Retention and Student Success Plan Presentation · • Curriculum Committee approves redesign of ASL program effective fall 2013 (reduction from 3 levels to 2 levels, increase of

1

Cuesta College

MODERN LANGUAGES

INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM REVIEW (2009 – 2012)

American Sign Language French German Spanish

Planning Year 2013-14

Submitted Spring 2013

2

Table of Contents

MODERN LANGUAGES: Instructional Comprehensive Program and Planning Review

I. General Information…………………………………………………………. 3 II. Program Support of Institutional Goals and Institutional Objectives….........15 III. Program Data Analysis and Program-Specific Measurements…………….. 19 IV. Curriculum Review………………………………………………………… 30 V. Program Outcomes, Assessments and Improvements Narrative…………… 33 VI. Student Learning Outcomes/Assessments………………………………..… 39 VII. End Notes………………………………………………………………..…..39

AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE Instructional Comprehensive Program and Planning Review Addendum…………… 41 FRENCH Instructional Comprehensive Program and Planning Review Addendum………….. 67 GERMAN Instructional Comprehensive Program and Planning Review Addendum………….. 95 SPANISH Instructional Comprehensive Program and Planning Review Addendum………….. 136

3

INSTRUCTIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM PLANNING AND REVIEW (CPPR)

Program: MODERN LANGUAGES Planning Year: 2013-14 Last Year Completed: 2009 Unit: LANGUAGES AND COMMUNICATIONS Cluster: HUMANITIES

I. GENERAL INFORMATION AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES

A. 1. PROGRAM MISSION The Modern Languages Program prepares transfer students for a major

or minor in the target language or for continuing language study at four- year institutions by giving them functional communication skills and

cultural knowledge, which can also be used in the workplace or when traveling, studying, working, or living in areas where the target language is used.

A. 2. HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM

HIGHLIGHTS

FALL 2008 through FALL 2012

Note: The program history includes district-wide events which impacted the Modern Languages Program. Although fall 2012 is outside the review period, it is included to provide the context for the events which led into the formation of the interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program.

Fall 2007

• Ralph Sutter (FT, Spanish) is in his second year as Chair of the Languages and Communications division (started Fall 2006)

Spring 2008

• Last semester for Nancy Shearer, FT Spanish instructor. Her retirement reduces the number of tenured FT Spanish faculty from three to two.

Fall 2008

Spring 2009

• ACCJC places Cuesta College on “Warning”

4

Fall 2009

• Multicomputer class room 6103 receives 28 “new” recycled computers • New hire: Rebecca Morris, Spanish PT • Spanish students start submitting homework via on-line electronic workbook • French, German and Spanish students’ attendance in room 6103 starts being

monitored by SARS tracking system in lieu of paper and pencil sign-in. • Last semester room 6103 is exclusively used by French, German and Spanish

students as drop-in language lab and by some faculty as offices and venue for student advisement.

Spring 2010

• ACCJC places Cuesta College on “Probation” • Multicomputer class room 6103 starts to be shared with English (ENGL 156,

ENGL 099) and ESL classes and continues to be staffed by Modern Languages faculty for language students’ drop-in and for student advisement (office hours)

• Class room 6105 becomes ASL class room with new desks funded through Cuesta Foundation

Fall 2010

• Tenure effective for Betsy Dunn, ASL • Tony Rector-Cavagnaro (FT, Spanish) starts as Chair of the Languages and

Communications division • French instructor Sally Girard retires as tenured part-time instructor at the

end of the semester. Her retirement reduces the number of tenured part-time French instructors from two to one. She continues to teach as temporary part-time instructor.

Spring 2011

• ACCJC continues Cuesta College’s “Probation” status • Last semester for Ralph Sutter, FT Spanish instructor. His retirement reduces

the number of tenured FT Spanish faculty from two to one. • Class room 6108A receives 28 new desks with funds from the Cuesta

Foundation • Medical leave: Betsy Dunn, ASL

Summer

2011 • Summer school is cancelled district-wide

Fall 2011

• Website video hosting through edustream.org available for ASL

Spring 2012

• ACCJC places Cuesta College on “Show Cause” • New hire: Claudia Plascencia, Spanish PT • Last semester of tracking French, German and Spanish students’ attendance

in room 6103 by SARS

5

Spring 2012

(cont.)

• Curriculum Committee approves conversion of TBA lab hour to lecture hour for all French, German and Spanish courses for a total of 5 lecture units

• In the course of increasing the lecture units from 4 to 5 units, all French, German and Spanish courses are updated to conform to CurricUNET standards and to reflect current course content

• Projector screens in classrooms 6104 and 6108A are replaced • Console with new CPU, document camera, 4 speaker audio system are

installed in 6108 A (French, German, Spanish, ESL) • ASL class room 6105 receives a “new” previously used computer with

improved media capabilities (quality of video display) and a new data projector.

Summer 2012

• Classroom 6108 A is rewired (priority safety concern) • Summer school is held district-wide; only Spanish and ASL courses offered. • French 201 is cancelled due to low enrollment

Fall 2012

• All French, German and Spanish classes start being offered as 5 lecture units • Curriculum Committee approves redesign of ASL program effective fall

2013 (reduction from 3 levels to 2 levels, increase of contact hours from 3 lecture units to 5 lecture units, fewer sections to maintain overall number of units)

• In the course of increasing the lecture units from 3 to 5, both ASL courses are updated to conform to CurricUNET standards and to reflect current course content.

• Class room 6104 receives 28 multi-colored desks on wheels. • French and German programs are targeted for elimination • Lead faculty of ASL and Spanish support maintaining all four languages and

decide to create an interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program • Lead faculty of the Modern Languages Program agrees to modify their

offerings, resulting in a reduction of number of sections in Spanish, ASL, and French effective Spring 2013.

• Spanish discipline raises caps from 25 to 28 for SPAN 201 and 202 effective spring term 2013 in an effort to buy down the impact of district-wide program eliminations.

• French and German initiate lifting cross-listing of 201 and 110 courses effective Spring 2013, thus enabling the wait-list feature, which resulted in increased enrollment in spring 2013.

• The faculty of ASL, French, German and Spanish start the process of creating the interdisciplinary “Modern Languages Program” by developing a mission statement and Program Learning Outcomes.

6

A. 3. CURRENT INSTRUCTORS AS OF FALL 2012

Language Instructor Current Employment Status

Date of Hire / Date of Tenure

ASL Betsy Dunn FT (lead instructor) Fall 2001 (PT)

Fall 2006 (FT) (tenured Fall 2010)

Susan Chilton PT Fall 2000 Kathy Robasciotti PT Spring 1999 Alison Runstrom PT Spring 2005 French Sally Girard PT Fall 1976 (PT)

(tenured Fall 1992) Spring 2011 (PT)

Marshall Johnson PT Fall 2006 Susan Lloyd PT (tenured)

(lead instructor) (Also has FSA in Spanish and

teaches Spanish as needed)

Fall 1987 (PT) (tenured Fall 1992)

German Petra Clayton PT (tenured)

(lead instructor) Fall 1987 (PT) (tenured Fall 1992)

Spanish Tony Rector-

Cavagnaro FT (lead instructor) Fall 1989 (FT)

(tenured Fall 1993) Lisha Duarte PT Fall 2005 Dawn Feuerberg PT Fall 2000 Linda Janzen PT Fall 2006 Rebecca Morris PT Fall 2009 Claudia Plascencia PT Spring 2012 Yolanda Solis PT Spring 1994

New Hires:

Language Instructor Current Employment Status

Date of Hire / Date of Tenure

ASL Erich Tucker PT Spring 2013 Spanish Brittany Anderson-Cain PT Spring 2013

7

Full-time / Part-time Ratio for Fall 2012

Language Number of Sections taught by Number of units taught by

Full-time / Part-time (tenured)

Temporary Part-time


Temporary Part-time

ASL 5 (45%) 6 (55%) 15 (45%) 18 (55%) French 1 (25 %) 3 (75 %) 5 (25 %) 15 (75 %) German 2 (100%) 10 (100%) Spanish 3 (23 %) 10 (77 %) 15 (23 %) 50 (77 %) TOTAL 11 (37%) 19 (63%) 45 (35%) 83 (65%)

Full-time / Part-time Ratio for Spring 2013

Language Number of Sections taught by Number of units taught by


Temporary Part-time


Temporary Part-time


Forecasting: Full-time / Part-time Ratio (incl. ASL Redesign)

Language Number of Sections taught by Number of units taught by Full-time / Part-

time (tenured) Temporary Part-time


Temporary Part-time


8

AB 1725, which passed in 1988, stipulates that 75% of credit classes be taught by full-time instructors. That would mean that in fall 2012 twice as many sections would have needed to be staffed by full-time faculty. In reality, the staffing pattern was practically reversed. The three tables above illustrate the staffing patterns for the last semester (fall 2012), the current semester (spring 2013) and the foreseeable future. Part-time tenured faculty (P. Clayton and S. Lloyd) have been included with full-time tenured faculty (B. Dunn and T. Rector-Cavagnaro). Based on the two most recent scenarios only one third of the courses and units in the Modern Languages Program are being taught by tenured full-time or part-time instructors, falling significantly short of the 75% goal. Only German (100%) and French (67% in spring 2013) meet or approach the optimal ratio of 75/25. During the last and current semester the majority of both ASL and Spanish courses has been and are being taught by temporary part-time instructors. The discrepancy is most prominent in Spanish, where only 15% to 23% of courses and units have been / are being taught by the one and only full-time Spanish instructor. It appears that the Spanish discipline is in dire need of at least a second full-time instructor. Since the retirement of two full-time instructors (fall 2008 and fall 2011) the number of Spanish full-time faculty has dwindled from three to one. In addition to a full-time load, the full-time Spanish instructor has been serving as division chair since fall 2010. Comprehensive reviews and long-range planning are the responsibility of full-time tenure track/tenured faculty and so is mentoring and evaluating new faculty and involvement in participatory college governance. Over-reliance on part-time faculty weakens the fabric of the Modern Languages Program and the college faculty at large. 100% faculty participation in the ongoing and systematic cycle of student learning outcome assessments is vital if the dialogue about student learning is to be pervasive and robust, per ACCJC standards, and is to result in continuous improvement of the quality of instruction. Temporary part-time instructors are neither required to hold office hours nor participate in discipline, program, division or college activities, yet part-time Spanish, French, and ASL instructors are committed enough to contribute to planning activities and student learning outcome assessment. However, it is unreasonable to take for granted the institutionalized altruism of our dedicated part-time faculty. Although a core of three part-time ASL instructors has remained consistent since 2005, the discipline has struggled to attract and maintain additional ASL instructors

9

when course offering have fluctuated/increased over the years as well as from semester to semester. Once recruited, retaining qualified part-time instructors for an occasional, fluctuating and unpredictable workload has been difficult. ASL is the only Modern Language which does not require a Masters Degree in the target language; some new hires have had limited experience teaching and required additional support and mentoring. However, in the long-term, the fluctuating number of course offerings have forced some of the newly hired part-time ASL instructors to seek consistent employment opportunities elsewhere even after mentoring and many hours of support has been provided by both part-time and tenured faculty.

There has also been some turnover in the temporary part-time ranks for Spanish. Candidate searches for part-time pools are conducted frequently to maintain a roster of potential employees. It has historically been challenging to find qualified part-time Spanish instructors, and again, recent part-time hiring pools for Spanish have produced few qualified applicants. The dearth of qualified experienced Spanish part-time faculty in our area is due to the fact, that Cal Poly offers neither a Master’s degree nor a B.A. in Spanish. Part-time Spanish instructors have usually moved here from other areas. To maintain pedagogic integrity and program/discipline cohesion and to enhance institutional commitment, the Spanish discipline needs to increase the number of full-time faculty. In December of 2011 the Faculty Hiring Prioritization Committee ranked a full-time tenure track Spanish position as #6, an improvement over being ranked #14 the year before. At the most recent Languages and Communications division meeting a full-time Spanish position was ranked as # 1 and #2 for the Unit Plan’s faculty hiring priorities, to replace the two retirees, Ralph Sutter and Nancy Shearer. Tenured Modern Languages faculty members have been and still are actively engaged in participatory college governance by contributing to the following committees: Academic Senate, CCFT, Curriculum, IPPR, SLOA, Reentry, and Wellness.

A. 4. How the Program Review was conducted and who was involved

The current program review was conducted from December 2012 to February 2013. The review committee was composed of Cuesta College Modern Languages instructors Petra Clayton (German), Betsy Dunn (ASL), Susan Lloyd (French) and Tony Rector-Cavagnaro (Spanish). The committee was chaired by Petra Clayton. The focus of the review is to evaluate the program’s performance during the last five

10

years, and outline plans to preserve the diversity of the interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program and maintain it as a component in the International Studies A.A. degree program, the Liberal Arts Transfer degree (Emphasis in Arts and Humanities) and the General Education curriculum. Since the CPPR takes the place of the APPW, forecasting is included as appropriate. In addition, this review aims to present Modern Languages as a vibrant interdisciplinary program and relevant academic area of study with recognition as a core subject for a broad general education at the state, national, and global level. It is worth noting that the concept of Cuesta’s interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program was born in Fall 2012, when both French and German courses were targeted for elimination. Always connected by the nature of our subject areas, the four disciplines joined forces in the defense of a diversified language program, resulting in a shared vision of who we are and recognizing the contribution that each discipline makes to the whole of the program’s mission. We, the program faculty, are united in a deep commitment to our students and a genuine interest in their success as language learners in a multicultural world.

I. B. Program Objectives

Program Mission Program Objectives Measurable / Quantifiable Evidence

“Prepares students for • major or minor • continuing

language study at four-year institutions”

• Maintain and increase number and success of students who major or minor in target language at four-year institutions

• Maintain and increase number and success of students who continue target language study at four-year institutions

• Maintain and increase number and success of students who transfer in any major (having satisfied the language requirement)

1. No infrastructure exists which allows tracking the number and success of Cuesta language students who

a) major or minor in target language at four-year institutions

b) continue target language study at four-year institutions

c) transfer in any major (having satisfied the language requirement)

2. Once students leave language classes and Cuesta itself, only anecdotal evidence is available through personal contacts, social networking, student surveys / testimonials as needed.

11

Provides students with “functional communication skills and cultural knowledge”

Increase student success in achieving the five Program Learning Outcomes: 1. Interpersonal

Communication 2. Listening Comprehension 3. Reading Comprehension 4. Presentational Writing 5. Culture

Student success in achieving the five Program Learning Outcomes is systematically tracked and measured: See section V and VI of this document

Provides skills which can be used 1. “in the work place 2. when traveling 3. studying 4. working 5. living in areas

where the target language is used.”

Increase student success outside the academic setting and after leaving Cuesta • in the workplace 6. when traveling 7. studying 8. working 9. living in areas where the target language is used.

1. No infrastructure exists which permits systematic tracking of assessment data to gauge student success outside the academic setting and after leaving Cuesta.

2. Once students leave language classes and Cuesta itself, only anecdotal evidence is available through personal contacts, social networking and student surveys / testimonials as needed.

As long as students are present in the immediate academic setting of the classroom, we can monitor and measure the achievement of the program objectives, which support the program mission and which coincide with the Program Learning Outcomes. However, once the students leave the classroom or the institution with or without a degree and move to a four-year institution or a workplace, no systematic tracking mechanism exists to collect evidence of student achievement of program objectives. All we have is anecdotal evidence through continued personal contacts, social networking, informal student surveys, and testimonials solicited when needed. All instructors have success stories to report, which reflect on the formative influence they have had on students. Instructors take pride in the success their students have beyond the immediate academic setting. In fact, the purpose of our language instruction is to prepare students for the “real world.” The feedback from satisfied students provides validation of instructors’ efforts to make language skills and cultural knowledge relevant beyond the classroom.

12

However, such anecdotal evidence does not represent a cross-section of students and is not statistically valid. The size of the pool is small and the individuals are self-selected or selected by the instructor based on past positive interaction. The responses are typically complimentary. In addition to measurable statements about the Modern Language Program, there is a wide range of documented benefits of learning another language, such as increased brain function, critical thinking and creative skills. It has been noted, that the study of languages not only develops skilled communicators, but also creative thinkers in intercultural environments. NAFSA, the leading public policy voice for international education, is an advocate for language learning and also for international exchanges of students and scholars to and from the U.S. as a “tool in supporting responsible U.S. engagement in the world.” The sentiments of NAFSA’s value statement are shared by the Modern Languages Program: “International education advances learning and scholarship, builds understanding and respect among different peoples, and enhances constructive leadership in the global community. We believe that international education by its nature is fundamental to fostering peace, security, and well-being.” NAFSA surveyed over 1,000 likely U.S. voters in a public opinion poll in November 2010. The survey found that 57% of the U.S. respondents agreed that foreign language learning, studying abroad and learning other cultures are essential to the educational experience. The mean score was 6.4 on a scale of 0 to 10. In the same poll 65% of the respondents agreed that if young people do not learn foreign languages, they will be at a competitive disadvantage in their careers. 47% strongly agreed with this statement. 73% of the respondents agreed that America’s post-secondary institutions must do a better job of teaching students about the world if they are to be prepared to compete in the global economy. 52% strongly agreed with this statement. Asked if more students need the opportunity to participate in a study abroad program while in college, 57% of the respondents agreed, 36% expressing strong agreement. NAFSA concluded that “Americans remain committed to the principle that in order to thrive in the future, we must prepare students today by giving them the skills necessary to navigate life and careers in an age of global connectedness and global competition.”

13

Cuesta’s four language disciplines represent the top four languages studied at colleges and universities nationwide. The Modern Language Association periodically publishes “Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education.” The latest publication appeared in December 2010 and it includes data through 2009. The table below shows the nation’s enrollment in the seven top languages at the post-secondary level.

Language Course Enrollment at U.S. Institutions of Higher Education (2009)

Four- and Two-Year Institutions

(2009)

Four-year Institutions (Undergraduate and Graduate

Language Courses) (2009)

Two-year Colleges (2009)

Spanish 864,986 614,530 250,456 French 216,419 179,207 37,212 German 96,349 83,707 12,642 ASL 91,763 37,341 54,422 Italian 80,752 66,884 13,868 Japanese 73,434 54,797 18,637 Chinese 60,976 51,394 9,582

While Spanish is the uncontested #1 language choice at two- and four-year institutions, French and German are ranked #2 and #3 nationwide due to having high enrollments at four-year institutions. At two-year colleges ASL is the most popular student choice after Spanish, followed by French, Japanese, Italian, German, and Chinese. At four-year institutions enrollment figures in German, Italian, Japanese and Chinese top those in ASL. According to interworldstats.com the top ten languages used in 2010 by international internet users were in descending order: English, Chinese, Spanish (153.3 million), Japanese, Portuguese, German (75.2 million), Arabic, French 59.8 million), Russian and Korean. At the local level, Spanish, French and ASL are offered at the county’s high schools whereas German courses have been discontinued at all county high schools. At Cal Poly the offerings of the Modern Languages and Literatures Department include Spanish, French, and German. The department offers a Bachelor of Arts degree, which requires the study of Spanish along with either French or German. The department also

14

offers comprehensive minors in French, German, and Spanish. In addition, elementary and intermediate coursework is available in Mandarin Chinese, and Japanese and Italian are taught at the elementary level. A kindred spirit connects Cuesta’s Modern Languages Program with Cal Poly as expressed in Cal Poly’s statement: “The Modern Languages and Literatures Department values intellectual inquiry, promotes the understanding of cultural differences and prepares students to operate responsibly and sensitively in the global community.” In defense of Cuesta’s French and German courses in fall 2012, Cal Poly’s Modern Languages faculty unanimously endorsed maintaining both, French and German at Cuesta (see Endnotes of this document) I. C. Program Outcomes

Students will 1. demonstrate receptive and expressive proficiency when engaging in interpersonal

communication using idiomatic language (Interpersonal Communication). 2. demonstrate receptive proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic

language (Interpretive Listening). 3. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting texts written in idiomatic

language (Interpretive Reading: Spanish, French, German). 4. demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising idiomatic language

(Presentational Communication – Writing: Spanish, French, German). 5. describe and discuss the relationship of selected practices, values, and attitudes

found in the target culture and demonstrate awareness of the links between language and culture (Culture).

15

II. PROGRAM SUPPORT OF INSTITUTIONAL GOALS AND INSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIVES

The Modern Languages Program supports the district’s efforts in achieving Institutional Goal 1: Institutional Objective 1.1 and 1.2. and Institutional Goal 2: Institutional Objective 2.2 Institutional Objective 1.1: “Increase the percentage of transfer-directed students who are transfer prepared (by 2% annually)”

Transfer Directed Students Modern Languages

(Three-year total: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11)

The data below was manually compiled and aggregated from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website. Enrollment figures are included to indicate total pool sizes. “Transfer Directed students” are defined as those students who have completed (with a passing grade) a transferable English and Mathematics course.

Became transfer-directed in 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11

Did not become transfer-directed in 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11

Total Enrollment

ASL 9% (164) 91% (1,632) 1,796 French 13% (71) 87% (485) 556 German 11% (31) 89% (252) 283 Spanish 14% (323) 86% (2,043) 2,366 Modern Languages

Total

12% (589)

88% (4,412)

5,001 An average of 12% of the students enrolled in the language courses became transfer-directed during the three year period from 2008 to 2011. Individual languages were 1, 2 or 3 percentage points either above or below the average. District-wide Cuesta’s percentage of “Student Progress and Achievement: Degree/Certificate/Transfer” is down from 60.9% (2004-05 to 2009-10) to 55.2% (2005-06 to 2010-11) according to the ARCC 2012 Report.

