comparison. In each of the three cases, the baseline assessment scores were higher than the papers written in the class. The six students in Spanish 490: Senior Seminar submitted at least one literary paper. Only one student submitted two. Students were allowed to select the papers that went into their portfolios, so the papers are from a variety of literature courses. Student Q38963880 (Spanish education major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 3 3 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 3 3 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Language and Style/Voice 3 / 2 2.5 Mechanics 3 / 2 2.5 Total Average 2.8 (approaches standard)



P&OD 2.11.10 10

Student T25011626 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 4 3.5 Clarity of Purpose 4 / 4 4 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Language and Style/Voice 3 / 3 3 Mechanics 3 / 2 2.5 Total Average 3.4 (meets standard) Student D32625824 (Spanish major) Paper #1 Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 4 / 3 3.5 Clarity of Purpose 4 / 3.5 3.75 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Language and Style/Voice 4 / 3 3.5 Mechanics 4 / 3 3.5 Total Average 3.65 (meets standard) Paper #2: Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 3.5 3.25 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 3 3 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Language and Style/Voice 4 / 4 4 Mechanics 4 / 3.5 3.75 Total Average 3.4 (meets standard) Student J52734378 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 2 2.5 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 2 2.5 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Language and Style/Voice 2 / 2 2 Mechanics 2 / 2 2 Total Average 2.4 (approaches standard)



P&OD 2.11.10 11

Student G12908456 (Spanish major) (native/heritage Spanish speaker) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 2 2.5 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 2.5 2.75 Organization of Content 3 / 2 2.5 Language and Style/Voice 4 / 3 3.5 Mechanics 4 / 3 3.5 Total average 2.95 (approaches standard) Student E44273323 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 5 / 4 4.5 Clarity of Purpose 5 / 4 4.5 Organization of Content 4 / 3 3.5 Language and Style/Voice 5 / 4 4.5 Mechanics 5 / 5 5 Total Average 4.4 (exceeds standard) In total, seven essays were evaluated. Of the seven, three (42.8%) received meets standards. One (14.2%) received exceeds standards. Therefore, 57% of the papers collected either met or exceeded our benchmarks. Unfortunately, three (43%) received approaches standard and did not meet the benchmark.


Based on this assessment report, there are three modifications that will be made this year. 1) The Spanish faculty will re-evaluate the Spanish 201 and Spanish 202 curriculum. In the second year, not only do students learn more complex grammar, they also solidify those grammar topics learned during the first year. There needs to be less emphasis on drill-and-kill exercises at the 200-level and more emphasis on both written and oral communication skills. This idea will be discussed as we scrutinize what we do in these two classes. This is an important modification because students will come into Spanish 309 with a stronger foundation in written proficiency. 2) The Spanish faculty will re-evaluate the rubric. Some of these scores seem low because one rater consistently noted how difficult it was to apply the rubric to these particular papers, although this has never been a problem in the past. 3) The instructor of Spanish 309 will collect an initial essay to see where the students are at upon entering Spanish 309. While this was done in Fall 2012, it did not happen in Fall 2013.



P&OD 2.11.10 12



According to last year’s plan, we were going to monitor how a student’s initial essay in Spanish 309 compared to later compositions. In this cycle, the three students from Fall 2012’s Spanish 309 class who were in Spanish 490 in Fall 2013 scored higher on their initial composition than they did on subsequent compositions. However, if we take all of the papers written in Spanish 309 and Spanish 314, there is an overall increase in language scores of most of the non-native Spanish speakers. Unfortunately these initial compositions were not collected in Fall 2013’s Spanish 309, so there will be no comparison in the next assessment report.



P&OD 2.11.10 13


Goal 3


Students graduating in Spanish at USC Upstate will be able to demonstrate an adequate command of grammar and linguistics.



At various points within the course of study of Spanish at USC Upstate, students should be able to:

3a. Demonstrate competence in syntax and rules of discourse, as measured by the ACTFL Written Proficiency Scale. 3b. Demonstrate understanding of the principles of Spanish phonetics and how it compares with English phonetics.

Assessment Methods


1. The paper completed for senior seminar will be evaluated according to the ACTFL

Written Proficiency Scale. This will serve as the basis for assessing student learning objective 3a.

2. Students are required to take either SSPN 453 or SSPN 454. Both courses will

require students to write a paper comparing the Spanish and English phonetic systems. The paper will be maintained in the student portfolios. A checklist will be used to determine adequate understanding. This will serve as the basis for assessing student learning objective 3b.