16

Although not being able to contribute to student success in English or Math to achieve transfer-directedness, the Modern Languages Program contributes to students’ transfer-readiness by contributing to the 2,579 course sections (89.1% of all course offerings), which are transfer/degree oriented, per Cuesta’s Educational Master Plan (2011-1016). All language courses of the 200 series are transferable and articulated in order to fulfill area C of the General Education requirement for CSU, IGETC, UC transfers. Cuesta’s language courses support both, Cuesta’s General Education and Institutional Learning Outcomes. • Cuesta’s GE rubric makes multiple references to the GE course pattern’s intention to

“prepare students to lead enriched lives in our multicultural society.” Cuesta’s GE rubric for Area C: Arts and Humanities goes on to state that students who acquire second language skills fulfill area C because “language acquisition is a door to understanding the arts and humanities of other cultures.”

• Institutional Learning Outcome #4b refers to “understanding of world traditions and

the interrelationship between diverse groups and cultures” and ILO #5b stipulates that students “demonstrate knowledge and sensitivity to diverse groups and cultures through studying the world’s languages, societies, and histories.”

Currently Cuesta does not offer a degree in Modern Languages or in any of the four individual languages. However, members of the Modern Languages faculty contribute to transfer-readiness by providing students with a solid foundation for continued language study at a four-year institution. In response to student demand the Modern Languages program creates student-centered class schedules. Face-to-face classes are offered at all three campuses, both in the morning, the afternoon, and in the evening. Scheduling details for each discipline, including levels, days and times of the day, are described in the individual language sections of this document. Institutional Objective 1.2: “Increase the percentage of degree- or certificate-directed students who complete degrees or certificates (by 2% annually)”

The number of degree completers is an important criterion for assessing institutional effectiveness. However, a majority of two-year college students, who transfer to four-year institutions do so without first obtaining a two-year degree. This finding was reported in a recent study by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center

17

(November 2012). The study also found that among all students who started at a two-year public institution, 36.3% completed a degree within six years at a four-year institution. At Cuesta overall transfers have decreased due to decreases in transfers to the CSU system. Beginning in 2009 the entire CSU system, in response to cut backs in state funding, began reducing the number of transfer slots. Cuesta’s Educational Master Plan (2011-2016) states, “Cuesta’s overall transfer numbers are determined to a large extent by Cal Poly’s transfer student acceptance rates,” which has fallen from a high of 61.5% in fall 2007 to an all-time low of 27.7% in fall 2010. Since none of the four disciplines offers a degree and there is no interdisciplinary Modern Languages degree, the language faculty has no direct impact on the rate of degree completion. While on sanction Cuesta cannot propose new degrees except CSU transfer degrees. A CSU transfer model curriculum is currently being developed for Spanish. However, language courses are options for a Liberal Arts degree (Emphasis in Arts and Humanities) for students who are planning to transfer in Art, Art History, Communications, Drama, English, French, Spanish, German, Music and Philosophy. The language courses offer choices for fulfilling the language requirement for transfer to the University of California system. Currently the Liberal Arts degree with the Arts and Humanities Emphasis has the lowest number of completers and a concerted effort needs to be made to increase the number of graduates for this degree. At present only one Cuesta degree program has a language requirement. The A.A. in International Studies requires two semesters of the same language, the options being French, German, or Spanish. The data below was manually compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website and is provided for the purpose of gauging student interest in obtaining an A.A. in International Studies.

Students Enrolled in Modern Languages Who Declared

International Studies as Their Major

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 0 1 2 1

French 2 2 2 4 German 2 1 2 3 Spanish 3 2 4 6 Total 7 6 10 14

18

The interest in obtaining an A.A. in International Studies seems to be increasing. Over the past four years a total of 37 students, who have been enrolled in language courses, have declared International Studies as their major. The pool of degree aspirants is large enough to warrant a higher number of degree recipients than actually realized. District-wide implementation of a degree audit is needed to increase institutional success in this area. Given an appropriate framework, faculty who teach the degree courses incl. Modern Languages faculty, are willing to participate in systematic efforts, such as degree audits, to support degree aspirants and monitor their progress toward completion of a degree in either Liberal Arts (Emphasis in Arts and Humanities) or International Studies. Institutional Objective 2.2: “Increase the local high school capture rate by 2% annually” Over the next eight years California is expected to lose more high school graduates, in number, than any other state in the U.S. according to the latest study by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (“Knocking at the College Door.”) From a peak in 2010-11, the numbers are falling by 9% through 2013-14 and then continue to decline at a more moderate rate, through 2020-21. Also, by 2019-20 Hispanics will make up nearly half of all California high school graduates. In the self-assessment portion of the ARCC 2012 Report Cuesta recognizes that the number of local high school graduates is decreasing, that overall population growth is stagnant and that there is a significant increase in the percentage of residents 65 years or older. Currently 53% of Cuesta’s first-time students come from local high schools and 47% are out of the area, which is most likely due to the attraction of Cal Poly. Cuesta’s Educational Master Plan (2011-2016) states that the number of local high school graduates is predicted to decline, Cuesta will “need to increase the college going rate of its local school graduates.” Modern Languages faculty are available to actively participate in any outreach activities organized by the district, including accompanying Cuesta counselors to the local high schools in an effort to promote Cuesta College and recruit prospective students. Specific outreach activities, which have taken place in the past, are described in the individual language sections of this document.

19

III. PROGRAM DATA ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM-SPECIFIC MEASUREMENTS

Note: Due to the conversion of the SLCCCD data to a new database only the last four years (2008-09 to 2011-12) are available for review and analysis.

Cuesta Summary Data Modern Languages Program

Note: Currently the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website does not display Modern Languages Program Review data. A new entry is expected to be added to the Program Review website, which will aggregate data from all four disciplines, thus making the task of reviewing and analyzing the program data less labor intensive. For the current review of the interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program all data was manually compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website and correlated in a format, which facilitates analysis and interpretation. Enrollment, Number of Sections, Students per Section, FTES/FTEF

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Enroll-

ment # of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/ FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud

per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sections

Stud

per sect

FTES/FTEF

ASL 696 29 24 12.52 746 29 26 13.19 651 27 24 12.40 669 29 23 12.31 FR 204 9 23 11.90 227 9 25 13.27 189 8 24 12.92 190 9 21 11.36 GER 116 4 29 14.76 110 4 28 14.63 105 4 26 13.41 83 4 21 11.00 SPAN 899 39 23 12.98 947 39 24 12.93 845 37 23 12.24 805 38 21 11.13

TOTAL 1915 81 24 12.63 2030 81 25 13.14 1790 76 24 12.44 1747

80 22 11.46

Over the last four years the Modern Languages Program has served a total of 7,482 students in a regular classroom setting, an average of 1,870 students per year, not counting Independent Studies and Credits by Exam. This number equals the annual number of students taught in the Political Science Program (1,866 annual average) and Psychology (1,854 annual average) over the last four years. For comparison, the Modern Languages Program had a higher total enrollment than English as a Second Language (1,478 annual average, 5,914 four-year total). The overall number of sections remained fairly steady over the four-year period, mostly around 80 sections per year, with a dip of five sections in 2010-11, when summer session was cancelled. However, overall enrollment dropped after a spike of 115 students in

20

2009-2010 over the previous year. In 2010-11 and 2011-12, however, total Modern Languages enrollments were lower by 240 and 283 students respectively compared to 2009-10. The decrease in enrollment coincided with a decrease in district-wide enrollment, possibly due to Cuesta’s continued accreditation issues, which started in spring 2009. Additionally, the enrollment throughout the California Community College system has shown a downward trend in recent years (17% over the past four years), due to reduced funding from the state. Over the last four years an average of 46% (3,500 students) studied Spanish, 37% (2,760 students) ASL, 11% (810 students) French and 6% (415 students) German in regular classroom instruction. 36 students of French engaged in Independent Studies, while 12 students of German earned credit by exam at the GER 203 or GER 204 level. Fill rates for all four languages combined dropped from 96% (2008-09) to 93% (2009-10 and 2010-11) and then to 87.5% for 2011-12. However, fill rates do not reflect productivity. They depend upon class caps which vary. A better measure of efficiency for college-wide comparison is the average number of students enrolled per section, which correlates with FTES/FTEF ratios. Average class size for Modern Languages was 24 or 25 students per section in all years except 2011-12. Correspondingly the FTES/FTEF ratio fluctuated between 12.44 and 13.14 and dipped to 11.46 when the average class size fell to 22 in 2011-12. The Association of Departments of Foreign Languages recommends 15 to 20 students per sections for optimal acquisition of all four language skills. “Particularly at the elementary and intermediate levels, class sizes must be small enough to enable the kind of effective interaction between teacher and students necessary to developing proficiency in the language.” The American Sign Language Teachers Association recommends an optimal class size of 8 to 20 students for ASL, depending on the level and nature of instruction. Maximum enrollment for beginning level instruction should not exceed 20 students. At the Defense Language Institute in Monterey class size has been reduced from ten to six students for the harder languages, while easier languages have eight students per class. It is important to note that DLI only focuses on speaking, listening and reading. Acquiring writing skills is not part of the curriculum.

21

Cuesta Summary Data for Modern Languages by Level

The data below was manually compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website and is correlated in a format, which facilitates analysis and interpretation.

Cuesta Modern Languages Level 1

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Enroll-

ment # of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

ASL 215A

433 16 27 14.25 531 20 27 13.56 437 17 26 13.19 508 21 24 12.97

FR 201/110

145 6 24 12.52 170 7 24 12.62 146 6 24 12.97 143 7 20 10.56

GER 201/110

96 3 32 16.09 91 3 30 16.11 82 3 27 13.95 64 3 21 11.27

SPAN 201

579 23 25 14.50 616 25 25 13.09 548 23 24 12.96 541 24 23 11.81

TOTAL 1253 48 26 1408 55 26 1213 49 25 1256 55 23

Over the last four years a total of 5,130 students were enrolled in a level 1 course. The average was 1,280 students per year, which represented 69% of the total enrollment in Modern Languages.

Over the last four years 45% studied Spanish (2,284 students), 37% ASL (1,909 students), 12% French (604 students) and 6% German (333 students) at level 1 in regular classroom instruction.

The overall number of sections fluctuated between 48 and 55 in alternate years. Class size showed a steady average of 25 or 26 students per section in all years except 2011-12, when the average class size fell to 23, due to a decrease in average class size for all languages, notably French and German.

Cuesta Modern Languages Level 2 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Enroll-

ment # of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

ASL 215B

170 8 21 10.99 179 7 26 13.11 146 7 21 10.65 149 7 21 11.12

FR 202/120

59 3 20 10.39 57 2 29 14.24 43 2 22 10.72 47 2 24 11.81

GER 202/120

20 1 20 10.74 19 1 19 10.19 23 1 23 11.80 19 1 19 10.19

SPAN 202

244 13 19 10.92 261 11 24 12.66 237 11 22 11.34 210 11 19 10.04

TOTAL 493 25 21 516 21 25 449 21 21 425 21 20

22

Over the last four years a total of 1,883 students were enrolled in a level 2 course. The average was 470 students per year (425 to 516 students annually), which represented 25% of the total enrollment in Modern Languages.

Over the last four years 51% studied Spanish (952 students), 34% ASL (644 students), 11% French (206 students) and 4% German (81 students) at level 2 in a regular classroom setting.

The overall number of sections of level 2 courses was 25 in 2008-09 and dipped to 21 in the three following years with reductions of one or two sections in all languages but German. Class size was at an average of 20 – 21students per section in all years but 2009-10, when it was 25 with strong showings in French (29) and ASL (26), which is also reflected in the FTES/FTEF ratios of 14.24 and 13.11 respectively.

The overall enrollment ratio of level 2 to level 1 courses was approximately 1: 3, meaning that on average one third of the students enrolled in level 1 continue to level 2, which holds true for ASL and French as the ratio was 34 % each. For Spanish the ratio of level 2 to level 1 was 42%, and for German 24%.

The ratio of number of sections at level 2 compared to level 1 was an overall of 42%, with Spanish leading with 48%, followed by ASL with 39%, French 35% and German at 33%.

Comparing the section ratio with the enrollment ratio shows that an adequate number of sections is offered at level 2 to accommodate the students. French has the closest match between average number of sections (35%) and students (34%), followed by ASL (39% sections / 34% students). Both Spanish and German have a higher section ratio than enrollment ratio, 6 and 9 percentage points respectively, meaning that sections at level 2 were slightly under-enrolled which is reflected in the lower FTES/FTES ratio.


2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Enroll-

ment # of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrol-lment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

ASL 215C

41 2 21 10.60 15 1 15 8.0 25 1 25 13.30 12 1 12 6.40

FR 203

GER 203*

(2) (2) (3) (3) (3) (3) (1) (1)

SPAN 203

56 2 28 14.52 51 2 26 13.69 47 2 24 11.82 42 2 21 11.29

TOTAL 97 4 24 66 3 22 72 3 24 54 3 18

*Credit by exam (excluded in computation)

23

Due to the rate of attrition from level to level, French 203 and German 203 were not offered via classroom instruction and have not been offered in this manner since the late 1980s. Both were discontinued due to low enrollment. Only in ASL and Spanish classroom instruction was continued at level 3. Over the last four years a total of 289 students were enrolled in a level 3 course. The average was 72 students per year (54 to 97 students annually), which represented 4% of the total enrollment in Modern Languages. Over the last four years 67% studied Spanish, (196 students) and 33% ASL (93 students) at level 3 in a regular classroom setting. The overall number of sections of level 3 courses was 2 for Spanish in all years and 1 for ASL, except for 2008-09, when 2 sections were offered. Class size was an average of 22 – 24 in all years, but dipped to an average of 18 in 2011-12 due to lower enrollment in both ASL and Spanish, which is also reflected in the FTES/FTEF ratio. The enrollment at level 3 of ASL and Spanish was on average 18% of the enrollment at level 2. For Spanish the level 3 rate was 21 % of the level 2 enrollment and for ASL 15%. The ratio of number of sections at level 3 compared to level 2 was 17% for both ASL and Spanish. Comparing the section ratio with the enrollment ratio shows that an adequate number of sections was offered at level 3 to accommodate the students in Spanish. In fact enrollment was strong which is reflected in the FTES/FTEF ratio. ASL had a slightly higher section ratio than enrollment ratio meaning that sections at level 3 were slightly under-enrolled which is reflected in the lower FTES/FTES ratios for 2009-10 and 2011-12.

Cuesta Modern Languages Level 4 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Enroll-

ment # of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

ASL 215D

24 2 12 6.18

FR 204

GER 204*

(1) (1) (2) (2)

SPAN 204

20 1 20 10.74 19 1 19 10.19 13 1 13 6.45 12 1 12 6.45

TOTAL 44 3 15 19 1 19 10.19 13 1 13 6.45 12 1 12 6.45

*Credit by exam (excluded in computation)

24

Due to the rate of attrition from level to level French 204 and German 204 were not offered via classroom instruction and have not been offered in this manner for the last 25 years. French 204 was deactivated in effective fall 2012. Level 4 in ASL was discontinued effective 2009-10. Only in Spanish classroom instruction at level 4 was offered in all four years. Over the last four years a total of 88 students were enrolled in a level 4 course. The average was 22 students per year (12 to 44 students annually), which represented less than 2% of the total enrollment in Modern Languages. Over the last four years 73% studied Spanish (64 students), 27% ASL (24 students) at level 4 in a regular classroom setting. ASL at level 4 was discontinued effective 2009-10 due to low average enrollment during 2008-09. One section of Spanish 204 continues to be offered once a year. Enrollment declined from 20 to 12 students over the last four years. FTES/FTEF ratios reflect the under-enrollment.

Cuesta Success and Retention The data below was compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website. The focus is on success. Enrollment data is included to indicate comparative total pool sizes. Success percentages include withdrawals and therefore are always lower than retention percentages. For comparison retention data is displayed on the last line.

Cuesta Success and Student Enrollment: Summary data for Modern Languages

Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

ASL 72.4% (696) 71.0% (746) 74.3% (651) 74.7% (669) French 73.1% (204) 64.2% (227) 62.8% (189) 67.2% (190) German 56.9% (116) 57.3% (110) 61.9% (105) 56.0% (83) Spanish 70.8% (899) 69.9% (947) 68.1% (845) 67.1% (805) Modern

Languages: Success

70.8% (1,915)

69.0% (2,030)

69.4% (1,790)

69.5% (1,747)

Modern Languages: Retention

84.5%

83.4%

83.0%

83.4%

25

Overall success rates in Modern Languages are on par with programs of similar size, such as Political Science and Psychology and higher than ESL by 10 to 19 percentage points, depending on the year (see below).

Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Political Science 68.6% (1,773) 79.9% (2,099) 68.7% (1,792) 67.7% (1,801)

Psychology 64.8% (1,745) 65.0% (1,963) 65.5%(1,728) 62.3% (1,981) ESL 51.7% (1,558) 50.7% (1,615) 59.6% (1,261) 57.7% (1,480)

Statewide Success and Student Enrollment: Summary Data for Academic Year 2011-12

Modern Languages

The annual data below was manually compiled from the CCC Chancellor’s Office Data Mart to compare local success rates with statewide success rates. Enrollment figures are included to indicate total pool sizes. Note: No statewide data was available for American Sign Language. All Languages French, German,

Spanish French German Spanish

69.6% (188,472)

68.5% (136,262)

66.1% (22,076)

69.6% (6,335)

68.9% (107,851)

Cuesta overall success rates are in line with statewide data for 2011-12. While French and Spanish success rates are at the state level, German is below the state level. For a detailed discussion please see the individual language sections of this document.

Cuesta Success and Student Enrollment: Summary Data for Modern Languages by Level

The data below was manually compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website and is correlated in a format, which facilitates analysis and interpretation. Enrollment figures are included to indicate total pool sizes. The charts are provided for the purpose of comparing success rates by level. For detailed analysis of the four levels and any additional courses offered, such as ASL 193A and French 247, please see the individual language sections of this document.

26


Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 215A 70.7% (433) 72.3% (531) 74.6% (437) 73.2% (508) French 201 78.6% (117) 62.1% (140) 60.5% (124) 62.5% (120) French 110 46.4% (28) 46.7% (30) 31.8% (22) 60.9% (23) German 201 52.3% (65) 55.0% (60) 62.1% (66) 50.0% (50) German 110 54.8% (31) 67.7% (31) 56.3% (16) 57.1% (14) Spanish 201 69.9% (579) 67.4% (616) 67.2% (548) 64.9% (541)


Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 215B 74.7% (170) 68.7% (179) 77.2% (146) 78.5% (149) French 202 75.9% (54) 73.7% (57) 76.3% (38) 77.8% (45) French 120 60.0% (5) 0 80.0% (5) 100.0% (2) German 202 66.7% (15) 56.3% (16) 78.9% (19) 69.2% (13) German 120 100.0% (5) 0% (3) 0% (4) 83.0% (6) Spanish 202 71.7% (244) 74.3% (261) 71.3% (237) 72.4% (210)


Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 215C 73.2% (41) 53.3% (15) 76.0% (25) 75.0% (12) French 203

German 203* 100.0% (2) 100.0% (3) 100.0% (3) 100.0% (1) Spanish 203 64.3% (56) 72.5% (51) 68.1% (47) 64.3% (42)

* Credit by Exam


Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 215D 79.2% (24) French 204

German 204* 100.0% (2) 100.0% (2) Spanish 204 100.0% (20) 84.2% (19) 53.8% (13) 83.3% (12)

* Credit by Exam

27

Cuesta Summary Data for Modern Languages: Student Enrollment by Gender

The data below was manually compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website and is provided for the purpose of comparing demographic data. Enrollment figures are included to indicate total pool sizes.

Cuesta Female Enrollment

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 70.3% (696) 68.8% (746) 66.6% (651) 66.3% (669)

French 58.4% (209) 61.3% (240) 63.2% (199) 58.8% (198) German 34.3% (116) 26.3% (110) 41.2% (105) 36.3% (83) Spanish 51.0% (899) 53.1% (947) 52.7% (845) 53.2% (805)

Overall it appears that the majority of language students are women with the exception of German. ASL consistently has the highest female enrollment (66% and above). Female enrollment is consistently higher in French than in Spanish.

Cuesta Male Enrollment

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 28.7% (696) 29.8% (746) 32.2% (651) 32.9% (669)


Male enrollment is highest in German ranging from 55% to 71%. Male enrollment in Spanish is consistently higher than in French. For further correlation of gender data with success data please see the individual language sections of this document.

28

Statewide Success and Student Enrollment: Summary Data for Academic Year 2011-12 by Gender

The annual data below was manually compiled from the CCC Chancellor’s Office Data Mart and is provided to compare local success data by gender with statewide success rates by gender.

Statewide Female Enrollment: Modern Languages

All Languages

French, German, Spanish

French

German

Spanish

Total Enrollment

104,138

78,761

13,473

2,749

62,539

Percentage of Total

Enrollment

55.0%

57.8%

61.0%

43.4%

58.0%

Success 72.3% 71.0% 68.3% 78.9% 71.5% Just like at Cuesta, the statewide majority of language students are women with the exception of German. Female success rates run between 68% and 78%. Note: No statewide data was available for American Sign Language.

Statewide Male Enrollment: Modern Languages

All Languages

French, German, Spanish

French

German

Spanish

Total Enrollment

82,634

56,315

8,401

3,517

44,397

Percentage of Total

Enrollment

44.0%

41.3%

38.0%

56.4%

41.0%

Success 66.3% 65.0% 62.2% 67.4% 65.3% The statewide male enrollment percentages run in the 38% to 44% range for all languages except German. The statewide majority of German learners are men with a percentage of 56.4%, lower than Cuesta’s rate for the same academic year (62.3%). Success rates for male students consistently run between 62% and 67%, lower than for female students. For further correlation of gender data with success data please see the individual language sections of this document.

29

Cuesta Summary Data for Modern languages: Academically Disadvantaged Students

Note: “Academically disadvantaged students” include students who, at last once in their academic career, were reported to be on academic probation or dismissal, received services from E.O.P.S. or have been identified as needing basic skill instruction. The data below was manually compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website and is provided for the purpose of comparing demographic data. Enrollment figures are included to indicate total pool sizes.

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 36.7% (696) 28.2% (746) 24.5% (651) 24.4% (669)


It appears that all four languages include approximately the same proportion of academically disadvantaged students. The highest year for all four languages was 2008-09. From 2009-10 through 2011-12 Spanish had a slightly higher rate than the other three languages. From 2009-10 through 2011-12 the four languages show an annual difference of mostly 5 percentage points between high and low. Across the last three years French experienced a drop in 2011-12, while the other three languages stayed within 2 to 4 percentage points. For correlation with success data please see the individual language sections of this document.

Educational Goal 4 Year College Student Taking Courses to Meet 4 Year College Requirements

The data below was manually compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website and is provided for the purpose of comparing demographic data. Enrollment figures are included to indicate total pool sizes.

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 4.8% (28) 5.9% (38) 4.6% (26) 6.1% (36)


Modern Languages Total

67

113

70

80

30

The number of four-year college students taking language courses to meet requirements at four-year institutions increased over the last four years with an unusual peak in 2009-10. Percentages ranged from 1.7% to 9.8%, depending on the language and the academic year. It should be noted that Modern Languages faculty do not engage in any sort of recruitment or promotional activities to attract four-year college students. It is assumed that four-year college students enroll in Cuesta’s modern languages courses because of the quality of instruction and convenient scheduling IV. CURRICULUM REVIEW In spring 2012 and fall 2012 all courses in the Modern Languages Program have undergone major modifications in the process of increasing the lecture units from 4 to 5 (FR, GER, SPAN) and 3 to 5 (ASL). At that time all courses were updated to reflect current course content and to conform to CurricUNET standards. See individual language sections of this document for details. The only degree program affected by the increase in language course units was International Studies. The program was notified and the “Program of Study” for International Studies posted on CurricUNET was updated to reflect the unit changes in the French, German, and Spanish courses.

31

CURRICULUM REVIEW GUIDE and WORKSHEET Courses and Programs

Current Review Date February 18, 2013

Reviewer Petra Clayton

Impact of Course Modifications on other Programs Modified Courses Impacted Program (s) Date affected program notified

ASL 201 None N/A ASL 202 None N/A

FR 201 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 FR 202 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 FR 203 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012

GER 201 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 GER 202 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 GER 203 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 GER 204 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012

SPAN 201 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 SPAN 202 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 SPAN 203 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 SPAN 204 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012

Deactivated Course Impacted Program (s) Date affected program notified ASL 215C None N/A

FR 204 International Studies Spring 2012 Programs

• List all programs/certificates that were active at the time of the last CPPR. • Review the CurricUNET “Program of Study” outline and indicate yes/no for each

program/certificate. • For each deactivated program provide the effective term posted on CurricUNET.

Program / Certificate

Title

Currently active

New program since last

CPPR

Program modification since

last CPPR

Deactivated since last

CPPR

The Modern Languages Program does not offer

a degree

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Although the interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program does not offer a degree or certificate, efforts are under way to create an entry in the CurricUNET system to post a program description, the program courses, and the Program Learning Outcomes. The following is a draft of the proposed entry:

32

PROGRAM OF STUDY

MODERN LANGUAGES The Modern Languages Program prepares transfer students for a major or minor in the target language or for continuing language study at four-year institutions by giving them functional communication skills and cultural knowledge, which can also be used in the workplace or when traveling, studying, working, or living in areas where the target language is used. Courses ASL 201 American Sign Language I 5 ASL 202 American Sign Language II 5 FR 201 French I 5 FR 202 French II 5 FR 203 French III* 5 *Credit by Exam GER 201 German I 5 GER 202 German II 5 GER 203 German III* 5 GER 204 German IV* 5 *Credit by Exam SPAN 201 Spanish I 5 SPAN 202 Spanish II 5 SPAN 203 Spanish III 5 SPAN 204 Spanish IV 5

Program Outcome Report for MODERN LANGUAGES

A. Outcome Demonstrate receptive and expressive proficiency when engaging in interpersonal communication using idiomatic language (Interpersonal Communication). Assessment Direct Assessment: Oral interviews / Exit interviews.

B. Outcome Demonstrate receptive proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic language (Interpretive Listening). Assessment Direct Assessment: Oral and / or written comprehension checks (True/False; Multiple Choice; Short answers).

C. Outcome Demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting texts written in idiomatic language (Interpretive Reading: Spanish, French, German). Assessment Direct Assessment: Written comprehension checks (True/False; Multiple Choice; Short answers).

D. Outcome Demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising idiomatic language (Presentational Communication – Writing: Spanish, French, German). Assessment Direct Assessment: Written assignments involving complete sentences, cohesive paragraphs, narratives, dialogues.

E. Outcome Describe and discuss the relationship of selected practices, values, and attitudes found in target culture and demonstrate awareness of the links between language and culture (Culture). Assessment Direct Assessment: Written essays and/or exams in English or the target language.

33

V. PROGRAM OUTCOMES, ASSESSMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS NARRATIVE Up to fall 2012 all four languages used indirect assessment tools (student surveys) to assess Program Learning Outcomes. In addition, German has been using direct assessment since 2007 and French since fall 2011. Effective fall 2012, all four languages moved to direct assessment of student performance. In lieu of a narrative, the first-ever program CPAS for the interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program is submitted below. The CPAS summarizes the assessment results and documents the direct assessment of program-level Student Learning Outcome #1 (Interpersonal Communication) for all courses. Improvement efforts and ongoing and future planned improvements based on the first direct SLO assessment are also described in the CPAS. A program assessment map and calendar follow the CPAS. Budgetary requests for the Modern Languages Program are included in the Unit Plan for the Languages and Communications Division. Course or Program Assessment Summary

Division: LANGUAGES AND COMMUNICATION Program: MODERN LANGUAGES Courses in program: ASL 215A, 215 B, 215C - FR 201/110, 202/120, 203 -

GER 201/110, GER 202,120, 203, 204 – SPAN 201, 202, 203, 204

February 15, 2013

Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Lead instructors: Clayton, Dunn, Lloyd, Rector-Cavagnaro and all temporary part-time instructors

Course-to-program outcome mapping document** is completed Yes ___X__

1 Student

Learning Outcome Statements X Program

Student will be able to 1. demonstrate receptive and expressive proficiency when engaging in interpersonal

communication using idiomatic language (Interpersonal Communication) 2. demonstrate receptive proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic

language (Interpretive Listening). 3. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting texts written in idiomatic

language (Interpretive Reading: Spanish, French, German) 4. demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising idiomatic language

(Presentational Communication – Writing: Spanish, French, German). 5. describe and discuss the relationship of selected practices, values, and attitudes found

in target culture and demonstrate awareness of the links between language and culture (Culture).

34

2 Assessment

Methods Plan (identify assessment instruments, scoring rubrics, SLO mapping diagrams)

• PLO #1 was chosen for direct assessment for fall 2012. • All faculty in all four disciplines of the Modern Languages Program (30 sections)

administered an oral interview/exit interview at all language levels. • Faculty used individual rubrics in determining the number of students who performed

successfully. • A mapping of course-level SLOs to program-level SLOs follows this CPAS.

3 Assessment Administration Plan (date(s), sample size or selection of course sections, scoring procedures, etc.)

• The sample size was a total of 537 students (383 at level 1, 125 at level 2 and 29 at level 3).

• The sample size of 537 included 219 students in ASL, 61 students in French, 27

students in German, and 230 students in Spanish. • The student performance was reported using a score of A, B, C, D, F.

4 Assessment Results Summary (summarize Data)

Assessment results were reported for 100% of all students enrolled in Modern Languages in fall 2012. 30 sections reported their assessment results (100% participation rate) representing 15 instructors, 10 of whom were temporary part-time faculty. Overall 94% of all students who participated in the direct assessment of PLO #1 succeeded (i.e. scored A, B or C). The success was even across both, level 1 and 2. Overall grade distribution was almost identical at level 1 and 2 and overall, with 49% of all students achieving an A, 28% - 30% achieved a B and 15% achieved a C.

• Overall 10% of all students who were registered (596) did not participate in the assessment event. 12% were enrolled in a level 1 course, 4% in a level 2 course, and 6% in a level 3 course. Since no-shows did not earn a performance score, they were not included in the calculation of performance success/failure. The no-show rate varied between languages.

• The grade distribution for successful students varied by language with French having the highest percentage of As (63%), followed by Spanish (54%), ASL (42%) and German (33%). In the B range German had the most (56%), followed by ASL (35%), Spanish (26%) and French (16%). The most Cs were in French (18%), followed by ASL (16%), Spanish (14%), and German (7%).

• Comparing grade distribution for successful students by level showed a slightly higher percentage of As at level 2 for ASL and French, but for Spanish the percentage of As was slightly higher at level 1. Level 2 was not offered for German in fall 2012.

• The Level 3 success rate was 90%. Level 3 Spanish had the highest percentage of As of all levels and languages.

5 Discussion of Assessment Procedure and Results, and Effectiveness of Previous Improvement Plans

Faculty discussed the pros and cons of various assessment methodologies, such as • type of interaction (instructor-to-student or student-to-student) • number of questions asked/answers given (from 6 to 10 per student) • type of address (formal and/or familiar) • type of verbal exchange (highly scripted, somewhat scripted or mostly

extemporaneous)

35

6 Recommended Changes & Plans for Implementation of Improvements

Some faculty decided to continue their methodology when conducting the oral finals/exit interviews. Some faculty is considering modifying their approach. All faculty members agreed to report their assessment results again at the end of spring 2013 for a comparison with the fall 2012 data. In upcoming meetings faculty will examine various scoring rubric models in an effort to create a common rubric by which to define student performance for a score of A, B, C, D, F. Individual languages may choose to monitor PLO #1 beyond the current academic year. However, effective fall 2013, in an effort to assess all PLOs in the next five years, faculty will target either PLO #2 or PLO#5 (see Assessment Calendar). Results from direct assessment will be collected from all sections of all courses of all four languages and will be used for analysis and collegial discussions regarding teaching and testing methods and their effectiveness.

7 Description or evidence of dialog among course or program-level faculty about assessment plan and results

Modern Languages faculty convened in January and February 2013 to discuss the assessment results. The minutes for each meeting reflect participation by both tenured and temporary part-time instructors and the content of the discussions.

**Course and program level outcomes are required by ACCJC to be aligned. Each program needs to complete a program map to show the alignment. See examples of completed CPAS and program mapping documents are available at http://academic.cuesta.edu/sloa

http://academic.cuesta.edu/sloa

36

Program Assessment Mapping and Calendar last updated: January 2013

Title of Program: MODERN LANGUAGES

Program Student Learning Outcomes: Student will be able to 1. demonstrate receptive and expressive proficiency when engaging in interpersonal

communication using idiomatic language (Interpersonal Communication) 2. demonstrate receptive proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic language

(Interpretive Listening). 3. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting texts written in idiomatic language

(Interpretive Reading: Spanish, French, German) 4. demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising idiomatic language

(Presentational Communication – Writing: Spanish, French, German). 5. describe and discuss the relationship of selected practices, values, and attitudes found in target

culture and demonstrate awareness of the links between language and culture (Culture).

37

Relationship between assessed course level SLOs and Program Level SLOs (Mapping)

Course Course name Program Student Learning Outcomes

1 2 3 4 5

ASL 215A American Sign Language I A,B,C A Not a SLO

Not a SLO A

ASL 215B American Sign Language II A,B,C

A

Not a SLO

Not a SLO A

ASL 215C American Sign Language III A,B,C

A

Not a SLO

Not a SLO A

FR 201 French I A,B,C A A A A

FR 110 Beginning Conversation and Reading

A,B,C A A A A

FR 202 French II A,B,C A A A A

FR 120 Conversation and Reading A,B,C

A A A A

FR 203 French III A,B,C

A A A A

FR 204 French IV A,B,C

A A A A

GER 201 German I A,B,C A A A A

GER 110 Beginning Conversation and Reading

A,B,C A A A A

GER 202 German II A,B,C A A A A


1 2 3 4 5

GER 120 Conversation and Reading A,B,C

A A A A

GER 203 German III A,B,C

A A A A

GER 204 German IV A,B,C

A A A A

SPAN 201 Spanish I A,B,C

A A A A

SPAN 202 Spanish II A,B,C

A A A A

SPAN 203 Spanish III A,B,C

A A A A

SPAN 204 Spanish IV A,B,C A A A A

Key: A (SLOs exist for course) B (SLOs are assessed in course using direct assessment) C (course assessment report using direct assessment completed)

38

MODERN LANGUAGES Assessment Calendar by Academic Year

CYCLE STAGE 2012-13 PLO 1

2013-14 PLO 2 (or 5)

2014-15 PLO 5 (or 2)

2015-16 PLO 3 (or 4)

2016-17 PLO 4 (or 3)

2017-18 PLO 1

SLO Assessment

ASL 215A, ASL 215B, 215C; FR 201/110, FR 202/120; GER 201/110 GER 202/120 SPAN 201, 202, SPAN 203, 204

ASL 201, 202 FR 201/110, FR 202/120; GER 201/110, GER 202/120 SPAN 201, 202, SPAN 203, 204





Analyze Results & Plan Improvements







Plan Implementation







Post-Implementation SLO Assessment







39

VI. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES/ASSESSMENTS

A Program CPAS was submitted under section V of this document. For Course CPASs please see individual language sections of this document.

American Sign

Language French German Spanish

ASL 215 A FR 201/110 GER 201/110 SPAN 201 ASL 215 B FR 202/120 GER 202/120 SPAN 202 ASL 215 C GER 203 SPAN 203

GER 204 SPAN 204 Note: Course CPASs for 2011-12 were submitted by all four language disciplines in May 2012 for the proficiency report. Individual disciplines also prepared CPASs for 2012-13 based on the fall 2012 direct assessment.

VII. END NOTES

The following letter was written by the faculty of Cal Poly’s Department of Modern Languages and Literatures in support of maintaining Cuesta’s French and German courses, which were targeted for elimination in fall 2012.

40

CALPOLY California Polytechnic State University

San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Modem Languages and Literatures Department

(805) 756-1205

November 6, 2012

Dear colleagues, I am writing this letter in support of the German and French programs at Cuesta College. We at the Modern Languages and Literatures Department at Cal Poly value the collaboration we have had over the years with students and faculty from the Languages and Communications Division and look forward to strengthening our collaboration in the future. I wish to highlight the specific ways in which the German and French programs, as well as the other languages taught at Cuesta, Spanish and American Sign Language, strengthen our own programs at Cal Poly. First, Modern Languages and Literatures majors at Cal Poly are required to have advanced coursework in two languages: one must be Spanish and the other must be either German or French. Modern Languages majors who transfer from Cuesta are able to enter our program with a higher level of proficiency and with a greater number of credits because the required languages are currently available to them during their first two years of college. Second, current articulation agreements between our campuses make seamless course and credit transfer possible for Cal Poly students, not only from our department but from other programs which require the study of a language as part of their requirements. The continued availability of German and French at Cuesta, as course offerings are impacted across the CSU, provide the opportunity for increased enrollment at your institution as Cal Poly students seek out additional ways to satisfy their language requirements. Third, and most important, starting in Fall 2013, Cal Poly has approved the new GE area CS, which is satisfied by four quarter units of credit (and not just demonstrated proficiency) in an intermediate-level language course or in another area C1 through C4 course. As a result, Cuesta students who transfer to Cal Poly as GE-certified, will, in many cases, elect this language other than English option. Not only will the continued availability of German and French at Cuesta be necessary in this regard, but those languages will see an increased demand and enrollment. Finally, as we enhance our interdisciplinary connections across our own campus, we count on the continued strength and growth of Cuesta's languages as they enhance the skills and marketability of students in the various professional programs there. If I can provide any further support or other specific information regarding this vital matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, John Thompson Chair, Modern Languages and Literatures Department T he Ca li forni a State U nive rsit y .. Bakersfield • Charu1el Islands • Chico • Dominguez Hills • Fresno • Fullerton • Hayward • Humboldt • Long Beach • Los Angeles • Maritime Academy • Monterey Bay • Northridge • Pomona • Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San jose • San Luis Obispo • San Marcos • Sonoma • Stanislaus

41

ADDENDUM INSTRUCTIONAL CPPR FOR THE

AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE DISCIPLINE OF THE MODERN LANGUAGES PROGRAM


A. General Description about the discipline

Mission The mission for the ASL discipline corresponds to the interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program mission as stated on page 3 of this document. Class Offerings and Schedules ASL offers the second largest number of classes of the four modern languages at Cuesta with fluctuations from an historical high of 17 (3-unit) classes in 2009 with classes held in SLO, NCC, Atascadero High School, Arroyo Grande High School and Nipomo High School, to a forecasted reduction of 7 (5-unit classes) in Fall 2013 with classes held in SLO and NCC. Starting in the academic year 2008-09, ASL courses expanded to cover 4 levels of 3-unit course instruction with a “Daily Conversation” 2- unit class offered for students needing/wanting additional language learning opportunities. This rapid expansion in the total class offerings and locations with an increase from three to four levels was followed by an equally rapid decrease in these same areas. Expansion and Elimination of Class Locations

Expansion Location Start Date Discontinued Atascadero High School Spring 2002 Spring classes discontinued 2010 2 classes/year Fall classes discontinued 2011 Mission College Prep H.S. Spring 2006 Spring 2009 1 class/year Nipomo High School Spring 2008 Spring 2010 2 classes/year

42

Expansion, Reduction and Elimination of Upper Level ASL Classes

The 3rd semester ASL course has maintained an inconsistent schedule since its launching in the year 2000. Originally offered one semester-a-year in the Fall on the SLO campus, it increased to being offered every semester for a 2-year period between Fall 2007 and Fall 2009; it then returned to an annual Fall schedule on the SLO campus. The 3rd semester class has been offered exclusively on the SLO campus as well as rotating between SLO and NC campuses. Students on both campuses have expressed frustration with the inconsistent scheduling and location of the 3rd semester ASL class: SLO students wanting it offered every semester on the SLO campus, and NC students wanting it offered at least once a year on the NC campus.

The 4th semester ASL class had a short-lived history on the SLO campus; offered only 2 semesters (Fall 2008 and Spring 2009) it was cancelled due to low enrollment and lack of student readiness for this level of instruction. ASL “Daily Conversation” was offered annually as an experimental class between Spring 2008 and Spring 2011. The class provided ASL students the opportunity to gain additional language experience before continuing to another ASL class. The Conversation class was taught exclusively by the department’s only Deaf instructor, Alisa Runstrom, based on her availability. Curriculum documents were never developed and submitted to make this class a regular feature of the ASL department and it was discontinued in Fall 2011.

ASL Program Redesigned

A complete redesign of the ASL program was approved by the Curriculum Committee in December 2012 with implementation of the redesigned classes to begin in Fall 2013. The newly redesigned ASL course structure includes 2 levels of 5-unit classes to more accurately align with Cuesta’s ASL curriculum, other California Community College ASL courses, and the other Modern Language courses at Cuesta. Additionally, the newly created 5-unit ASL courses ensure articulation to CSU and UC colleges. The complete proposal for the ASL redesign is attached in this ASL Addendum “End Notes” Section VII. The previous ASL program review in 2008 noted that the majority of ASL classes were taught in the afternoon/evening due primarily to room availability on the SLO campus (and high school locations). In Fall 2013, 5-unit ASL classes will be offered on the SLO and North County campuses throughout the day (morning, afternoon and evening). ASL classes on the SLO campus scheduled in the afternoon and evening are intended to also serve residents living in the South

43

County where ASL evening classes will no longer be offered at Arroyo Grande High School. Additionally, the newly redesigned ASL schedule at SLO and NC will more closely reflect the Cuesta student populations of each campus: SLO 74% and NC 23%. Arroyo Grande High School satellite campus with only 3% of Cuesta’s population would capture 7% of ASL courses with a single class offered at this site; these students will be now be served through the ASL classes offered on the SLO campus. Supported Language Learning Opportunities Silent Lunch/Chat opportunities, arranged by Betsy Dunn, have been available to ASL students since 2004. Originally gathering in a Library meeting room, the meetings moved to the 6200 building lounge, and now, since Spring 2010 meet in the ASL classroom, 6105. These weekly meetings are driven by student interest and when possible, have included an ASL Deaf tutor provided through the Tutorial Center. However, in Spring 2012 a qualified ASL tutor was not available. A variety of Deaf and Deafblind Tutors, Reader, and Intern have supported ASL student learning during the past 4 years. Tutors (funded through the Tutorial Center)

Laura Chin Chelsea Conners Rene Franklin Jillian Havandjian Marcus John Vicky Moraza Corrina Veesart

ASL Reader (funded through LangCom Division funds, assisted with documenting grades, attendance and reviewing video assignments)

Vicky Moraza ASL Intern (funded through the Federal Work-Study program)

Marcus John Unfortunately, as the economic climate at Cuesta has degraded with the downturn of California’s economy, so too has funding for these valuable positions.