P&OD 2.11.10 14

Assessment Criteria


To assess the senior seminar paper, the Spanish faculty used the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric consistent with ACTFL standards to assess research papers (See Attachment 1). The benchmarks for the papers are: approaches standard; meets standard; exceeds standard in ACTFL terminology. These correspond to weak (high/low), average, and excellent (high/low) respectively on the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric. Under our current plan, an acceptable level of achievement would be meets standards or above. To assess student learning outcome 3b, students must produce a table illustrating: a) the letters of the Spanish alphabet, including the “non-letters” rr and ll, b) the phoneme(s) produced by that orthographic representation in all relevant environments, and c) illustrative examples of those phonemes from real words in Spanish and English. Please see Attachment 2 for a representation of this assessment method. Seventy-five percent of the entries must be essentially correct.

Assessment Results


To assess SLO 3a, the Spanish faculty scored six papers generated from Spanish 490: Senior Seminar. Using the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric, each paper was scored as a whole. To analyze the students’ competence in syntax and rules of discourse, one needs to look at the score for “Language and Style/Voice” and “Mechanics” categories on the rubric since they are the only items on the rubric that deal specifically with syntax and rules of discourse. The scores in these two areas include the following. Student Q38963880 (Spanish education major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Language and Style/Voice 3 / 2 2.5 Mechanics 3 / 2 2.5 Total Average 2.55 (approaches standard) Student T25011626 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Language and Style/Voice 4 / 4 4 Mechanics 4 / 3 3.5 Total Average 3.75 (meets standard)



P&OD 2.11.10 15

Student D32625824 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Language and Style/Voice 5 / 4 4.5 Mechanics 5 / 4 4.5 Total Average 4.5 (exceeds standard) Student J52734378 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Language and Style/Voice 2 / 2 2 Mechanics 2 / 2 2 Total Average 2 (approaches standard) Student G12908456 (Spanish major) (native/heritage Spanish speaker) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Language and Style/Voice 4 / 4 4 Mechanics 4 / 3 3.5 Total Average 3.75 (meets standard) Student E44273323 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Language and Style/Voice 5 / 5 5 Mechanics 5 / 3.5 4.25 Total Average 4.625 (exceeds standard) Of the six papers submitted, four students (66.67%) received either meets standard or exceeds standard. Two students (33.3%) met the standard and two students (33.3%) exceeded the benchmark. Two students (33.3%) did not meet the benchmark. Non-native Spanish speakers received the highest scores. The one Spanish education major did not meet or exceed the standard, but there was also a Spanish major that did not meet or exceed the standard. However, when we compare the language scores from the senior seminar papers with those scores produced on papers from Spanish 309, we do see an increase in the language scores of most of our non-native speakers. For SLO 3b, eight students were enrolled in SSPN 454: Spanish Linguistics during spring semester of 2014. All eight students (100%) produced an acceptable representation of the comparison between Spanish and English phonemes.



P&OD 2.11.10 16

Student Number % score 1 87.5 2 85 3 92 4 88 5 80 6 92 7 85 8 96

In the past seven assessment cycles, since 2007-2008, our students have continually achieved the benchmark. While this trend data indicates that SLO 3b needs to be re-evaluated, the Spanish faculty has discussed this in the past, but determined that the SLO needed to be left as is since it is an essential component for the School of Education’s NCATE / ACTFL reaccreditation process for their Spanish education program.


With regard to SLO 3a, no substantial modifications will be made at this time. With the curriculum changes that have been made to the Spanish major, all students need to take an additional writing course (Spanish 314: Advanced Spanish Language II). With all students meeting and exceeding our benchmark, we will continue to monitor student success.

However, in our continual effort to improve our students’ written communication skills, the Spanish faculty will re-evaluate the Spanish 201 and Spanish 202 curriculum. In the second year, not only do students learn more complex grammar, they also solidify those grammar topics learned during the first year. There needs to be less emphasis on drill-and-kill exercises at the 200-level and more emphasis on both written and oral communication skills. This idea will be discussed as we scrutinize what we do in these two classes.

With regard to SLO 3b, the trend data indicates that it is time to either re-evaluate our benchmark and raise our standards or we need to find a new, more difficult assessment to measure the SLO. However, the Spanish faculty did discuss this in October 2011 and determined that the SLO needs to be left as it is since this exercise is an essential component in the School of Education’s NCATE / ACTFL reaccreditation process for the Spanish education program. Therefore, we will continue to monitor our students’ success.