44

Although qualified Deaf faculty and Deaf individuals in the community are interested in working as ASL tutors at Cuesta, they are not eligible to apply/work as a Cuesta tutor. New guidelines require tutors be full-time Cuesta students. Unfortunately, it is not appropriate for beginning non-native users/ASL students to tutor beginning ASL students and regrettably there is currently no tutoring support for ASL students except through attendance at Silent Lunch/Chat sessions offered once a week by Betsy Dunn or through students contacting ASL instructors during posted office hours. Independent Study opportunities have been made available to ASL students since 2008 and are generally conducted as a combination of group instruction and individual ASL study objectives. These groups have been coordinated and led by Betsy Dunn, and, occasionally, have included group tutoring sessions with a Deaf instructor/tutor. ASL Faculty With the rapid expansion of ASL course offerings in 2008, the discipline struggled to recruit and maintain qualified ASL instructors. In Fall 2008 two additional instructors were hired: Jillian Havandjian, a native ASL user with an AA degree and Kristen Fahs, a local high school ASL instructor with a BS degree unrelated to ASL. Another instructor was hired Spring 2009: Heather Palendoken, a native ASL user with a BS in Deaf Education and a California teaching credential K-12. Unfortunately, shortly after Heather’s hiring, the number of ASL course offerings was reduced, and the number of ASL classes each semester fluctuated. This made it difficult for the newly hired instructors to have any assurance of an offer to teach – or consistency in the number of classes offered. Additionally, newly hired and part-time instructors with other employment outside of Cuesta are not always available to teach the classes needing coverage. As instructor availability has fluctuated – due to instructor work opportunities outside of Cuesta, pregnancy/family leaves and Betsy Dunn’s emergency medical leave in Spring 2011 – ASL has routinely depended upon a rotation of ‘overload’ scheduling among the part-time ASL faculty. Although this system was generally successful over the past four years, in Fall 2012 one ASL course was cancelled when none of the current faculty was able to accept an overload assignment for a variety of personal and eligibility reasons. Additionally, in Spring 2013, Betsy Dunn reduced her full-time workload to 80% due on-going medical issues. Therefore, in Fall 2012, a new part-time pool was opened, and Erich Tucker was

45

hired in December 2012. Erich is a native ASL user with a BA degree in Interdisciplinary Studies. ASL continues to be the only Modern Language at Cuesta which does not require a Masters Degree in the discipline taught; this is a state-wide regulation partly due to the small number of colleges offering a Master Degree in ASL. Most bachelor and master degree programs related to ASL are in the areas of Deaf Studies, ASL interpretation, or Deaf Education. The implication of the varied educational background of ASL instructors is that newly hired instructors typically require mentoring; instructors without teaching degrees/certificates or ASL linguistic education need professional development and other tangible support for training in ASL linguistics and teaching methods/strategies. ASL instructors, Spring 2013:

Full-time tenured instructor, Betsy Dunn, BS Speech and Hearing Sciences; MS Deaf Education;

RID Certified CSC - Retired

Part-time instructors: Susan Chilton, BA Interdisciplinary Studies Kathy Robasciotti, BA Sign Language Interpretation Alisa Runstrom, BS Animal Science Erich Tucker, BA Interdisciplinary Studies

Facilities The ideal ASL teaching environment was established on the SLO campus in Spring 2009, thanks to the support and efforts of Pamela Ralston, Dean of Humanities. The designation of room 6105 for ASL use - equipped with chairs having a retractable writing surface - has allowed ASL classes to be taught in a semi-circular seating arrangement which is necessary for the visual instruction of ASL. Thanks to support from the Cuesta Foundation, room 6105 was equipped with the appropriate chairs and an Elmo (document projector) and thanks to support from Dean Ralston, the room was re-carpeted and painted, and white boards installed over the outdated and dirty chalk boards. All other classrooms used for ASL instruction (NCC and AGHS) require daily student-desk rearrangement into a semi-circle seating (a task that is not always feasible or appropriate in all classrooms assigned to ASL). The time required rearranging desks before and after each class meeting reduces the language learning opportunities of ASL students.

46

Technology As a visual language, ASL is highly dependent upon technology for the viewing of ASL videos – whether professional, instructor or student produced. VHS video tapes previously purchased from manufacturers are now ‘old school’ and perhaps will soon no longer be viewable in the Cuesta library. Although the ASL ‘text book’ requires DVD drives for students to access/view their homework assignments, this technology (though available in classrooms and discipline specific labs) was not available in the Cuesta Library or in the Open Lab until Mark Stengel was hired as the Director Library/Learning Resources in Fall 2008. In Spring 2009, he immediately had DVD drives installed in both the Library and Open Lab and finally, ASL students were able to access their ASL ‘textbook’ for homework assignments while on Cuesta’s SLO campus! Classroom Performance System (CPS) ‘clickers’ developed by eInstruction have become an important learning tool in the classes taught by full-time instructor, Betsy Dunn. This technology allows students to participate in daily homework review, class activities and testing through the use of individual student response pads. Although the system has required great effort to develop materials and master the technical skills necessary to manage the system, students using the clickers have overwhelmingly (learned) to appreciate and benefit from the use of this technology. An anonymous survey taken in Spring 2012 revealed that 81 of 86 students surveyed responded they liked using this technology, receiving immediate feedback regarding their answers and being able to access their test scores within 24 hours of taking a test. Unfortunately, this technology is not well-liked/supported by Cuesta’s Computer Services department for a variety of reason and it has been difficult for the instructor to resolve problems when they occur. External access to Cuesta classroom computers is protective/restricted making it difficult/impossible for outside eInstruction support to resolve database and computer problems directly at the source. Additionally, it has been difficult to coordinate Cuesta computer techs, eInstruction techs, the instructor and classroom availability to address serious problems when they have occurred. However, the benefits to ASL students using the CPS clickers are clear and strongly outweigh the occasional difficulties encountered with the system. Teaching styles and comfort with technology – as well as the various classroom environments encountered by ASL instructors – make the decision to use the CPS clickers extremely personal and individual. The success encountered by Betsy

47

Dunn using this system should not be construed to suggest that all ASL instructors make use of this technology. ASL Addendum Betsy Dunn is the primary author of the ASL discipline addendum to this CPPR document. Feedback, additions and modifications to this addendum have been solicited from part-time ASL instructors: Susan Chilton, Kathy Robasciotti, Alisa Runstrom and Erich Tucker.

B. ASL Discipline Outcomes for ASL (formerly “Program Outcomes”)

Beginning Fall 2013, ASL will offer two semesters of degree applicable and UC, CSU transferable, 5-unit classes. ASL courses at Cuesta are designed to satisfy a variety of student needs, including: • Transferable/prerequisites to a 2 or 4 year collge with a major in Deaf Studies,

Interpreting, or Deaf Education • Transferrable credit to a 4-year college to satisfy a “foreign language”

requirement • Degree applicable credit towards an AA degree in the area of ‘Humanities.’ • Professional development/interest for social service, health, educational

workers, etc, who may encounter Deaf people in their work place. • Personal enrichment for individuals who know a Deaf person, or who are

exploring and considering a career which might include Deaf people

ASL Discipline Outcomes include:

Interpersonal Expressive and Receptive Communication 1. Students will communicate using American Sign Language signs and non-

manual behaviors without the use of voice. 2. Students will demonstrate expressive and receptive fingerspelling skills. 3. Students will employ grammatical non-manual markers Cultural Competency 4. Students will demonstrate an awareness of the history of ASL and the culture

of the Deaf Community 5. Students will recognize a variety of services/organizations benefiting the Deaf

Community

48

C. ASL Student Learning Outcomes Upon completion of ASL 201, students will: 1. Communicate using ASL non-manual behaviors of communication –

employing body language, mime, and facial expression without the use of voice.

2. Communicate using basic ASL grammar and vocabulary in dialogue exchanges based on personal information, geography, activities, and schedules.

3. Communicate in moderately paced fingerspelling skills. 4. Employ the grammatical non-manual markers of basic questions, elementary

classifiers, and pronouns. 5. Identify and demonstrate cultural Deaf customs. 6. Communicate an awareness of the history of ASL and selected Deaf profiles.

Upon completion of ASL 202, students will: 1. Communicate with increasing fluency using ASL non-manual behaviors –

employing body language, facial expression – without the use of voice. 2. Demonstrate ASL grammar and vocabulary in communication exchanges

based on geography, physical descriptions, employment, money and time. 3. Make use of classifiers in their discourse 4. Demonstrate fluid, even and moderately paced fingerspelling skills 5. Employ the grammatical features of verbs, pronouns, spatial referencing and

all question forms. 6. Demonstrate common communication etiquette in a signing environment. 7. Demonstrate cross-cultural communication strategies in interactions with Deaf

individuals in the classroom, on campus, and in the community.

II. PROGRAM SUPPORT OF INSTITUTIONAL GOALS AND INSTITUTIONAL

OBJECTIVES

ASL supports the district’s efforts in achieving Institutional Goal 1: Objectives 1.1, 1.2 and Instituional Goal 2: Objective 2.2.

Institutional Objective 1.1: Increase the percentage of transfer-directed students who are transfer prepared (by 2% annually)

ASL contributes to students’ transfer-preparedness by offering ASL classes which are UC and CSU transferable and articulated. In Fall 2013, ASL classes will be offered on the SLO campus in twice-a-week block schedule classes. ASL 201 classes have

49

been strategically planned throughout the week with morning class offered M-W and T-TH; afternoon classes offered M-W and late afternoon/evening classes offered T-TH. The ASL 202 classes will be offered in the early afternoon on T-TH and late afternoon M-W. The late afternoon and evening classes are specifically intended to serve students in SLO, AG and NCC as well as enrichment high school students and those who work during the daytime hours. ASL classes in the North County are also offered in a twice-a-week block schedule on T-TH afternoons and evenings on M-W; both of these class times have been historically successful.

Institutional Objective 1.2: Increase the percentage of degreee – or certificate – directed students who complete degrees or certificates (by 2% annually)”

ASL is a course option for a transfer degree: Liberal Arts (emphasis in Arts and Humanities).ASL is also a language choice which will fulfill the language requirement for transfer to the UC/CSU system.

Institutional Objective 2.2: Outreach to local High Schools

Lead ASL instructor, Betsy Dunn, is scheduled to participate in the local SLOHS career night in Spring 2013.

50

PROGRAM (discipline specific) DATA ANALYSIS AND (discipline-specific) MEASUREMENTS

American Sign Language

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Enrollmnt

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/ FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTE

F

Enroll-ment

# of Sec-tions

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

ASL 215A

433 16 27 14.25 531 20 27 13.56 437 17 26 13.19 508 21 24 12.97

ASL 215B

170 8 21 10.99 179 7 26 13.11 146 7 21 10.65 149 7 21 11.12

ASL 215C

41 2 21 10.60 15 1 15 8.0 25 1 25 13.30 12 1 12 6.40

ASL 215D

24 2 12 6.18

ASL 193A

28 1 28 14.31 21 1 21 10.77 43 2 22 10.77

TOTAL

696 29 24 12.52 746 29 26 13.19 651 27 24 12.40 669 29 23 12.31

A. Data Summary The chart above illustrates the trends and economic conditions mentioned by in the Interdisciplinary portion of this report. Confounding the above numbers for ‘sections’ is the fact that Independent Study students are given individual “class sections” and these statistics are impeded within the classroom sections with 25 students. Although the total number of students is correct, the number of sections and students per section becomes skewed.

51

American Sign Language: Success and Retention

Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ASL 215A 70.7% (433) 72.3% (531) 74.6% (437) 73.2% (508) ASL 215B 74.7% (170) 68.7% (179) 77.2% (146) 78.5% (149) ASL 215C 73.2% (41) 53.3% (15) 76.0% (25) 75.0% (12) ASL 215D 79.2% (24) ASL 193A 78.6% (28) 71.4% (21) 60.5% (43)

Annual Success 72.4% (696) 71.0% (746) 74.3% (651) 74.7% (669) Annual Retention 87.4% 87.4% 86.1% 87.3%

B. Data Summary

The Modern Language data analysis in the Interdisciplinary Program Review portion of this document is complete and thorough in every way possible.

The raw data on the above documenting “ASL Success and Retention” indicates ASL enjoys a strong retention rate which is slightly higher than both Spanish and French with little fluctuation between 86- 87% retention compared to Spanish (82-83%) and French (79-85%). The annual success rates range from 71% in 2009-10 to 74.7% in 2011-12. These statistics are slightly higher than the success rates of either French (62-73%) or Spanish (67-71%). These statistics, though ‘interesting’ do not provide meaningful insight regarding why students withdraw or fail an ASL class, or reasons why ASL students would have a greater success rate than students taking other languages.

52

III. CURRICULUM REVIEW


Current Review Date : February 26, 2013

Reviewer: Betsy Dunn

1. Courses

Course (Prefix / Number)

Currently active

New course since last CPPR

Major modification

since last CPPR

Minor modification

since last CPPR

Deactivated since last CPPR Notified impacted

program(s)* ASL 201 (previously 215A)

yes no

Yes: (effective Fall 2013) change from 3 to 5 lectures units

no no

ASL 202 (previously 215B)

yes no Yes: (effective Fall 2013) change from 3 to 5 lectures units

no no

ASL 215C no no no Spring 2013 ASL 215D no no no Spring 2012 ASL 193 no no no Spring 2012

*Note: Please state if the deactivated course impacted any other program(s) and if and when the affected program(s) was/were notified:

Deactivated Course Impacted Program (s) Date affected program was notified 215C, 215D, & ASL 193 N/A N/A

53

Course Review

Course Number ASL 201 ASL 202 1. Effective term listed on COR Date: Fall 2013 Date: Fall 2013 2. Catalog / schedule description is

appropriate Yes Yes

3. Pre-/ co-requisites / advisories (if applicable) are appropriate

Yes Yes

4. “Approved as Distance Education” is accurate

Yes Yes

5. Grading Method is accurate Yes Yes 6. Repeatability is zero Yes Yes 7. Class Size is accurate Yes Yes 8. Objectives are aligned with methods

of evaluation Yes Yes

9. Topics / scope are aligned with objectives

Yes Yes

10. Assignments are aligned with objectives

Yes Yes

11. Methods of evaluation are appropriate Yes Yes 12. Texts, readings, materials are dated

within last 5 years Yes Yes

13. CSU / IGETC transfer & AA GE information (if applicable) is correct

Yes Yes

14. Degree / Certificate information (if applicable) is correct

Yes Yes

15. Library materials are adequate and current *

Yes Yes 1 If no, a major modification is needed within the next 5 years (see five-year cycle calendar). 2 If no, a major modification is needed in the current term. (For increase in class size, see your curriculum representative for details.) 3 If no, a minor modification is needed in the current term. 4 If no, contact the Curriculum Chair or Curriculum Specialist. *Note: Item #15 is not displayed in CurricUNET and must be reviewed separately.

2. Programs

Program /

Certificate Title

Currently active


CPPR


last CPPR


CPPR

Neither the ASL discipline nor the Modern Languages Program offers a degree

N/A N/A N/A N/A

3. Five-Year Cycle Calendar

All ASL courses have been updated and are currently annotated with an effective date of “Fall 2013.” All courses reflect current course content, text books and conform to CurricUNET formatting standards. Therefore, a five year cycle calendar is not needed at this time. All ASL courses will be reviewed again in five years at the time of the next Comprehensive Program and Planning Review.

54

IV. PROGRAM OUTCOMES, ASSESSMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS NARRATIVE

This section has been thoroughly documented in the Interdisciplinary Program Review section of this document.

V. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES/ASSESSMENTS

Course or Program Assessment Summary

Division: LangCom – Modern Languages Program: American Sign Language Date: February 2013 v. 3 2012

Courses in program, or course: ASL 201 – American Sign Language I (formerly ASL 215A)

Faculty involved with assessment and analysis: Betsy Dunn, Susan Chilton, Kathy Robasciotti, Alisa Runstorm.

Course-to-program outcome mapping document** is completed Yes X

1 Student Learning Outcome Statements X Course

1. Communicate using ASL non-manual behaviors of communication – employing body language, mime, and facial expression without the use of voice.

2. Communicate using basic ASL grammar and vocabulary in dialogue exchanges based on personal information, geography, activities, and schedules.

3. Communicate in moderately paced fingerspelling skills. 4. Employ the grammatical non-manual markers of basic questions, elementary classifiers,

and pronouns 5. Identify and demonstrate cultural Deaf customs 6. Communicate an awareness of the history of ASL and selected Deaf profiles

2 Assessment Methods

Plan (identify assessment instruments, scoring rubrics, SLO mapping diagrams)

1. Direct Assessment (Performance Exams) o Receptive Final exam through instructor/video recordings to assess visual

listening – SLO #1, 2, 3, 4 o Written Final exam to assess SLO #2, 4, 5, 6 o Exit Interview to assess Interpersonal Communication (Receptive/Expressive)

PLO #1; SLO #1, 2, 3, 4 2. Indirect Assessment through Student Surveys

3 Assessment

Administration Plan (date(s), sample size or selection of course sections, scoring procedures, etc.)

• Direct assessments of the Program Learning Outcome #1: Interpersonal Communication was performed during the final 2 weeks of Fall 2012 semester in all first semester ASL classes:

o 7 sections o 151 students o Methodology: Instructor to Student interaction

4 sections were somewhat scripted 1 section was highly scripted 2 sections did not clearly report

• Indirect assessments through student surveys were obtained during the final week of instruction of Spring 2012 in all first semester ASL classes.

55


Exit Interview/PLO #1 Assessment Summary • 63 students (42%) received scores of 90% and above • 55 students (36%) received scores of 80-89% • 25 students (17%) received scores of 70 – 79% • 6 students (4%) received scores of 60 – 69% • 2 students (1%) received scores of 50 – 59% • 11 students (7%) did not participate in the Exit Interview due to:

o The student no longer attending the class – OR - o The student failing to show up for the assessment

Student Surveys • The majority of students felt they were successful in all Student Learning Outcomes

with the exceptions of: o SLO # 5: Students will examine a variety of ASL Literature. o SLO #7: Students will examine and make use of services used by the

Deaf Community.

• These two SLOs indicated a significant number of students approximately 60% who only somewhat agreed or disagreed to successfully learning these SLOs.

• Review and discussion among ASL instructors resulted in a revision of the SLOs (as seen above) – These SLOs are no longer used.


• 82% of first semester ASL students are successful in PLO#1: Interpersonal Communication.

o Instructors do not use similar scoring rubrics o Instructors vary in the degree of communication scripting o No instructors use a student-student model for assessing this PLO

• SLO # 5, though specifically included in the course curriculum, is never-the-less not directly identified by instructors or students as “ASL Literature.” ASL is not a written language, and exposure to ASL literature in the form of folklore, stories, jokes, etc are not identified by students as “literature.” This SLO is no longer included in the first semester ASL classes.

• SLO #7 is not adequately addressed in the first semester ASL class and is therefore no longer a SLO.


ASL instructors will meet and develop a standardized rubric for the assessment and scoring of PLO #1: Interpersonal Communication.

ASL instructors will consider the inclusion of Student-to-Student assessments in PLO #1

New Student Learning Outcomes for the first semester ASL class (ASL 201) have been revised based on student survey results, and an updating of Student Learning Outcomes for ASL 201 – the redesigned first semester of ASL.


Data assessment results were gathered from ASL instructors as part of the Modern Languages Program assessment. The minutes of the Modern Languages meetings held in January and February 2013 reflect participation of ASL instructors. ASL instructors will also have on-going dialogue through face-to-face encounters as well as through e-mail exchanges



56

Course or Program Assessment Summary

Division: LangCom – Modern Languages Program: American Sign Language Date: February 2013 v. 3 2012

Courses in program, or course: ASL 202 – American Sign Language II (formerly ASL 215B)

Faculty involved with assessment and analysis: Betsy Dunn, Susan Chilton, Kathy Robasciotti, Alisa Runstorm.

Course-to-program outcome mapping document** is completed Yes X


Interpersonal Expressive and Receptive Communication

1. Students will communicate with increasing fluency using ASL non-manual behaviors – employing body language, facial expression – without the use of voice.

2. Students will demonstrate ASL grammar and vocabulary in communication exchanges based on geography, physical descriptions, employment, money and time.

3. Students will make use of classifiers in their discourse. 4. Students will demonstrate fluid, even and moderately paced fingerspelling skills. 5. Students will demonstrate an understanding of receptive fingerspelling skills through

common Deaf culture communication etiquette. 6. Students will employ the grammatical features of verbs, pronouns, spatial referencing and

all question forms.

Cultural Competency 7. Students will demonstrate common communication etiquette in a signing environment. 8. Students will demonstrate cross cultural communication strategies in their interactions

with deaf individuals in the classroom, on campus, and in the community. 9. Students will express a basic awareness of national organizations of the Deaf

Community.

2 Assessment Methods Plan (identify assessment instruments, scoring rubrics, SLO mapping diagrams)

1. Direct Assessment (Performance Exams) a. Receptive Final exam through instructor/video recordings to assess visual

listening – SLO #1, 2, 3, 5, 6 b. Written Final exam to assess SLO #2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 c. Exit Interview to assess Interpersonal Communication (Receptive/Expressive)

PLO #1; SLO #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

2. Indirect Assessment through Student Surveys


• Direct assessments of the Program Learning Outcome #1: Interpersonal Communication was performed during the final 2 weeks of Fall 2012 semester in all first semester ASL classes:

o 3 sections o 56 students o Methodology: Instructor to Student interaction

One section was highly scripted 2 sections were somewhat scripted

• Indirect assessments through student surveys were obtained during the final week of

instruction of Spring 2012 in two of the 2nd semester ASL classes.

57


Exit Interview/PLO #1: Interpersonal Communication Assessment Summary • 26 students (49%) received scores of 90% and above • 14 students (26%) received scores of 80-89% • 7 students (13%) received scores of 70 – 79% • 3 students (6%) received scores of 60 – 69% • 3 students (6%) received scores of 50 – 59% • 3 students (5%) did not participate in the Exit Interview due to:

o The student no longer attending the class – OR - o The student failing to show up for the assessment

Student Surveys

• The majority of students felt they were successful in all Student Learning Outcomes.


88% of second semester ASL students are successful in PLO #1: Interpersonal Communication. Comments: • Instructors do not use similar scoring rubrics • Instructors vary in the degree of communication scripting • No instructors use a student-student model for assessing this PLO

Recommended Changes & Plans for Implementation of Improvements

ASL instructors will meet and develop a standardized rubric for the assessment and scoring of PLO #1: Interpersonal Communication. ASL instructors will consider the inclusion of Student-to-Student assessments in PLO #1.


Data assessment results were gathered from ASL instructors as part of the Modern Languages Program assessment. The minutes of the Modern Languages meetings held in January and February 2013 reflect participation of ASL instructors. ASL instructors will also have on-going dialogue through face-to-face encounters as well as through e-mail exchanges.



58

Program Assessment Mapping and Calendar last updated: February 2013

Title of Program: American Sign Language

Program SLOs 1. Students will communicate using American Sign Language signs and non-manual

behaviors without the use of voice. 2. Students will demonstrate expressive and receptive fingerspelling skills 3. Students will employ grammatical non-manual markers 4. Students will demonstrate an awareness of the history of ASL and the culture of the

Deaf Community 5. Students will recognize a variety of services/organizations benefiting the Deaf

Community Relationship between assessed course level SLOs and Program Level SLOs.


1 2 3 4 5

ASL 201 ASL I C C C C C

ASL 202 ASL II C C C C C

Key: A (SLOs exist for course) B (SLOs is assessed in course) C (course assessment report completed) Program Assessment Calendar CYCLE STAGE Sp 2013 Fall 2013 Sp 2014 Fall 2014 Sp 2015 Fall 2015

SLO Assessment

Analyze Results & Plan Improvements

ASL 201 ASL 202 ASL 201

ASL 202

Plan Implementation

ASL 215A ASL 215B ASL 201

ASL 202

Post-Implementation SLO Assessment

ASL 201 (formerly

215A) ASL 215B (formerly 215)

ASL 201 ASL 202

59

VI. END NOTES Proposed Redesign of ASL Program The ASL department proposes a redesign of its program from 3-unit classes with 3 levels of instruction to 5-unit classes with 2 levels. This proposed redesign is not an expansion of the program, but rather a re-configuring of the ASL units to more accurately align with its curriculum, other California Community College ASL courses, and the other Modern Language courses offered at Cuesta. Additionally, 5-unit ASL courses will ensure articulation to CSU and UC colleges.

Rationale and Research: 1. Cuesta’s current text and curriculum for level 1 (ASL 215A) is the most widely used

throughout California and the nation. It describes the scope and content for a level 1 course requiring 100 contact hours. The current 3-unit ASL course consists of 54 contact hours which has had a negative impact upon Student Learning Outcomes due to insufficient teacher to student, and student to student time on task for language learning opportunities. The proposed 5-unit course will offer 90 contact hours.

Supporting Research • Signing Naturally is the most widely used curriculum for teaching ASL in the

California Community colleges o 39 out of 51 California Community Colleges documenting curriculum on

ASSIST.org use Signing Naturally. (See attachment “A” for a complete listing)

o 29 out of 39 colleges using Signing Naturally offer 4/5 unit ASL classes.

Current Scheduling Pattern (3 unit courses)

Proposed Scheduling Pattern (5 unit courses)

Course Level Sections per semester

Units per section

Semester units

Annual Units

Course Level

Sections per semester

Units per section

Semester units

Annual Units

Level I (ASL 215A)

8 3 24 48 Level I (ASL201)

5 5 25 50

Level II (ASL 215 B)

3 3 9 18 Level II (ASL 202)

2 5 10 20

Level III (ASL 215 C)

1 3 1 6

Total Units 36 72

Total Units 35 70

60

o 100+ instructional hours are suggested in the Teacher’s manual and on the publisher’s website. (Reference: Signing Naturally Teacher’s manual, page XV, and the publisher’s website)

o Quote from the Cheri Smith, one of the authors of Signing Naturally curriculum: “We, the authors, developed the materials based on our experience teaching students over the span of 15 years. We also beta tested the materials in other 2 and 4 year colleges as well. Through our experience teaching, collaborating with other schools and teachers, we found that 100+ hours is needed to complete the materials. When we say "to complete the materials" part of that equation includes students demonstrating a level of fluency in both expressing and understanding communications in the target language. This requires recycling the language over time, in both familiar and novel contexts. I believe if you surveyed colleges that use Signing Naturally materials, they would recommend at least 5 hours, meeting twice a week if not more; if they are teaching with less hours they would probably tell you that they are forced to skip or condense sections.”

2. Increasing ASL courses to 5 units produces increased FTES funding and a small

faculty salary savings.

Supporting Research • Current FTES annual funding for Cuesta’s 3-unit courses: $ 254,214

(See attachment “B” for detailed formulas and figures) o 5-unit ASL courses will produce an FTES funding increase of $ 12,018.

• The proposed redesigned program suggests a slightly lower total number of units offered annually.

o Currently, 72 units of ASL are offered annually; the redesign suggests 70 units which translate into 2 units of faculty salary savings.

3. Cuesta ASL classes must meet the articulation requirements for CSU and UC

colleges.

Supporting Research • Articulation requests were denied by CSU Northridge (March 2012) and San

Diego State University (May 2012). Both colleges suggested Cuesta increase the ASL course units.

• Five CSU colleges offer deaf-related majors (Deaf Studies, Deaf Education, etc), only one college has an articulation agreement for Cuesta’s ASL courses. (Attachment “C”)

61

• Three CSU colleges offer majors which include ASL courses (Linguistics, Communications Disorders) only one college has an articulation agreement for Cuesta ASL classes – as an elective only. (Attachment “C”)

4. Cuesta ASL classes should align with the majority of California Community

Colleges offering ASL.

Supporting Research • 88 California Community Colleges offer ASL classes according to ASSIST.org

documents of October 2012 (Attachment “D”) o 59 out of 88 colleges (67%) offer 4/5 unit classes o Only 29 out of 88 colleges (33%) offer 3 unit classes

5. ASL classes should align with other Modern Language courses offered at Cuesta.

Supporting Research • Cuesta’s Spanish, French and German programs all offer 5-unit language courses. • IGETC category for “Languages other than English” identifies ASL, Spanish,

French and German – equally. • General Education and Graduation requirements for an AA degree list ASL,

Spanish, French and German equally. • CSU General Education Requirements recognizes ASL, Spanish, French and

German equally.

• Historical note: American Sign Language was not recognized as a full and complete language until the 1960s and was not taught in California Community Colleges until the late 1980’s and 1990s. Many ASL classes were initially taught as ‘Community Education’ courses offered through local community colleges. Eventually many of these community education classes were moved into the college system – usually with fewer credits than other languages while the debate continued within the ‘hearing’ academia whether ASL was a ‘real’ language. The evidence establishing ASL as a language equal to, and as complex as, any spoken language is compelling and well documented. Never-the-less, ASL courses continue to lag behind the historically well-established languages of Spanish, French and German in terms of course units offered at many community colleges

62

Proposed ASL Redesign Attachment “A”

ASL Curricula Used in California Community Colleges Signing Naturally Curriculum is used by 39 out of 51 California Community Colleges as noted in Assist.org 29 out of 39 colleges using Signing Naturally offer 4/5 unit ASL courses Community College Curriculum (as noted in Assist.org) American River College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Berkeley City College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Cabrillo College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Learning American Sign Language; Humphries & Padden El Camino College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith College of the Canyons Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Cerro Coso Community College ASL: The Green Book Series; Baker-Shenk & Cokely Chaffey College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Coastline Community College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Copper Mountain College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Crafton Hills College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Cosumnes River College Learning American Sign Language; Humphries & Padden De Anza College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith College of the Dessert Learning American Sign Language; Humphries & Padden Cuyamaca College Learning American Sign Language; Humphries & Padden Diablo Valley College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Evergreen Valley College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Fresno City College Learning American Sign Language; Humphries & Padden Grossmont College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Golden West College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Imperial Valley College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Irvine Valley College Learning American Sign Language; Humphries & Padden Los Angeles City College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith East Los Angeles College A Basic Course in ASL; Humphries, Padden & O’Rourke Los Angeles Southwest College Learning American Sign Language; Humphries & Padden Los Medanos College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Merced College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith San Diego Mesa College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith

63

Monterey Peninsula College Learning American Sign Language; Humphries & Padden Mount San Antonio College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Ohlone College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Oxnard College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Pasadena City College ASL: The Green Book Series; Baker-Shenk & Cokely Riverside City College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith College of the Redwoods Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Reedley College Learning American Sign Language; Humphries & Padden Sacramento City College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Saddleback College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Santiago Canyon College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Santa Barbara City College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith San Bernardino Valley College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith College of the Sequoias Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith San Diego City College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith San Jose Community College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith San Joaquin Delta College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Skyline Community College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Southwestern College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Santa Monica College Learning American Sign Language; Humprhies & Padden Santa Rosa Junior College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Lake Tahoe Community College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith Ventura College Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith West Hills College Lemoore Signing Naturally; Lentz, Mikos & Smith

64

Proposed ASL Redesign Attachment “B”

Current ASL Program FTES funding – 3 Unit Classes

FTES funding calculation: students x weekly contact x 17.5 week semester / 525 x $4,564 (funding formula provided

by Chris Green, Fiscal Services Director) Beginning 215 A – 3 Unit Classes (Fall) Beginning 215 A – 3 Unit Classes (Spr) 8 Classes offered (100% fill) 8 Classes offered (100% fill) 8 X 25 students = $ 91,280 8 X 25 students = $ 91,280 2nd Semester 215 B – 3 Unit Classes (Fall) 2nd Semester 215 B – 3 Unit Classes (Spr) 3 Classes offered (80% fill) 4 Classes offered (80% fill) 3 X 20 students = $ 27,384 4 X 20 students = $ 36,512 3rd Semester 215 C – 3 Unit Class (Fall) 1 Class offered (70% fill) 0 classes offered 1 X 17 students = $ 7,758 Total FTES Funding: $ 126,422 Total FTES Funding: $ 127,792

Annual FTES Funding: $254,214

Proposed Redesigned ASL FTES Funding – 5 Unit Classes 1st Semester ASL 201 – 5 Unit Classes (Fall) 1st Semester ASL 201 – 5 Unit Classes (Spr) 6 Classes offered (100% fill) 5 Classes offered (100% fill) 6 X 25 students = $ 114,100 5 X 25 students = $ 95,083 2nd Semester ASL 202 – 5 Unit Classes (Fall) 2nd Semester ASL 202 - 5 Unit Classes(Spr) 1 class offered 2 classes offered (100% fill expected due to reduced sections) (100% fill expected) 1 X 25 students =$ 19,016 2 X 25 = $ 38,033 Total FTES Funding: $ 133,116 Total FTES Funding: $ 133,116

Annual FTES Funding: $266,232 ($ 12,018 increase)

65

Proposed ASL Redesign Attachment “C”

Articulation Agreements

CSU and UC ASL Course Offerings and ASL/Deaf Studies Majors

CSU offering ASL Classes Major – BA degree Articulation Agreement

CSU-Bakersfield Deaf Studies No (215A, 215B, 215C)

CSU-Channel Islands Yes (215A, 215B)

CSU-Chico Communication Sciences and Disorders No (215A, 215B)

CSU-Dominguez Hill No (not aligned with any major)

CSU-East Bay No (not aligned with any major)

CSU-Fresno Communicative Disorders/Deaf Ed. Yes (215A, 215B, 215C)

Communicative Disorders/Interpreting

CSU-Los Angeles Communicative Disorders No (215A, 215B)

CSU-Long Beach No (not aligned with any major)

CSU-Monterey Bay No (not aligned with any major)

CSU-Northridge Deaf Studies No (215A, 215B, 215C)

Interpreter Education Program (IEP)

CSU-Sacramento ASL/Deaf Studies No (215A, 215B, 215C)

CSU-San Bernardino Linguistics Yes (215A, 215B- Elective Only)

CSU-Stanislaus No (not aligned with any major)

CSU-Humboldt No (not aligned with any major)

CSU-San Diego ASL/Deaf Studies No (215A, 215B, 215C)

CSU-San Jose No (not aligned with any major)

UC offering ASL classes Major – BA degree Articulation

UC-San Diego Deaf Studies (BA) No (215A, 215B, 215C)

Deaf Education (MA)

66

Proposed ASL Redesign Attachment “D”

California Community Colleges Offering 4/5 Unit ASL Courses

1 American River College 38 Orange Coast College 2 Antelope Valley College 39 Ohlone College 3 Bakersfield College 40 Palomar College 4 Berkeley City College 41 Porterville College 5 Cabrillo College 42 Riverside City College 6 College of the Canyons 43 College of the Redwoods 7 Cerro Coso Community College 44 Reedley College 8 Chaffey College 45 Rio Hondo College 9 Coastline Community College 46 Saddleback College 10 Copper Mountain College 47 Santa Barbara City 11 Crafton Hills College College 12 Cosumnes River College 48 San Bernardino Valley 13 Cuyamaca College College 14 De Anza College 49 Sacramento City College 15 College of the Desert 50 San Diego City College 16 Folsom Lake College 51 College of the Sequoias 17 Foothill College 52 Shasta College 18 Fresno City College 53 Sierra College 19 Glendale Community College 54 Santa Monica College 20 Grossmont College 55 Santa Rosa Junior College 21 Golden West College 56 Southwestern College 22 Imperial Valley College 57 Lake Tahoe Community 23 Irvine Valley College College 24 Los Angeles City College 58 Woodland Community 25 East Los Angeles College College 26 Pierce College 59 Yuba College 27 Los Angeles Southwest College 28 Lassen Community College 29 Los Angeles Trade-Technical College 30 West Los Angeles College 31 San Diego Mesa College 32 Monterey Peninsula College 33 Mt San Antonio College 34 Mt San Jacinto College 35 Moreno Valley College 36 Napa Valley College 37 Norco College

California Community Colleges Offering 3 Unit ASL Courses

(some require additional lab hours) 1 Allan Hancock College 2 El Camino College 3 Cerritos College 4 Cuesta College 5 Diablo Valley College 6 Evergreen Valley College 7 Hartnell College 8 Long Beach City College 9 College of San Mateo 10 Los Medanos College 11 Mendocino College 12 Merced College 13 Mira Costa College 14 Moorpark College 15 Oxnard College 16 Palo Verde College 17 Pasadena City College 18 Las Positas Community College 19 Santa Ana College 20 Santiago Canyon College 21 San Bernardino City College 22 City College of San Francisco 23 College of the Siskiyous 24 San Jose City College 25 San Joaquin Delta College 26 Skyline College 27 Solano Community College 28 Ventura College 29 West Valley College

67

(3/05/13)

Instructional CPPR for the FRENCH DISCIPLINE OF THE MODERN LANGUAGES PROGRAM Program: Modern Languages Discipline: French Planning Year: 2012 Last year CPPR Completed: 2007 Unit: Humanities Cluster: Humanities I GENERAL INFORMATION AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES

A. General Description about the discipline • Program Mission

Students in the Cuesta College French Discipline acquire the tools to be academically successful, develop critical thinking skills and learn to appreciate the contributions of all people in a diverse society.

• History of the program Significant changes or improvements since the last Program Review

• A change from early morning to early afternoon offerings • An increase from 4 to 5 units of study • A grant written by Susan Lloyd and implemented by Jesse Dabill with

significant support on the part of our Dean Pamela Ralston and our Department Chair Tony Rector-Cavagnaro, has dramatically improved the AV system in our classroom 6108A. Our students can hear the oral recordings and video clips because of the drop- down speakers and high quality sound system. The computer now functions well. The new screen improved visibility of film clips and power points and there is one central locale for all usages, creating smooth transitions between differing AV components.

• A grant written by Susan Lloyd and presented to the Foundation by Petra Clayton procured 28 large desks with wide tables, enabling students to sit and write comfortably. The desks can be accessed from both sides, which allows for students to stand and move around the classroom during communicative activities.

• An instructor-supervised hour per week in the Multicomputer Room 6103 where students work on timed writings, computer skills in French, research on French websites and in-depth grammar practice assisted by instructor and peers. Students learn to navigate the French Internet, use accent marks with a French keyboard and practice dictionary skills. Students love the additional time spent with instructor help and the collaborative learning. Students now have an email exchange with

68

students in France. We hope one day to use Skype as a part of the curriculum so students can work directly with native French speakers to improve their oral French communication skills.

• Countywide publicity with beautiful posters made by Cuesta College Publicity distributed to public and private High Schools, Chamber of Commerce, libraries, grocery stores, senior centers, travel agencies, cafes, gyms, and wineries, on the Central Coast from Cambria to San Luis Obispo and up to Paso Robles.

• Radio publicity organized by French Instructor Marshall Johnson • We tried the online version of the French Deux Mondes in Fall 2010 and

found it more expensive for the students because: 1. They couldn’t share a textbook or use one in the library. 2. They couldn’t resell their textbook. 3. They couldn’t buy a used textbook.

Also there were outside community students who had difficulty navigating online learning. The three French instructors collectively decided that to save students money and to meet the needs of our re-entry and enrichment students, we needed to return to using the paper copy of the book. There were also problems associated with the organization of the online Deux Mondes materials. We may, in the future, use the online “cahier” or workbook, keeping the textbook in its printed form so students can resell it.

List current faculty. The past year of budget reduction and Accreditation issues has caused many changes in the French Discipline. Sally Girard, has taught two French 201/110 per semester and Independent Studies and has overseen challenges to French 203. Marshall Johnson teaches one French 201/110 evening class in N. County. Susan Lloyd, lead instructor, teaching at Cuesta since 1986, has been teaching one French 202/120 and one Spanish 201. This Spring of 2013 we regretfully did not offer a class to 37 year French instructor Sally Girard. She had officially retired two years before but was ‘separated’ and still teaching two French 201/110 classes per semester. This master teacher was beloved by her students and will be acutely missed. We now offer only one French 202/120 per year. In Spring 2013 the course offerings were reduced to two classes on the SLO campus. Susan is teaching one French 201/110 and one French 202/120. We cut our summer daytime French 201/110 class. We are scheduled to offer a summer 2013 French 201/110 class in the evening to be taught by our N. County Instructor, Marshall Johnson.

• The Program Review was conducted during the Fall of 2012. Lead instructor Susan Lloyd, with considerable input and guidance from Petra Clayton, Modern languages Coordinator, collected data from Ryan Cartnall’s Institution Research Website, student assessments, and internet research. Sally Girard and Marshall

69

Johnson, part-time French instructors also contributed in the form of meetings and input from SLOA’s. Participants in the French Program Review were:

Susan Lloyd, Lead French Instructor Marshall Johnson, Part-time Instructor

Sally Girard, Part-time Instructor Sue Porter, Cuesta College French Tutor

Petra Clayton Curriculum Representative, Coordinator Modern Languages Program

Tony Rector-Cavagnaro, Languages Communication Department Chair

B. Discipline-specific Objectives: (previously known as “Program Objectives”)

Students will acquire French vocabulary and knowledge of French grammar and syntax to be able to communicate verbally and in written form. They will learn about life in French –speaking cultures and gain an appreciation of diverse societies.

C. Discipline-specific Outcomes

The French Discipline began its Student Learning Outcomes with student surveys in Fall of 2010. After all French classes were assessed, the results were tallied and discussed by the instructors in the Discipline. Goals were set and then reevaluated the following term. In Fall 2012, we used direct assessment, by means of oral exams. We discussed methods and advantages of student- to- student versus instructor -to -student orals. Students feel more at ease with student to student oral interviews but at the 201/110 level many students did not have the pronunciation skills required to be consistently comprehensible. Instructor input was needed even at the 202/120 level. Student Learning Outcomes

1. Interpersonal Oral Communication Students will demonstrate their ability to comprehend French questions and

statements, spoken at regular speed, and formulate oral questions and responses when engaging in conversations with native and non-native speakers in real time, providing information, expressing feelings and exchanging opinions on a variety of topics.

2. Interpersonal Communication (Reading/Writing) Students will demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of written

exchanges with native and non-native speakers using idiomatic French.

3. Interpretive Listening

70

Students will demonstrate their ability to comprehend and interpret recorded or live French spoken at regular speed by native and non-native speakers on a variety of topics.

4. Interpretive Reading Students will demonstrate their ability to comprehend and interpret authentic and

non-authentic texts written by native and non-native writers on a variety of topics.

5. Presentational Writing Students will demonstrate their ability to present information, concepts and ideas in

French to an audience of native and non-native readers of French on a variety of topics.