P&OD 2.11.10 17



We did not indicate any modifications in the previous assessment report. This assessment was originally selected due to the School of Education’s NCATE / ACTFL accreditation process for their Spanish education program. Students need to demonstrate linguistic competency and this is the best way to do measure their competency. Therefore, we have decided to keep this assessment and continue to monitor our students’ performance.



P&OD 2.11.10 18


Goal 4


Students graduating in Spanish at USC Upstate will be able to read, understand and analyze popular and literary texts in Spanish.



At various points within the course of study of Spanish at USC Upstate, students should be able to:

4a. Demonstrate an ability to situate and interpret texts in their historical and cultural contexts. 4b. Make connections between texts written in Spanish.

Assessment Methods


Students will write papers in their upper-division literature courses, two of which must be maintained for inclusion in the portfolio. These papers may satisfy both SLOs listed above, but between the two papers, both must be addressed.

Assessment Criteria


The Spanish Program Assessment Committee used the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric consistent with ACTFL standards to assess literary papers. (See Attachment 1)

The benchmarks for literary analysis papers are: approaches standard; meets standard; exceeds standard in ACTFL terminology. These correspond to weak (high/low), average, and excellent (high/low) respectively on the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric. Under our current plan, an acceptable level of achievement would be meets standards or above.

Assessment Results


The six students in Spanish 490: Senior Seminar submitted at least one literary paper. Only one student submitted two. Students were allowed to select the papers that went into their portfolios, so the papers are from a variety of literature courses.



P&OD 2.11.10 19

Student Q38963880 (Spanish education major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 3 3 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 3 3 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Language and Style/Voice 3 / 2 2.5 Mechanics 3 / 2 2.5 Total Average 2.8 (approaches standard) Student T25011626 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 4 3.5 Clarity of Purpose 4 / 4 4 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Language and Style/Voice 3 / 3 3 Mechanics 3 / 2 2.5 Total Average 3.4 (meets standard) Student D32625824 (Spanish major) Paper #1 Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 4 / 3 3.5 Clarity of Purpose 4 / 3.5 3.75 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Language and Style/Voice 4 / 3 3.5 Mechanics 4 / 3 3.5 Total Average 3.65 (meets standard) Paper #2: Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 3.5 3.25 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 3 3 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Language and Style/Voice 4 / 4 4 Mechanics 4 / 3.5 3.75 Total Average 3.4 (meets standard)



P&OD 2.11.10 20

Student J52734378 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 2 2.5 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 2 2.5 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Language and Style/Voice 2 / 2 2 Mechanics 2 / 2 2 Total Average 2.4 (approaches standard) Student G12908456 (Spanish major) (native/heritage Spanish speaker) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 2 2.5 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 2.5 2.75 Organization of Content 3 / 2 2.5 Language and Style/Voice 4 / 3 3.5 Mechanics 4 / 3 3.5 Total average 2.95 (approaches standard) Student E44273323 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 5 / 4 4.5 Clarity of Purpose 5 / 4 4.5 Organization of Content 4 / 3 3.5 Language and Style/Voice 5 / 4 4.5 Mechanics 5 / 5 5 Total Average 4.4 (exceeds standard) In total, seven essays were evaluated. Of the seven, three (42.8%) received meets standards. One (14.2%) received exceeds standards. Therefore, 57% of the papers collected either met or exceeded our benchmarks. Unfortunately, three (43%) received approaches standard and did not meet the benchmark.



P&OD 2.11.10 21


This SLO continues to be one in which we need to re-evaulate. Our program has changed dramatically over the past few years. There is less of an emphasis on literature. Students are able to select their areas of emphasis withiin the major, whether that be in language, llterature, or culture. This means that if a student only takes one literature class and that class has only one major writing assignment, both SLO 4a and 4b would need to be covered, and this is not happening. Students tend to complete either SLO 4a or SLO 4b in one class, but not both. Therefore, the Spanish faculty needs to look at the SLO itself and re-evaluate the rubric we use in assessment.



The discussion about rubrics mentioned in the previous year’s report did not get very far. Collectively we have invested more time and energy into improving our students’ oral proficiency skills and creating a baseline to measure improvement. Now that we have baselines established, we will invest more energy into improving scoring rubrics.