6. Cultural Competency Students will be able to describe and discuss the relationship of selected cultural

products or practices to the values and attitudes found in French-speaking cultures. II PROGRAM SUPPORT OF INSTITUTIONAL GOALS AND

INSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIVES The Modern Languages Program supports the district’s efforts in achieving: Institutional Goal 1: Institutional Objective 1.1: “Increase the percentage of transfer-directed students who are transfer prepared. “

• 13% (71) French students became transfer-directed in 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. French contributes to student-success by increasing their knowledge of vocabulary derived from Latin. French students are also made aware of grammar terms and sentence structure which helps them with their English skills. Student continuing on to a UC must take a foreign language, thus French contributes to students’ completion of area C for CSU, IGETC, and UC transfers.

Cuesta’s GE rubric makes two references to the GE course pattern’s intention to “prepare students to lead enriched lives in our multicultural society”. Cuesta’s French Program prepares students in these ways:

• Our French classes have welcomed speakers from the following French-speaking countries: France, Morocco, Tahiti, Haiti, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and Cambodia.

• Our French classes have included students from the following French-speaking countries: Madagascar, Haiti, Algeria, France, Belgium, Tahiti, Canada, Morocco, and Switzerland who share their experiences.

71

• Our French instructors have lived and taught in four French-speaking countries, and traveled to the following Francophone countries: Morocco, France, Switzerland, Canada, the Caribbean’s, Monaco and Tahiti.

• Our courses include extensive cultural references and experiences including sampling of authentic French cuisine, listening to French music, seeing Impressionist art, viewing slides from the living experience and travels of the instructors and such realia as travel brochures, French perfume, currency and clothing brought to class.

• Our French 202 students now participate in email exchanges with students in schools in France.

Cuesta’s rubric for Area C: Arts and Humanities states that students who acquire second language skills fulfill Area C because “language acquisition is a door to understanding the arts and humanities of other cultures”. Classroom discussion on contemporary topics such as the wearing of the veil by Muslim women in France, the educational system, American versus French eating habits, religion, differences in dress, etiquette, formal and informal addressing of others, and family relations are included in the classroom teaching. Institutional Learning Outcome #4b refers to “understanding of world traditions and the interrelationship between diverse groups and cultures”. ILO #5b states that students must “demonstrate knowledge and sensitivity to diverse groups and cultures through studying the world’s languages, societies and histories.”

• We touch on such topics as colonialism in N. Africa and Tahiti, the N. African population living in France, holidays in Christian and Moslem French-speaking countries, different ways of dressing and the concept behind these choices, and experiencing freedom and lack of it due to prejudice.

• Scheduling: In response to student demand, the French discipline has modified the schedule by offering block classes so students who work and have families can more easily schedule their time. In this economy, this also helps with transportation expenses. We have stopped offering French 201 in the early morning hours. We have moved it to early afternoon. Students appear more awake and better able to learn at the later times. We have changed N. County offerings to a later time to accommodate their larger population of “9-5” job-holders. We have scheduled an evening French 201 class for Summer on the SLO campus for this same reason. We have the range of mid morning, early afternoon and evening offerings.

Institutional Objective 1.2: “Increase the percentage of degree- or certificate- directed students who complete degrees or certificates. “

72

• French is an option for the Liberal Arts degree “Emphasis in Arts and Humanities” for students who are planning to transfer in Art, Art History, Communications, Drama, English, French, Spanish, German, Music and Philosophy. French is a choice for fulfilling the language requirement for transfer to the UC system. The A.A. in International Studies requiring two semesters of the same language is the only Cuesta degree program involving French.

• In 2008-09 there were two students enrolled in French who declared International Studies as their Major and four in 2011-2012.

Institutional Objective 2.2: “Increase the local High School capture rate”. • Cuesta instructors have spoken to French classes at San Luis High School in

Spring of 2010 and Spring of 2011, distributed posters and brochures to High Schools on the Central Coast in Cambria, Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo (also to Mission H.S. ) , Atascadero and Paso Robles. We welcome High School enrichment students into our French classes and encourage them in their studies. We advise them of our support system in the French discipline which includes Sue Porter, B.A. French, who is Cuesta’s French tutor and Togna McGill, native French speaker, who works with small groups of students in the conversation classes. We encourage them to further practice conversational skills by enrolling in our French 110 and French 120 classes. We encourage them to continue on to French 202 with a slide show presented towards the end of each semester in French 201/110.

73

III PROGRAM DATA ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM-SPECIFIC MEASUREMENTS

Enrollment

Looking at data from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website, we see the progression from Fall 2008 to Spring 2012 in FTES, student enrolment, success and retention. . The last year of the review was a year Cuesta was going through accreditation and suffering from many deep cuts. The numbers in the French Department reflect this turmoil. Languages are among the more difficult subjects a college student takes. The chancellor’s office’s target is17.5 FTES/FTEF. The French department averaged 12.4. Modern Languages must have smaller caps because of the communicative nature of the courses. We note that for a French 202/120 class to fill, healthy French 201/110 classes need to precede it. We had a very low French 202 in the Fall of 2012 because of the two consecutive semesters of low French 201 offerings. This has been corrected with

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Enrollm

nt #of Secti ons

Stud per sect

FTE S/FT EF

Enro llmnt

#of Secti ons

Stud per sect

FTE S/FT EF

Enro llmnt

#of Secti ons

Stud per sect

FTE S/FT EF

Enro llmnt

#of Secti ons

Stud per sect

FTE S/FT EF

FR 201/ 110

117 + 28

= 145

6 24 12.52 140+ 30 =

170

7 24 12.62 124+ 22= 146

6 24 12.97 120+ 23= 143

7 20 10.56

FR 202/ 120

54 + 5 = 59

3 20 10.39 57 + 0 = 57

2 29 14.24 38 + 5 = 43

2 22 10.72 45 + 2 = 47

2 24 11.81

FR 203

FR 204

TOTAL 204 9 23 227 9 25 189 8 24 190 9 21

FR 247

5 5 14.31 13 13 10.77 10 22 10.77 8 8

TOTAL 209 23 11.90 240 27 13.27 199 25 12.97 198 22 11.36

74

our new schedule. Results from the schedule change and publicity drive were that French 201 had a 97% fill rate in the Fall of 2012 on SLO campus. We wish to point out that in the Spring of 2013, our French 202 class is over enrolled by 120% with 30 students. There was a waiting list of two. The French 201/110 class is over enrolled by 128% with 32 students. There was a waiting list of 7. We expect numbers to further increase as Cuesta receives its accredited status. Our hope is to be able to offer a second French 201/110 class in the future as has been done in the past decades. Even with the lower enrolment of 2011-2012, the students per section remained in the 20’s with a cap of 25. Other changes positively affecting enrolment have been:

• Countywide publicity with beautiful posters made by Cuesta College’s Jay Thompson.

• Radio broadcasting organized by French Instructor Marshall Johnson

Data Summary French: Success and Retention

Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

French 201 78.6% (117) 62.1% (140) 60.5% (124) 62.5% (120) French 110 46.4% (28) 46.7% (30) 31.8% (22) 60.9% (23) French 202 75.9% (54) 73.7% (57) 76.3% (38) 77.8% (45) French 120 60.0% (5) 0 80.0% (5) 100.0% (2) French 247 75.0% (5) 84.6%(13) 100.0%(10) 87.5% (8) Annual Success 73.1% (209) 64.2% (240) 62.8% (199) 67.2% (198) Annual Retention 85.1% 80.3% 78.9% 82.7%

Our success averaged 67% in 2011-12. Statewide success for the same year was 66.1%, thus we did a bit better than the state. The French Discipline has excellent retention. We feel this is due to the individual attention our students receive and the support system in place for all French students here at Cuesta. Togna McGill, former Language Lab Assistant, volunteers her time to work with students. Sue Porter, B.A. French, is our Cuesta French tutor who also volunteers extra time to work with all ranges of levels. One of the stated reasons for students to drop a class is lack of contact with the instructors. All instructors and tutors have regular contact with the students who respond with an increased effort which allows them to continue on in each semester. We are dedicated to the success and retention of our students and continuously to our best to assure that all students regardless of individual challenges and capabilities continue actively participating in their goals of learning French.

75

IV CURRICULUM REVIEW Courses and Programs Current Review Date Spring 2013

Reviewer Susan Lloyd 1. Courses • List all courses, which were active in your program at the time of the last CPPR. • Review the current CurricUNET Course Outline of Record (COR) for each course

and indicate yes/no for each column below. • For each new, modified, and deactivated course provide the effective term posted

on CurricUNET.


Deactivated Course Impacted Program (s) Date affected program was notified FR 204 International Studies Spring 2012

Modified Courses Impacted Program (s) Date affected program was notified

FR 201 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 FR 202 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 FR 203 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012


Currently active

New course since last

CPPR

Major modification

since last CPPR

Minor modification

since last CPPR

Deactivated since last CPPR

Notified impacted

program(s)* FR 201 yes no


yes: Spring 2013 (Textbook update)

no

FR 110 yes no Yes: (effective Fall 2012) change from 4 to 5 lectures units


no



no



no



no

76

2. Course Review • Indicate on the Five-Year Cycle Calendar below when a minor or major

modification will be submitted.

Course Number French 201 French 110 French 202 French 120 1. Effective term listed on COR Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 2. Catalog / schedule description is

appropriate yes 1 yes yes yes


yes yes yes yes

4. “Approved as Distance NA Education” is accurate

yes yes yes yes

5. Grading Method is accurate yes yes yes yes 6. Repeatability is zero yes yes yes yes 7. Class Size is accurate yes yes yes yes 8. Objectives are aligned with

methods of evaluation yes yes yes yes


yes yes yes yes


yes yes yes yes

11. Methods of evaluation are appropriate

yes yes yes yes

12. Texts, readings, materials are dated within last 5 years

yes yes yes yes


yes yes yes yes


yes yes yes yes


yes yes yes yes

1 If no, a major modification is needed within the next 5 years (see five-year cycle calendar). 2 If no, a major modification is needed in the current term. (For increase in class size, see your curriculum representative for details.) 3 If no, a minor modification is needed in the current term. 4 If no, contact the Curriculum Chair or Curriculum Specialist. *Note: Item #15 is not displayed in CurricUNET and must be reviewed separately.

77

Course Number French 203 1. Effective term listed on COR Date: Fall 2012 2. Catalog / schedule description is

appropriate yes 1


yes

4. “Approved as Distance NA Education” is accurate

yes

5. Grading Method is accurate yes 6. Repeatability is zero yes 7. Class Size is accurate yes 8. Objectives are aligned with

methods of evaluation yes


yes


yes


yes


yes


yes


yes


yes

1 If no, a major modification is needed within the next 5 years (see five-year cycle calendar). 2 If no, a major modification is needed in the current term. (For increase in class size, see your curriculum representative for details.) 3 If no, a minor modification is needed in the current term. 4 If no, contact the Curriculum Chair or Curriculum Specialist. *Note: Item #15 is not displayed in CurricUNET and must be reviewed separately.

3. Programs • List all programs/certificates that were active at the time of the last CPPR. • Review the CurricUNET “Program of Study” outline and indicate yes/no for

each program/certificate. • For each deactivated program provide the effective term posted on

CurricUNET.

Program / Certificate

Title

Currently active


CPPR


last CPPR


CPPR

Neither the French discipline nor the

Modern Languages Program offers a degree

N/A N/A N/A N/A

78


• During the following five-year cycle all aspects of the course outline of record and program curriculum will be reviewed for currency, quality, and appropriate CurricUNET format.

• Indicate if a course needs a major or minor modification based on the current course review. Your curriculum representative will assist you.

• When submitting a major or minor modification, please enter or update the Student Learning Outcomes for each course.

All French courses have been updated and are currently annotated with an effective date of “Fall 2012.” All courses reflect current course content, text books and conform to CurricUNET formatting standards. Therefore a five year cycle calendar is not needed at this time. All French courses will be reviewed again in five years at the time of the next Comprehensive Program and Planning Review. Additional Curriculum Information The French Discipline meets the needs of a broad spectrum of student interests and needs from beginners to intermediate levels by offering transferable and non-transferable courses at level 1 and 2 and credit by exam at level 3. French 110 and 120 are designed for the students who wish to further their conversational skills, who wish to review vocabulary after completing French 201 and 202 and who wish to practice their language skills before traveling or studying abroad. These French Conversation and Reading classes allow Cuesta students to continue their French studies over four semesters. The lighter homework load in 110 and 120 encourages participation of students who do not need transferable credits and who wish a less work-intensive class. It allows students who are transferring to improve their GPA’s. Students enrolled in French 110 and French 120 include: travelers, professional singers, employees at local wineries and restaurants, francophiles and students who have already taken French 201 and/or French 202 and wish to perfect their communication skills. French 203 is designed for the native or near-native student who is self-motivated. It allows for the continuation of French 202 level using the same text and work books.

79

FRENCH: LEVEL 1 and 2 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

FR 201/202 FR 110/120

171 (84%) 33 (16%)

197 (87%) 30 (13%)

162 (86%) 27 (14%

165 (87%) 25 (13%)

Total Enrollment

204 227 189 190

FRENCH LEVEL 1 FR 201 117 (81%) 140 (82%) 124 (85%) 120 (84%) FR 110 28 (19%) 30 (18%) 22 (15%) 23 (16%) Total Enrollment

145 170 146 143

FRENCH LEVEL 2 FR 202 54 (92%) 57 (100%) 38 (88%) 45 (96%) FR 120 5 (8%) 0 5 (12%) 2 (4%) Total Enrollment

59 57 43 47

Over the past four years the vast majority of the students were enrolled in the transferable courses French 201 and 202, between 84% and 87%, depending on the year. At level 2 more students opted for the transferable mode than at level 1, 88% compared to 100% at level 2 compared with 81% to 85% at level 1. Students at level 2 often are clearer on their direction in careers and goals. They are more involved in the learning of French. They are students who have been successful in maintaining the discipline necessary to learn a new language. Only 13% to 16% overall chose the non-transferable mode, a percentage much lower than in English where over 20% of all students are enrolled in non-transferable courses and Math where over 40% of the total enrollment is in non-transferable courses. French 203 level has been covered via Independent Studies with Sally Girard. Students could thus continue over two semesters to attain the level of knowledge of French 203. The number of interested students in the past has been insufficient to fill this level of class. Some of these students came from our French 202 classes and wished to continue their studies in French, especially considering that the same text and workbook is used for all three levels Beginning Spring 2013, French 203 will be available via “Credit by Exam”. This modality is designed for students who are either native or near-native speakers or independent learners. Students are required to prepare on their own for a comprehensive

80

exam, in which all Student Learning Outcomes are assessed. The assessment includes an oral interview. In addition to native or near-native speakers, only students who can pursue self-directed, independent preparation are permitted to challenge Level 3. This will assure their success. V. Discipline Student Learning Outcomes for French (formerly known as French

Program Outcomes ) 1. Demonstrate aural-oral proficiency in the course of initiating, sustaining and

bringing to closure face-to-face conversations with native and non-native speakers, using idiomatic French in the present, future simple, past, conditional, and subjunctive tenses. (Interpersonal Communication-Listening/Speaking).

2. Demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of initiating, sustaining

and bringing to closure written exchanges with native and non-native speakers, using idiomatic French in the present, future simple, past, conditional and subjunctive tenses, while demonstrating an expanded vocabulary through dictionary use. (Interpersonal Communication-Reading/Writing).

3. Demonstrate aural proficiency when interpreting audio/video recorded and live

idiomatic French spoken by native and non-native speakers in the present, future simple, past, conditional and subjunctive tenses (Interpretive Listening).

4. Demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting authentic and non-authentic

texts written by native and non-native writers in idiomatic French in the present, simple future, past, conditional and subjunctive tenses, while demonstrating an expanded vocabulary through dictionary use. (Interpretive Reading)

5. Demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising written

information, concepts and ideas using idiomatic French in the present, future simple, past, conditional and subjunctive while demonstrating an expanded vocabulary through dictionary use and while working in a timed setting. (Presentational Writing)

6. Describe and discuss in French the relationship of selected products and practices

to the values and attitudes found in French-speaking cultures while demonstrating sensitivity towards cultural implications of language use. (Culture)

The French Discipline has a history of direct and indirect assessment. Indirect

assessment was begun in Fall of 2011. Students were surveyed as to their

81

perceived level of skill acquisition at the end of the semester. The survey is included below. Results were calculated. A discussion among our three French instructors was held. Modifications were decided on and the following semester, we administered the same survey and compared the results. The outcome “Cultural Competency” was surveyed. We decided to explain the term and to emphasize when cultural events were taking place in the classroom. We noted an increased awareness and appreciation of the cultural component in our French classes. We made the plan to directly assess by including a cultural component on every exam the results of which would be tabulated, compared among levels and discussed.

Beginning Fall 2012 the French discipline will contribute direct assessment results to the assessment of the Modern Language Program. A new assessment plan and a joint assessment have been developed. (see Section V of the Modern Languages segment of this document).

STUDENT SURVEY FOR FRENCH PROGRAM

Used Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 1. Interpersonal Oral Communication

I am able to comprehend French questions and statements, spoken at normal speed, and formulate oral questions and responses when engaging in conversations with native and non-native speakers in real time, providing information, expressing feelings and exchanging opinions on a variety of topics.

Very well Fairly well Somewhat 2. Interpretive Listening

I am able to comprehend and interpret recorded or live French spoken at normal speed by native and non-native speakers on a variety of topics.

Very well Fairly well Somewhat 3. Interpretive Reading

I am able to comprehend and interpret authentic and non-authentic texts written by native or non-native writers on a variety of topics.

Very well Fairly well Somewhat 4. Presentational Writing

I am able to present information, concepts and ideas in French to an audience of native and non-native readers of French on a variety of topics. Very well Fairly well Somewhat

5. Cultural Competency

I am able to describe, discuss, compare and contrast various physical and sociological manifestations of French-speaking cultures and relate it to their own cultural perspective. Very well Fairly well Somewhat

82

VI Student Learning Outcomes and Assessments

Course or Program Assessment Summary Division: LANGUAGES AND COMMUNICATION Discipline : FRENCH

Date: Feb 13, 2013 Course in discipline - FR 201: French I

Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Susan Lloyd, Sally Girard, Marshall Johnson, Petra Clayton



Student will be able to 1. demonstrate aural-oral proficiency when engaging in conversations with native and non-

native speakers using idiomatic French in the present tense (Interpersonal Communication - Listening/Speaking).

2. demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of written exchanges with native and non-native speakers using idiomatic French in the present tense (Interpersonal Communication - Reading/Writing).

3. demonstrate aural proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic French spoken by native and non-native speakers in the present tense (Interpretive Listening ).

4. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting authentic and non-authentic texts written by native and non-native writers in idiomatic French in the present tense (Interpretive Reading ).

5. demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising written information, concepts and ideas for an audience of native and non-native readers using idiomatic French in the present tense, while also demonstrating dictionary and word processing skills (Presentational Communication - Writing).

6. describe and discuss the relationship of selected products and practices to the values and attitudes found in French-speaking cultures and demonstrate awareness of the links between language and culture (Culture).


• PLO #1 was chosen for direct assessment for fall 2012 for the interdisciplinary Modern Languages assessment; corresponds to French 201 Course Outcome #1.

• All faculty in all four disciplines of the Modern Languages Program, including French (3 sections) administered an oral interview/exit interview.

• French faculty used a rubric with three assessment criteria in determining the number of students who performed successfully: 1. Comprehension 2. Grammar 3. Pronunciation

• French employs student-to-student and instructor to student interaction. • Interview partners are suggested. Instructor selects students who have a lower level

of understanding and those who have a higher level of understanding and composes two lists. Each student chooses a partner from the opposite list. Each student asks and answers approximately 10 questions.

83

• The order is chosen by students randomly selecting instructor -provided questions by chapter.

• The student to student orals are conducted in the familiar address. The instructor to students orals use the formal address. The type of address is determined by the Instructor. The verbal exchange is scripted.


• The class size for the three level 1 sections was 59 students, of whom 51 students participated in the assessment event.

• Performance was scored as A, B, C, D.


Overall 96% of all students who participated in the direct assessment of PLO #1 succeeded. 14% of all students who were registered (59) did not participate in the assessment event. Since no-shows did not earn a performance score, they were not included in the calculation of performance success/failure.

• 60% earned an A (31 students), 18% earned a B (9 students), 18% earned a C (9 students). And 4% earned a D (2 students).

• Comparing grade distribution for successful students with the three other languages, French awarded more A’s and fewer B’s.

5 Discussion of

Assessment Procedure and Results, and Effectiveness of Previous Improvement Plans

French faculty participated in the discussion of the pros and cons of the various assessment methodologies, such as

• type of interaction (instructor-to-student or student-to-student) • number of questions asked/answers given (from 10 to 15 per student) • type of address (formal and/or familiar) • type of verbal exchange (highly scripted, somewhat scripted or mostly

extemporaneous) Assessment procedure was instructor to student in Level 1 because many students did not have sufficient pronunciation skills to be effectively understood by their classmates. This effected comprehension and the instructor often had to participate.


Students need to practice regularly in class, with varying partners. Both the tu and vous form should be practiced as the Instructors use the polite form with students and students use the familiar form with classmates. Also this prepares students for real life communication. Orals are often stressful for students, thus the student-to-student orals are preferred with minimal instructor intervention. In upcoming meetings French faculty will participate in examining various scoring rubric models in an effort to create a common rubric by which to define student

84

performance for a score of A, B, C, D, F. French faculty will continue their methodology for oral finals/exit interviews. French had been administering their oral during the12th week and will move their oral exam closer to the end of the semester, or the 14th week. . All Modern Languages faculty will report their assessment results again at the end of spring 2013 for a comparison with the fall 2012 data. Effective fall 2013, in an effort to assess all PLOs in the next five years, French faculty will participate in assessing either PLO #2 or PLO#5 (see Assessment Calendar). Results from direct assessment will again be collected across all four languages and will be used for analysis and collegial discussions regarding teaching and testing methods and their effectiveness. For a discussion of the success rate in the French discipline please see section III of the CPPR Addendum for French.


French faculty participated in the meetings of Modern Languages faculty in January and February 2013 , when the assessment results were discussed. Minutes of each of the two meetings reflect participation. Lead instructor Susan Lloyd met with Sally Girard and Marshall Johnson to discuss assessment results, compare rubrics and delivery and decide on methods of improvements. All three instructors were in agreement to continue orals at the end of the semester with Level 1 retaining the option of Instructor-led questioning in the case of non-prepared student partners questioning, with both levels.

85

Division: LANGUAGES AND COMMUNICATION Discipline : FRENCH

Date: Feb 13, 2013 v. 3 2012 Course in discipline - FR 202;French II

Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Susan Lloyd, Marshall Johnson, Sally Girard, Petra Clayton



Student will be able to 1. demonstrate aural-oral proficiency in the course of initiating and bringing to

closure face-to-face conversations with native and non-native speakers using idiomatic French in the present, simple future and past tenses (Interpersonal Communication-Listening/Speaking

2. demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of initiating, sustaining and bringing to closure written exchanges with native and non-native speakers, using idiomatic French in the present, simple future and past tenses, while also developing dictionary and word processing skills using a French keyboard (Interpersonal Communication-Reading/Writing).

3. demonstrate aural proficiency when interpreting audio/video recorded and live

idiomatic French spoken by native and non-native speakers in the present, simple future and past tenses (Interpretive Listening).

4. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting authentic and non-authentic texts written in idiomatic French in the present, simple future and past tenses by native and non-native writers while also demonstrating dictionary skills (Interpretive Reading).

5. demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising written information, concepts and ideas for an audience of native and non-native readers using idiomatic French in the present tense, while also demonstrating dictionary and word processing skills (Presentational Communication-Writing)

6. describe and discuss the relationship of selected products and practices to the values and attitudes found in French-speaking cultures and demonstrate awareness of the links between language and culture (Culture).


• PLO #1 was chosen for direct assessment for fall 2012 for the interdisciplinary Modern Languages assessment which corresponds to FR 202 Course Outcome #1.

• All faculty in all four disciplines of the Modern Languages Program, including French (1 section) administered an oral interview/exit interview.

• French faculty used a rubric with four assessment criteria in determining the number of students who performed successfully: 1. Comprehension 2. Grammar 3. Pronunciation

• French employs student-to-student interaction and Instructor to student interaction. • Interview partners are suggested in this way: Instructor makes a list with two

86

columns. On one side are students with the higher level of oral skill and the other column has students at the lower level of skill. Students may select a partner from the opposite list. Each student asks and answers 15 questions.

• . The order is random.

• French familiar address with student to student interaction and formal to formal address in instructor-student interaction. The type of address is determined by the Instructor.

• The student-to-student orals are conducted in the familiar address. The instructor- to- student orals use the formal address. The type of address is determined by the instructor. The verbal exchange is scripted.

3 Assessment


• The class size for the two sections was 11 students, of whom 10 students participated in the assessment event.

• Performance was scored as A, B, C, D.


Overall 100% of all students who participated in the direct assessment of PLO #1 succeeded. 9% of all students who were registered (11) did not participate in the assessment event. Since no-shows did not earn a performance score, they were not included in the calculation of performance success/failure.

• 70% earned an A (7 students), 10% earned a B (1 student), 20% earned a C (2 students). And 0% earned a D.

• Comparing grade distribution for successful students with the three other languages, French 202 awarded more A’s and fewer B’s.

5 Discussion of


French faculty participated in the discussion of the pros and cons of the various assessment methodologies, such as


extemporaneous)

Assessment was student-to-student on level 2. It was found that students were more comfortable with student-to-student on both levels. Level 2 students had sufficient pronunciation skills to be effectively understood by their classmates. The results of the assessment showed that level 2 students prepared more consistently for the orals.

87


In upcoming meetings French faculty will participate in examining various scoring rubric models in an effort to create a common rubric by which to define student performance for a score of A, B, C, D, F. French faculty will continue their methodology for oral finals/exit interviews. French had been administering their oral during the12th week and will move their oral exam closer to the end of the semester, or the 14th week. . All Modern Languages faculty will report their assessment results again at the end of spring 2013 for a comparison with the fall 2012 data. Effective fall 2013, in an effort to assess all PLOs in the next five years, French faculty will participate in assessing either PLO #2 or PLO#5 (see Assessment Calendar). Results from direct assessment will again be collected across all four languages and will be used for analysis and collegial discussions regarding teaching and testing methods and their effectiveness. For a discussion of the success rate in the French discipline please see section III of the CPPR Addendum for French. Just like on level 1, level 2 students need to regularly practice in class with different partners. Both tu and vous forms should be practiced as the instructors use the polite form with students and students use the familiar form with classmates. Also this prepares students for real life communication. Orals are often stressful for students. thus the student-to-student orals are preferred with minimal instructor intervention.


French faculty participated in the meetings of Modern Languages faculty in January and February 2013, when the assessment results were discussed. Minutes of each of the two meetings reflect the participation. Lead instructor Susan Lloyd also met with Sally Girard and Marshall Johnson to discuss assessment results, compare rubrics and delivery and decide on methods of improvements. All three instructors were in agreement to continue orals at the end of the semester with Level 2 instructors continuing student-to-student questioning and both levels using increased in-class practicing.



88

Division: LANGUAGES AND COMMUNICATION Discipline : FRENCH

Date: February 24, 2013 v. 3 2012 Course in discipline - FR 203: French III

Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Susan Lloyd, Sally Girard, Marshall Johnson, Petra Clayton



Student will be able to 1. Demonstrate aural-oral proficiency in the course of initiating, sustaining and

bringing to closure face-to-face conversations with native and non-native speakers, using idiomatic French in the present, future simple, past, conditional, and subjunctive tenses. (Interpersonal Communication-Listening/Speaking).

2. Demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of initiating,

3. sustaining and bringing to closure written exchanges with native and non-native speakers, using idiomatic French in the present, future simple, past, conditional and subjunctive tenses, while demonstrating an expanded vocabulary through dictionary use. (Interpersonal Communication-Reading/Writing)

. 4. Demonstrate aural proficiency when interpreting audio/video recorded and live

idiomatic French spoken by native and non-native speakers in the present, future simple, past, conditional and subjunctive tenses (Interpretive Listening).

5. Demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting authentic and non-authentic

texts written by native and non-native writers in idiomatic French in the present, simple future, past, conditional and subjunctive tenses, while demonstrating an expanded vocabulary through dictionary use. (Interpretive Reading)

6. Demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising written

information, concepts and ideas using idiomatic French in the present, future simple, past, conditional and subjunctive while demonstrating an expanded vocabulary through dictionary use and while working in a timed setting. (Presentational Writing)

7. Describe and discuss in French the relationship of selected products and

practices to the values and attitudes found in French-speaking cultures while demonstrating sensitivity towards cultural implications of language use. (Culture)

89


15 questions were used as well as the rubric of comprehension 50%, grammar 25% and pronunciation 25%. The oral interview was conducted instructor-to-student. • Course Outcomes 1,3,4,5 and 6 were assessed using

• Oral interview (SLO#1) • Written exams (chapter and final exams) (SLO#3,4,5,6)


• The class size: 3 students participated in the assessment event. Performance was scored as A, B, C, D. The only option for students wishing to study level 3 of French at the time was to enroll in 2 units of Independent Studies. They enrolled in two consecutive semesters, reached the proficiency level of French 203. The three students completed the assessments in Spring of 2012.


Overall 100% of all students who participated in the direct assessment succeeded. 100% earned an A (3 students)


French faculty participated in the discussion of the pros and cons of the various assessment methodologies of the oral interview, such as:

• type of interaction (instructor-to-student or student-to-student) • number of questions asked/answers given (from 10-15 per student) • type of address (formal and/or familiar) • type of verbal exchange (highly scripted, somewhat scripted or mostly

extemporaneous)


In upcoming meetings French faculty will participate in examining various scoring rubric models in an effort to create a common rubric by which to define student performance for a score of A, B, C, D, F in the oral interview of French 203. French faculty will continue their methodology for oral finals/exit interviews. French had been administering their oral during the12th week and will move their oral exam closer to the end of the semester, or the 14th week. For a discussion of the success rate in the French discipline please see section III of the CPPR Addendum for French. Beginning Spring 2013 French 203 will be available via “Credit by Exam”. A comprehensive test will be administered and all course Student Learning Outcomes will be assessed, including an oral interview.

7 Description or evidence of dialog among course or

Sally Girard and Susan Lloyd met and discussed results of the oral assessment. Students at the French 203 level showed high competency resulting in the grade of A. Students at this level are very motivated and well-prepared for the assessment of all Student Learning Outcomes.

90

program-level faculty about assessment plan and results

The German discipline uses “Credit by Exam” at level 3 and faculty discussion has taken place regarding the effectiveness of the course modality, including assessment instruments, administration, analysis and implementation of improvements. Such dialog will continue.



91

VII END NOTES Considerable time and effort was put into researching and preparing the following document submitted for the defense of the French Program Fall 2012 when all French courses were targeted for elimination. Its important contents significantly add to the French Discipline Review.

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FORM – QUALITATIVE DATA

PROGRAM REVITALIZATION, SUSPENSION AND/OR DISCONTINUANCE

Modified Qualitative Indicators I The impact the action will have on the general education curriculum or the curriculum

of other programs. • At least one third of our students of French have as a goal to obtain their AA and transfer to a 4 year institution. • French is needed for G.E. requirements in Area C, Artistic and Cultural Knowledge. Those students already in the

French Program need to finish their second semesters of French to complete their IGETC requirements. • French is needed for International Studies Degrees. • Knowledge of French is important in many other degrees, such as Law, Administration, Political, Science,

Fashion Design, Culinary Arts, Journalism, Music, Psychology, Architecture, and Viticulture Practices. (Institutional Learning Outcome # 1).

• Researchers in science, technology, medicine and business on the cutting edge have an advantage in reading studies in the original language. French-speaking countries are at the forefront of technological innovations, scientific research and discoveries, such as nanotechnology, nuclear energy, aerospace technology, high-speed rail services, fiber optics, microchips, video gaming, commercial satellites, HIV virus research, medical genetics and reconstructive surgery. Most American institutions require a reading knowledge of French or German for scholars to conduct research. (Outcome #3).

• Students need French for training and vocational aspirations. Our students have learned French and German to participate in WWOLF, an overseas organic farming organization.

• The impact of the French-speaking world on the arts (music, painting, sculpture, film, theater, dance, cuisine,

photography, fashion and architecture) is noteworthy.

• (Outcome #2) Knowledge of French, with its embedded Cartesian logic, enhances developmental skills in creative and critical thinking, problem solving, grammar and

memory improvement. • Outcome #5) Students study French artists and writers. France has won more Nobel Prizes for literature than any

other country. • The English language has a vocabulary that finds its richest source of at least 60% in French. This helps students

improve their scores in comprehension of texts, including vocabulary, on standardized tests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_French_origin.

• French remains the second most influential language in the world. (Language Today) It is the only language spoken as a native language on every continent. Knowing French allows communication in a non-English-speaking country. (Outcome #4)

• French is the second most taught language after Spanish in the U.S. It is the only language along with English taught as a foreign language in every country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_French_origin

92

II The potential impact on diversity at Cuesta College.

• Cuesta College French classes often have students from French-speaking countries, especially athletes. We have had students from Belgium, Tahiti, Haiti, Canada, France, Algeria, Morocco, and Switzerland, all countries studied in French class.

• We have young High School students and those from the senior citizen population. • Up to 25% are Hispanic students who find French an easy transition from their native Spanish. The growing

Hispanic population needs French or non-Latin German as a choice besides their native language. • 27.15% are academically disadvantaged. • Knowledge of French will help those working toward global peace and those in humanitarian efforts. Charles

Kolb, president of the committee for Economic Development, states that the deficit of foreign language learning constitutes a risk for national security and the efficacy of diplomacy. French is an official or working language in: United Nations, NATO, European Union, Doctors Without Borders, International Olympic Committee, Universal Postal Union, Amnesty International, UNESCO, and International Red Cross.

• It is a language spoken in many continents and cultures, enabling students to understand foreign cultural practices, values, norms and institutions. In our classes, students study life in Moslem countries, in overseas former slave colonies, in Canada, as well as in France. Our classes prepare students to live abroad, to experience firsthand diversity. Creating greater awareness of diversity should be by expanding not reducing foreign language offerings.

III Effects on local business and industries- • French is currently used in restaurants, at vineyards, in cinema, with couture, airlines, import-export

businesses, in translation services and the armed services. • French is the second most useful language in global diplomatic and business affairs. French is important in

creating a world-class educational system, finding jobs, building connections to people around the world for humanitarian purposes and solving world problems as it is spoken by over 200 million people on five continents as a first or second language. It is second only to the English-speaking bloc. The European Union, the second largest trading bloc in the world, has French as an official language. (French Embassy)

• Electronic communication is increasingly important; French is among the top five languages used on the internet. Our students learn to navigate the French Internet, writing in French with accent marks, using online dictionaries. Part of our curriculum is email exchange with students in France. French provides opportunities for networking globally. (Outcome #6)

• French speakers are in demand in banking, finance, international market analysis, diplomacy,hotel

management, tourism, translation, interpretation, international trade, journalism, aviation, national security, education, health care, customer service and law enforcement. Quebec is our 8th largest trading partner. Canada requires labeling in French and English on all imported products. Other French-speaking countries have French-labeled products. . France is the second largest investor in the U.S. The U.S. is the leading investor in France.

• Sports and travel, cycling, tennis, horseracing, automobile racing are prominent in France. France is an official language at the Olympics.

• 30% of foreign books and 50 % of foreign films are in French. For travel, France is the most visited country in the world.

Efforts to develop international trade and increased awareness of other cultures to facilitate economic development mean that those with strong programs in place will benefit. languagemagazine.com

93

IV Other indicators in current IPPR via the APPW, CPPR:

• This year we are focusing on Oral Comprehension for our SLO. The grant money we received for our classroom’s new AV system has greatly improvement students’ ability to hear recordings. The grant we received for desks help in their learning environment also. Our efforts are positively affecting student success and retention.

• Our curriculum changes include work on the internet and computer skills, increasing our students’ technical abilities.

• Our county-wide publicity and schedule changes including moving to a block schedule, offering an early afternoon class at SLO and increasing to 5 units, resulted in our Fall 2012 Fr 201 classes filling to 96% capacity in SLO. Spring 2013 will have high rates in Fr 202 as its numbers historically are directly influenced by the preceding 2 semesters.

• Cost savings by eliminating the French Program would be minimal. Language programs are extremely cost effective but the benefits to students are incalculable. Our instructors have lived in France and N. Africa, have a translation service, and are highly experienced yet as part timers, inexpensive. At Cuesta, elimination would not result in significant savings as the tenured instructor teaches only one French class, and has an FSA in Spanish. The PT load can be reduced to 31.66% in a Program Revitalization.

French Program Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Annual Load FT 31.66 31.66 31.66 Load PT 94.99 94.99 94.99 French is an efficient program. French is among the languages requiring the least amount of instructional hours to reach a high level of speaking proficiency. (Defense Language Institute) The Program can be reduced to avoid low numbers. An offering in SLO in the evening would help the FTES. French Program Statistics 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Students 209 240 199 198 *Sections (9)(10?) (9) (8) (9) Fill-rate 92.8% 106.4% 100% 88% *FTES/FTEF 10.71(?) 13.27 12.97 11.36 Retention 85.1% 80.3% 78.9% 82.7% Success 73.1% 64.2% 62.8% 67.2% *FTES/FTEF show discrepancies. Presently, the French Program has 4 sections per semester. We are proposing to cut back to 3 sections per semester in a best case and to 2 sections per semester in a worst case scenario. French has a good fill rate and excellent retention with a higher than average success rate for Cuesta College. This helps other class enrollments as our students stay in French classes and continue as students at Cuesta.

94

V Explanation of program’s discontinuance on the district’s ability to fulfill institutional goals and objectives

Institutional Goal #1 Students’ completion of degrees

• Students need to continue their French studies to complete IGETC requirements, complete their A.A. degree in International Studies.

• The GE courses should prepare students “to lead enriched lives in our multicultural society”, (see references to culture and art), strengthen students’ intellectual skills, (see discussion of critical thinking and study of French), introduce students to core concepts of major disciplines; see discussion of French-derived words in English.

Institutional goal #2 Needs of local service area

• The local service area is one of an expanding wine industry. Our publicity has created a surge in interest from groups at local wineries wanting to take Cuesta classes for their local business and for their travels. The restaurant business is also expanding, with new French restaurants. We have many students who work with French-speaking tourists.

• We are reaching out to an older demographic to pull in members from the outside community. We have

several High School students continuing their language studies here. • We have students traveling to France for school, to become au pairs, to work on organic farms and at Euro

Disney.

• We have students of French speaking heritages who wish to learn their family’s native language. • This semester in French 201 we have a sociology professor who spends months in Paris, a serviceman in the

navy learning French to get a better station, singers learning French for pronunciation, a medieval historian, students planning on working in French-speaking Africa, students working in local businesses communicating with French tourists.

• Foreign Languages are not expensive programs yet make huge contributions in culture, diversity, job

preparation, technology and science. #4 Integrated planning The French Program is carefully considering class times and locations in its effort to increase enrolment. The FTES/FTEF is on par with the Spanish Program. #5 Partnerships with local educational institutions, civic organizations, businesses, and industries. We work with the High School, distributing publicity and teaching High School students who attend our classes. We contact local businesses, previously mentioned, to assess their needs for French courses and to let them know of our offerings. We have Cal Poly students attending our language classes.

95

ADDENDUM INSTRUCTIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM PLANNING AND REVIEW

(CPPR)

GERMAN DISCIPLINE OF THE

MODERN LANGUAGES PROGRAM


A. General Description The mission for the German discipline coincides with the program mission for the interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program. The German discipline is the smallest of Cuesta’s four language disciplines, offering two classes per semester in the classroom setting. German courses have been part of Cuesta’s language offerings for over 40 years. Historically the courses have been taught by only one part-time faculty. Petra Clayton, the current (part-time) instructor, hired in fall 1987 and tenured in 1992, is the second instructor in the history of the discipline. She is submitting this addendum to the Modern Languages Comprehensive Program and Planning Review with the intent to evaluate the discipline’s performance during the last five years and to present the inclusion of German as enriching the language diversity of the Modern Languages Program. Up to fall 2012 German has operated independently, as have the other three modern languages, in terms of review and planning tasks (APPWs, CPPRs, SLO Assessment reports) and curriculum design. Collegial collaboration took place regarding class scheduling and in the area of pedagogy, such as professional development and peer review.

In October 2012 French and German courses were targeted for elimination. The lead faculty of ASL and Spanish supported maintaining French and German. The faculty of the four languages decided to reorganize as a single “Modern Languages Program” and agreed to modify their offerings, resulting in a reduction of overall number of sections of the interdisciplinary program. By offering four languages students continue to have options for transfer in language- or international relations-oriented majors and in the pursuit of training for studying/working abroad. Offering a Germanic language in addition to two Romance

96

languages and ASL gives students, who already studied Spanish or French in high school, an opportunity to study a second spoken language. Over the last decade all local high schools have discontinued their German programs, which makes Cuesta the last affordable institution for students on the Central Coast to study German language and culture. Cal Poly also offers German courses, a comprehensive German minor and includes a German option as part of their Modern Languages degree. Changes/improvements:

A student grade dispute in fall 2011 triggered a revision of the grading system for all German courses, raising the percentage points of test performances. Effective spring 2012 the overall course grade is computed as follows:

GER 201/110 GER 202/120 Class participation 28% 30% Assignments outside of class 35% 30% Test performances 37% 40%

All three components of the grade involve monitoring and assessing student learning, however in different settings. While 65% to 70% of student performance is assessed in face-to-face sessions in the classroom, 30% - 35% of the assessed assignments are performed outside of class. These out-of-class assignments are considered an important assessment component, due to Title 5’s stipulation, that students perform two hours of independent work for each hour of class time, which results in ten hours per week, due to converting the TBA lab hour to a lecture hour. The amount of independent work is tracked and evaluated for both levels. The work includes written assignments, multimedia practice activities, interpersonal communication with native speakers and an occasional German film (reaction paper required). Some writing assignments (take-home assignments) become part of an in-class assessment, which heightens the sense of urgency to complete the assignments in a timely fashion. The demise of the TBA lab hour presented an opportunity to reevaluate the role of instructional technology. Although most students are deemed to have an affinity for electronic gadgets, successfully working with internet sources and interactive computer learning programs is not a given. Computer software offers instant feedback, an essential feature in the learning process. Integrating technology into content delivery and offering students hands-on experience with German internet tools are essential, not only to

97

students’ successful independent work outside of class, but also to develop the skill of acquiring and presenting information in a language other than English beyond the immediate academic setting and for the rest of their lives. Most of the instruction and student practice of “Interpersonal Communication,” one of the course and program SLOs, continues to take place in room 6108A, a regular classroom with one computer for the instructor. The use of technology in the classroom by the instructor may result in comprehensible input, but student production is best supported by regular hands-on application of technology by each and every individual student during scheduled contact hours. Therefore the multi-computer classroom 6103 is used to offer vital learning opportunities. Room 6103 is conveniently located adjacent to classroom 6108A and every student has access to a computer. The instruction delivered in 6103 is designed to support “Listening Comprehension,” “Reading Comprehension,” “Presentational Writing,” and “Interpersonal Writing,” all stated course outcomes. The instruction also familiarizes students with internet tools and interactive multimedia materials and encourages them to work with them independently outside of class. Access to 6103 has yielded the following positive results:

1. Students are engaged with the multimedia material and/or internet tools under the instructor’s guidance and supervision (There is no time to check emails or text under the desk, do homework for other classes, daydream, eat, drink, or nod off.)