P&OD 2.11.10 22


Goal 5


Students graduating in Spanish at USC Upstate will be able to demonstrate an ability to compare the products, practices and perspectives of the cultures of Spanish speakers with others.



At various points within the course of study of Spanish at USC Upstate, students should be able to compare the culture of a particular Hispanic group with the students’ own culture.

Assessment Methods


Students will write papers in their upper-division culture courses, one of which must be maintained for inclusion in the portfolio.

Assessment Criteria


The Spanish Program Assessment Committee used the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric consistent with ACTFL standards to assess research papers (See Attachment 1). The benchmarks for cultural analysis papers are: approaches standard; meets standard; exceeds standard in ACTFL terminology. These correspond to weak (high/low), average, and excellent (high/low) respectively on the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric. Under our current plan, an acceptable level of achievement would be meets standards or above.

Assessment Results


Of the six students who submitted portfolios in Spanish 490: Senior Seminar, only five students included a culture paper that fit the criteria for this SLO. The sixth student completed the culture paper during a summer study abroad trip to Costa Rica. In assessing the paper, the Spanish faculty focused specifically on the following three sections of the USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric: 1) quality of thought; 2) clarity of purpose; and 3) organization of content. The faculty assessed how these three sections tied into culture.



P&OD 2.11.10 23

Student Q38963880 (Spanish education major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 3 3 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 3 3 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Total Average 3 (meets standard) Student D32625824 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 4 / 3 3.5 Clarity of Purpose 4 / 3 3.5 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Total Average 3.67 (meets standard) Student J52734378 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 3 / 3 3 Clarity of Purpose 3 / 3 3 Organization of Content 3 / 2 2.5 Total Average 2.8 (approaches standard) Student G12908456 (Spanish major) (heritage/native Spanish speaker) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 2 / 2 2 Clarity of Purpose 2 / 2 2 Organization of Content 3 / 3 3 Total Average 2.33 (approaches standard) Student E44273323 (Spanish major) Reader 1 / Reader 2 Average Quality of Thought 4 / 4 4 Clarity of Purpose 4 / 4.5 4.25 Organization of Content 4 / 4 4 Total Average 4.08 (exceeds standard)



P&OD 2.11.10 24

According to the data, two students (40%) met the standard and one student (20%) exceeded the standard. Two students (40%) did not meet the benchmark. Again, the one Spanish education major did not reach the benchmark. Of the Spanish majors, two students (50%) met or exceeded the standard and two students (50%) did not reach the benchmark. The heritage/native Spanish speaker did not meet the benchmark.


With the chages that have been made to the Spanish program, students have more opportunities to take culture classes with at least one culture class being offered each semester. However, as we continue to build on our offerings, the world languages faculty needs to continue reconsidering the writing assignments being given in these courses. Since students now have a more open curriculum, one could theoretically take only one culture class during their academic careers here at USC Upstate. If the student is enrolled in a class that does not have an assignment aligned with this SLO, we will have no assessment data for that particular student. Since our interpreting classes are gaining popularity, I will work with the Spanish instructors that teach these classes to develop a writing activity that takes culture into consideration. Ultimately, need to either create a common assessment that can be used across culture classes or reevaluate the way we assess culture.



When compared to the previous assessment report, this year’s cohort did much better with preparing their portfolios. However, the same problem persists. Students only need to take one culture course to satisfy their requirement for graduation. The assessment coordinator did try to start a conversation about this SLO in the spring semester, but the conversation did not progress very far.



P&OD 2.11.10 25

Attachment 1--USC Upstate Writing Assessment Rubric

Writing Skills Evaluation Excellent Average Weak High Low High Low Quality of Thought 5 4 3 2 1 Recognition/examination of complex ideas Credible and logical support

Unified and strong control of content. Opinions and claims are well-supported. Ample evidence. Logic is maintained. Paper is ambitious and insightful.

Generally unified. Ideas are balanced. Opinions and claims are adequately supported and usually logical. Paper is ambitious but quality is inconsistent.

Little evidence of control of ideas. Ideas are not supported, or support is clichéd or illogical. Paper is not ambitious or insightful.

Clarity of Purpose 5 4 3 2 1 Clear purpose Audience awareness

Positions are insightful and clear. Thesis is focused; intent is obvious. Clear sense of audience.

Positions are sound and understandable. Thesis is general; intent is evident. Somewhat aware of audience.

Lacks position on topics. Thesis may be absent or intent is unclear. Superficial. Little to no recognition of audience.

Organization of Content 5 4 3 2 1 Arrangement Unity Coherence

Ideas are well connected through structural and linguistic transitions. Structure complements and completes content.

Some evidence of structural and linguistic transitions. Structure is generally adequate for the content.

Overall unity and coherence are flawed. Parts are poorly connected, and there is little evidence of planning or organization.

Language and Style / Voice 5 4 3 2 1 Vocabulary Register Tone

Exhibits confident, skillful use of language. Uses a varied, accurate, and appropriate vocabulary. Sentences are purposefully designed and matched to content.

Exhibits adequate but inconsistent facility in the use of language. Uses generally appropriate vocabulary and varied sentences.

Displays little facility in the use of language. Uses limited vocabulary or inappropriate word choice. Sentences are basic. Paper may be repetitive or wordy.

Mechanics 5 4 3 2 1 Grammar and usage Punctuation Spelling

Grammatical structures are well-chosen. No errors detract from meaning. Understood by those unaccustomed to the writing of non-natives.

Grammatical structures carry the meaning forward, although readers notice occasional error(s). Generally understood by those accustomed to the writing of non-natives.

Grammar errors are so obtrusive that readers are seriously distracted by them.

Research 5 4 3 2 1 Quality of sources Integration of sources

Sources are of high quality and are credible. They are ample and appropriate. Source materials are integrated smoothly. Sources are clearly identified.

Sources are of reasonable quality and are credible. Some source materials may be included awkwardly. Some attempt at synthesizing source material.

Sources are of low quality or are not credible. Little to no citation of source material in text or works cited. Possible plagiarism due to lack of awareness or skill.

Research Mechanics 5 4 3 2 1 MLA formatting Number of sources

Clear attribution and accurate documentation. In-text citations and works cited page are correct. Proper use of signal phrases. Cites required number of sources.

Some evidence of citations in text and on works cited page. Inconsistent use of MLA formatting. Lacks required number of sources.

Little or no use of signal phrases. Significant errors in formatting in-text and works cited page citations. Cites few or no sources.

Essays plagiarized or not written on the essay assignment will receive a score of zero.



P&OD 2.11.10 26

TOTAL SCORE: _______

COMMENTS:



P&OD 2.11.10 27

Attachment 2

Consonants English Spanish

Example Phoneme Letter Letter Phoneme Example boat /b/ B B /b/

/β/ burro nube

camp city

/k/ /s/

C C /k/ /θ/ or /s/

campo cielo

church /ʧ/ Ch Ch /ʧ/ chico dad /d/ D D /d/

/ ð / donde usted

feather /f/ F F /f/ fonetica goat /g/ G G /g/

/x/ gato

general happy /h/ H H silent hacer jump /ʤ/ J J /x/ juego key /k/ K K /k/ kiosko

letter /l/ L L /l/ hielo Ll /ʎ/ or

/ʝ/ /ʤ/

llorar

mom /m/ M M /m/ madre note sing

/n/ /η/

N N /n/

noche

Ñ /ɲ/ niño perfect /p/ P P /p/ perro

Q /k/ queso real /ɹ/ R R /ɾ/

/ r/ cantar rojo

RR /r/ carro supper

pleasure /s/ /ʒ/

S S /s/ si

telephone /t/ T T /t/ tomate value /v/ V V /b/

/v/ vaca obvio

water /w/ W yellow /j/ Y Y /j/ ya

zoo /z/ Z Z /θ/ or /s/ Nariz Other Other

she /ʃ/ /gw/ güiro



P&OD 2.11.10 28

think /θ/ mother /ð/

Vowels & Dipthongs

English Spanish

Phoneme Example Phoneme Example /ʌ/ cup /a/ andar

/ɑ:/ arm /e/ elephante

/æ/ cat /i/ si

/ǝ/ away, cinema /o/ todo

/e/ met

/ɜ:/ turn, learn /u/ perú

/I/ hit /i/ y

/i:/ see, heat, happy

/ɒ/ hot

/ɔ:/ call, four

/ʊ/ put, could

/u:/ blue, food

/aI/ five, eye

/aʊ/ now, out

/oʊ/ or /ǝʊ/ go

/eǝ/ where, air

/eI/ say, eight

/Iǝ/ near, here

/ǝI/ boy, join

/ʊǝ/ pure, tourist

academic program: assessment report 2013-2014 program: assessment report 2013-2014 ... direct and...

Documents