2. Students are engaging with one another to figure things out. 3. Dictionary skills are developed under the instructor’s supervision. 4. Students are starting to use more multimedia material in their independent work

outside of class. With the advent of the 5th lecture hour came block scheduling for the morning section, as well. Effective fall 2012 both German classes are delivered in two 2 ½ contact hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays, thus avoiding Monday/Friday holidays and affording students the maximum number of sessions possible per semester, (16 weeks x 2 sessions = 32 sessions). Fall 2012 also brought the latest edition of the McGraw-Hill textbook, Kontakte (7th ed.), which was slightly updated and introduced new video content, which broadens the spectrum of “comprehensible input.” Multiple sources of authentic language are vital to the acquisition of functional communication skills.

98

So far the new SLO (“Interpersonal Written Communication”) has been met with various degrees of success. The rise in student engagement during the first phase of the transatlantic “key palship” was remarkable. Students commented that learning like that was fun. Teaching moments abounded. All efforts were buoyed by the students’ expectations to receive a response from a native speaker. However, not all students received a reply from a key pal. If they did, the email exchange flowed only haltingly, due to time constraints on both sides of the Atlantic. This is not to say, that the efforts were in vain and that this SLO is without merit. Further efforts will be made to facilitate the email exchange. Renewed commitment from the German instructors abroad will be solicited and, if needed, additional instructors and/or schools will be sought out. The need for language training in the context of international education has been addressed in the Modern Languages segment of this document. On a national scale, German has the third highest overall enrollment in the U.S. with half a million elementary, secondary and university students taking German classes. Spanish outranks all languages, with more that 7 million students, French is studied by over one million. At U.S. post-secondary institutions, German is the third most studied language, due to high enrollments at four-year institutions after Spanish and French. German enrollment tops Italian, Japanese, Chinese and ASL. At two-year institutions, however, German enrollment is ranked #6, after Spanish, ASL, French, Japanese, and Italian, but before Chinese. Statewide Offerings of German Courses and Degrees Post-secondary

Institutions Total number of Institutions

Institutions offering German Courses

Institutions offering

Degrees in German

Number of German

Degrees offered

CCCs 107 93* 12 12 CSUs 23 21 5 6 UCs 9 8 8 10

*including 20 small California Community College The majority of California’s post-secondary institutions offer German courses. All but one of the UC’s offer a degree in German. At the CSUs five out of 21 with German

99

courses offer a degree in German. Twelve out of the 93 California Community Colleges, who teach German, offer a degree. Why choose German?

“Appendix C (Modified Qualitative Indicators)” was submitted in fall 2012 in an effort to defend the continued existence of German courses. Reasons to maintain the study of German at Cuesta College include

• 50 million Americans report German ancestry, the nation’s largest group,

followed by Irish Americans, African Americans, and English Americans. • German is the most widely spoken native language in Europe followed by

English, Italian, and French. • French and German are tied for second place for second most widely spoken

second language by Europeans after English. • Germany has the largest economy in Europe, is the world’s second largest

exporter after China, and the world’s fourth largest economy by nominal GDP and fifth by purchasing power parity GDP after the U.S., China, Japan, and India.

• With the enlargement of the EU more citizens of the new member states speak German (German is the second most spoken language after Russian in Eastern Europe).

• German language study is increasing in Europe due to Germany’s strong role in European and global economy

• German is studied by 68% of Japanese students (Japan is the world’s second strongest economy)

• Germany is the world’s 6th most visited country, is a popular country for study abroad programs and has a rich job market

• Germans are avid travelers and the world’s biggest spenders in international tourism (per unwto.org).

B. Discipline-Specific Objectives for German (formerly known as “Program”

Objectives)

Discipline objectives in support of the discipline’s mission are identical to the program objectives listed in the Modern Languages segment of this document. These objectives can only be assessed, tracked, and monitored as long as students are in the immediate academic setting. Once students leave the classroom or Cuesta College, all we have is anecdotal evidence of student achievement. An analysis of the German discipline’s quantitative data (retention and success) is

100

provided in section IV of this addendum and evidence of the discipline’s learning outcome achievement at the course level is reported in section VI of this addendum. In addition to the cognitive domain the affective domain is assessed regularly in order to find out if a sense of accomplishment results in positive attitudes and motivation for life-long use and improvement of language and culture skills.

C. Discipline-Specific Outcomes for German (formerly known as “Program”

Outcomes)

Students will be able to 1. demonstrate aural-oral proficiency when engaging in conversations with native and

non-native speakers using idiomatic German (Interpersonal Communication - Listening/Speaking).

2. demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of written exchanges with native and non-native speakers using idiomatic German (Interpersonal Communication - Reading/Writing).

3. demonstrate aural proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic German spoken by native and non-native speakers (Interpretive Listening ).

4. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting authentic and non-authentic texts written by native and non-native writers in idiomatic German (Interpretive Reading ).

5. demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising written information, concepts and ideas for an audience of native and non-native readers using idiomatic German, while also demonstrating dictionary and word processing skills (Presentational Communication - Writing).

6. describe and discuss in English or German the relationship of selected products and practices to the values and attitudes found in German-speaking cultures and demonstrate awareness of the links between language and culture (Culture).

101


The German discipline supports the district’s efforts in achieving Institutional Goal 1: Institutional Objective 1.1 and 1.2. and Institutional Goal 2: Institutional Objective 2.2 Institutional Goal 1: Institutional Objective 1.1: “Increase the percentage of transfer-directed students who are transfer prepared (by 2% annually)” As noted in the Modern Languages segment of this document, Modern Languages faculty contribute to transfer-readiness by offering transferable language courses, which provide students with a solid foundation for continued language study at a four-year institution. The German program has a history of student-centered scheduling in response to student demand. Face-to-face classes at the San Luis Obispo campus are currently scheduled on Tuesdays and Thursdays. One session is held mid-morning, from 11 a.m. to 1:20 p.m. and the second session in the late afternoon, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:20 p.m. In the fall both sessions are dedicated to level 1 instruction. In the spring level 1 instruction is offered mid-morning, while the late afternoon session provides level 2 instruction. Both sessions are popular with students. The late afternoon session is designed with working adults and high school students in mind, who are unable to get time off for a morning class. The once-a-year level 2 course is scheduled in the late afternoon to attract working adults and high school students, who want to continue their German studies. It is more likely that students, who attended a mid-morning level 1 session, are able to come to a late afternoon session than working adults and high school students would be to enroll in a morning class. There has not been any community demand for German at any of the other two district campuses. Therefore it is advisable to continue offering German only at the centrally located San Luis Obispo campus. The total headcount potential should be not be fragmented, resulting in insufficient enrollments at all of the locations. Institutional Goal 1: Institutional Objective 1.2: “Increase the percentage of degree- or certificate-directed students who complete degrees or certificates (by 2% annually)”

German is a course option for two Cuesta transfer degrees: Liberal Arts (Emphasis in Arts and Humanities) and International Studies. German also is a language choice which

102

will fulfill the language requirement for transfer to the University of California system and selected majors at CSU campuses. As stated in the Modern Languages segment of this document, district-wide implementation of a degree audit is needed to increase institutional success in raising the number of degree completer. The current German instructor is eager to participate in systematic efforts to support degree aspirants and monitor their progress toward completion of a degree in either Liberal Arts (Emphasis in Arts and Humanities) or International Studies. Institutional Goal 2: Institutional Objective 2.2 As noted in the Modern Languages segment of this document, the current German instructor is available to actively participate in any outreach activities organized by the district, including accompanying Cuesta counselors at high school visits in an effort to promote Cuesta College and recruit prospective students. The current German instructor has a history of connecting with local secondary schools. As recent as spring 2012 the instructor contacted the high school counselors of all school districts in SLO County via e-mail to promote the German courses. A poster and a brochure was provided with information about the level, location, days, and times of Cuesta’s German courses, highlighting the late afternoon class (GER 201 and GER 202). Cuesta’s German courses consistently include students from local high schools and home schooling programs. Some students have prepared for and successfully participated in high school exchange programs. The German instructor maintains contact with both the German and the American coordinator of the exchange program between SLO High School and the Eberhard-Ludwig-Gymnasium in Stuttgart. The student exchange has survived inspite of the demise of the German program at SLO High School. The German instructor also regularly invites German high school exchange students to the classroom. Interesting in this context is to contemplate the fate of German at U.S. schools in general. The demise of German programs at the high schools in SLO County is not an isolated occurrence. On the national scale high school German enrollments have declined and German courses have been eliminated. A study financed by the federal Department of Education found, that the percentage of U.S. high schools teaching German has declined from 24% in 1997 to 14% in 2008. French high school enrollment also took a dive, from 64% to 46% over the same period. One reason cited for German was the aging of German teachers and the change in student demographics from largely white to a more diverse student population.

103

A study by Dr. Legutke and Daniel S. Hamilton, a Johns Hopkins professor, found that attracting non-white students is difficult, because of “the general impression that German is a difficult language” compared with other European languages and because of a negative image of Germany and the Germans, due to the country’s past. Margaret Hampton, an African-American professor of German at Earlham College in Indiana, believes that minority students will be more interested if Germany is portrayed as a multicultural society. She has led groups of educators to Berlin to interview Jews about their struggles to rebuild their communities after the Holocaust, Afro-Germans who trace their roots to Germany’s 19th-century African colonies, and Turkish-Germans whose parents came to Germany as laborers in the 1960s. In response to the declining number of German programs at U.S. public schools, the German Foreign Office commissioned a study, which resulted in 80 recommendations for the promotion of German. They include tactics used by the Chinese government, who vigorously promotes Chinese language learning at American public schools by subsidizing Chinese language teachers’ salaries. Young teachers, who have fanned out across the U.S. under China’s guest teacher program, have projected an attractive image of China. Consequently one of the recommendations involves having German students, who are seeking a teaching credential, do their student teaching in American classrooms to “represent young Germany” and “get Americans excited about German.” Other ideas proffered were to subsidize summer language course in Germany for minority high school students, incorporate language training into German-supported soccer camps, and organize internships at German companies for U.S. students. Taking the above ideas into consideration, the current and any future Cuesta German instructor could devise strategies to promote the study of German and increase enrollment, contingent on feasibility and funding.

104

III. PROGRAM DATA ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM SPECIFIC MEASUREMENTS

German

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Enroll-

ment # of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enroll-ment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES FTEF

GER 201/ 110

65 + 31= 96

3 32 12.52 60+ 31 = 91

3 30 16.11 66+ 16= 82

3 27 13.95 50+ 14= 64

3 21 11.27

GER 202/ 120

15 + 5 = 20

1 20 10.74 16+ 3 = 19

1 19 10.19 19+ 4 = 23

1 23 11.80 13+ 6 = 19

1 19 10.19

GER 203*

(2) (2) (3) (3) (3) (3) (1) (1)

GER 204*

(1) (1) (2) (2)

TOTAL

116 4 29 14.76 110 4 28 14.63 105 4 26 13.41 83 4 21 11.00

*Credit by exam (excluded in computation) Over the last four years the German discipline has served a total of 414 students in a regular classroom setting, an average of 103 students per year, not counting Credits by Exam. The offering has remained steady at four sections per year and with a cap of 25 enrollment the courses have averaged a 100% + fill rate over the last four years. However, enrollment dipped in 2011-12, which landed the German discipline on the list of programs considered for elimination in fall 2012. The decrease in German enrollment coincided with a decrease in district-wide enrollment, possibly due to Cuesta’s continued accreditation issues, which started in spring 2009. Additionally, the enrollment throughout the California Community College system has shown a downward trend in recent years (17% over the past four years), due to reduced funding from the state. Consistent with the other Modern Language disciplines, the majority of German learners are enrolled in level 1. The continuation rate from level 1 to level 2 is lower than in the other three languages: on average 24% continue on to level 2. The percentage was increasing over the four years from 21% in 2008-09 and 2009-10 to 28% / 30% in the following two years. This means that three sections at level 1 are needed to make one section at level 2 viable, a pattern which has prevailed for the last 25 years.

105

Due to the rate of attrition from level to level, German 203 and German 204 were not offered via classroom instruction and have not been offered in this manner for the last 25 years. Levels 3 and 4 are made available via “credit by exam” only.

German: Success and Retention

Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 German 201 52.3% (65) 55.0% (60) 62.1% (66) 50.0% (50) German 110 54.8% (31) 67.7% (31) 56.3% (16) 57.1% (14) German 202 66.7% (15) 56.3% (16) 78.9% (19) 69.2% (13) German 120 100.0% (5) 0% (3) 0% (4) 83.0% (6) German 203* 100.0% (2) 100.0% (3) 100.0% (3) 100.0% (1) German 204* 100.0% (1) 100.0% (2)

Annual Success 56.9% (116)** 57.3% (110)** 61.9% (105)** 56.0% (83)** Annual Retention 75.0% 73.6% 77.1% 69.0% * Credit by Exam (excluded in computation) **Apportionment Enrollment only

Statewide the success rate was 13.6 percentage points higher for the academic year 2011-12 (69.6%, with a pool size of 6,335 students) At Cuesta disciplines with success rates similar to German are:

Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

ESL 51.7% (1,558) 50.7% (1,615) 59.6% (1,261) 57.7% (1,480) Math 56.3% (7,045) 57.0% (7,392) 58.9% (6,731) 59.7% (7,106)

A possible explanation for German is that two factors are on a collision course: A demanding academic subject and an overwhelmingly male demographic. According to the foreign language difficulty scale used by the British Foreign Office Diplomatic Service Language Center and by the U.S. Defense Language Institute, German is considered more difficult for English speakers than Romance and Scandinavian languages. At DLI category I languages (Dutch/ French/ Italian/ Portuguese/ Romanian/ Scandinavian languages/ Spanish) require 26-week courses (575 - 600 hours of study) and category II languages (German and Indonesian) are taught in 35-week courses (750 hours of study).

106

As to demographics, male enrollment in German is higher than in any of the other three languages, both statewide and at Cuesta College. Statewide the majority of German learners were men with a percentage of 56.4% in 2011-12. At Cuesta male enrollment for the last four years ranged from 55% to 71%. Statewide the success rates for male German learners for the year 2011-12 was 67.4%, 11 percentage points lower than for female students for the same year. Cuesta success rates are not broken out by gender.

Cuesta data reports student demographics only by age, not by age and gender. 36% of German learners are in the group of 19 or less and 48% are between 20 and 24 years of age, which may be representative of the overall Cuesta age group distribution. Another factor is that many students enrolled in level 1 of German are true beginners as opposed to “false beginners,” which is most prevalent in level 1 Spanish courses. Most level 1 German learners do not have prior knowledge of German and may have never studied another language before tackling German.

Cuesta College does not routinely track the reasons why students drop classes and the college has no mechanism of distinguishing a failing grade, which is the result of not dropping a course in time (FW) from a failing grade, which is due to substandard performance (F). If students do withdraw online by the 12th week, they do so without identifying the reason.

In order to effectively address the issue of retention and success, faculty need data, such as course-specific student withdrawal surveys. Meanwhile instructors must rely on anecdotal evidence, which often reveals that students, who end up dropping the course, have time management issues and school-work-life conflicts. The Student Withdrawal Survey, conducted in the fall 2000, corroborates the notion that students' life circumstances hold a stronger claim on them than academics. 60% of the respondents stated that there was "nothing that Cuesta could have done to help them remain in the courses."

College-Wide Survey: Reasons for Student Withdrawal Fall 2000

Three of the top withdrawal reasons cited reflected time conflicts, mostly with work:

Other frequently mentioned reasons were:

• increase in work hours (28.1%) • inconvenient time/day (18.6%) • obtained a job (10.8%)

• coursework was too difficult (22.9%) • unforeseen emergency occurred (11.4%)

107

In Fall 2007 another Student Withdrawal was conducted with the following results: College-Wide Survey: Reasons for Student Withdrawal

Fall 2007

Reason for Withdrawing Number Percent Percent of Cases • Academic Reasons • Work or Other Commitments • Personal or Medical • Other Reasons

Total

184 222 163 258 827

22.2% 26.8 % 19.7% 31.2% 100%

31.2% 37.7% 27.7% 43.8 % 140.4%

According to a recent communication from Teri Sherman, Cuesta counselor specializing in advising at-risk students, the top five self-reported problem areas remain those that are behavior-based. She stated that “we as a campus do not have control over whether a student procrastinates, studies, meets with counselors and instructors, has personal problems or works too much. The only thing that we as a campus can do is continue to share with our students what are typical barriers to success as reported by their peers.” In anticipation of student challenges in this area, syllabi for all German courses include the following language: Responsibility for Success

You are expected to take responsibility for your own learning needs, incl. identifying your strengths and limitations, and evaluating the adequacy of your ability to perform. It is imperative that you participate in class, achieve error-free homework, and practice with the interactive multimedia software and with classmates or native speakers. Typically, low or failing semester grades are the result of sporadic attendance, failure to submit or correct homework and not enough time spent with study partners, native speakers or the multimedia tools outside of class.

108

IV. CURRICULUM REVIEW


Current Review Date: February 18, 2013

Reviewer: Petra Clayton

1. Courses • List all courses, which were active in your program at the time of the last CPPR. • Review the current CurricUNET Course Outline of Record (COR) for each course and

indicate yes/no for each column below. • For each new, modified, and deactivated course provide the effective term posted on

CurricUNET.


Currently active


Major modification

since last CPPR

Minor modification

since last CPPR

Deactivated since last CPPR Notified impacted

program(s)* GER 201 yes no



no

GER 110 yes no Yes: (effective Fall 2012) change from 4 to 5 lectures units


no



no



no



no



no


Deactivated Course Impacted Program (s) Date affected program was notified N/A N/A N/A

Modified Courses Impacted Program (s) Date affected program was notified GER 201 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 GER 202 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 GER 203 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 GER 204 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 2. Course Review

109

• Please review the current CurricUNET CORs for all active courses in your program for currency and accuracy and annotate the items below.

• If you find any mistakes in the CORs (e.g. non-content related items such as typos), contact the Curriculum Chair or Curriculum Specialist for correction.

• All other changes require either a minor or major modification. Your curriculum representative will assist you.

• Some modifications need to be processed in the current term (see annotations # 2 and #3 below).

• Some modifications can be done over the period of the next five years (see annotation #1 below).

• Indicate on the Five-Year Cycle Calendar below when a minor or major modification will be submitted.

Course Number GER 201 GER 110 GER 202 GER 120

1. Effective term listed on COR Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 2. Catalog / schedule description is

appropriate Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes

5. Grading Method is accurate Yes Yes Yes Yes 6. Repeatability is zero Yes Yes Yes Yes 7. Class Size is accurate Yes Yes Yes Yes 8. Objectives are aligned with

methods of evaluation Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 If no, a major modification is needed within the next 5 years (see five-year cycle calendar). 2 If no, a major modification is needed in the current term. (For increase in class size, see your curriculum representative for details.) 3 If no, a minor modification is needed in the current term. 4 If no, contact the Curriculum Chair or Curriculum Specialist. *Note: Item #15 is not displayed in CurricUNET and must be reviewed separately.

110

Course Number GER 203 GER 204 1. Effective term listed on COR Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 2. Catalog / schedule description is appropriate

Yes Yes


Yes Yes


Yes Yes

5. Grading Method is accurate Yes Yes 6. Repeatability is zero Yes Yes 7. Class Size is accurate Yes Yes 8. Objectives are aligned with methods of evaluation

Yes Yes


Yes Yes

10.. Assignments are aligned with objectives

Yes Yes


Yes Yes


Yes Yes


Yes Yes


Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 If no, a major modification is needed within the next 5 years (see five-year cycle calendar). 2 If no, a major modification is needed in the current term. (For increase in class size, see your curriculum representative for details.) 3 If no, a minor modification is needed in the current term. 4 If no, contact the Curriculum Chair or Curriculum Specialist. *Note: Item #15 is not displayed in CurricUNET and must be reviewed separately. 3. Programs

• List all programs/certificates that were active at the time of the last CPPR. • Review the CurricUNET “Program of Study” outline and indicate yes/no for each

program/certificate. • For each deactivated program provide the effective term posted on CurricUNET.

Program / Certificate Title

Currently active


CPPR


last CPPR


CPPR

None of the disciplines in the Modern Languages

Program, including German, offers a degree

N/A N/A N/A N/A

111


• During the following five-year cycle all aspects of the course outline of record and program curriculum will be reviewed for currency, quality, and appropriate CurricUNET format.

• Indicate if a course needs a major or minor modification based on the current course review. Your curriculum representative will assist you.

• When submitting a major or minor modification, please enter or update the Student Learning Outcomes for each course.

All German courses have been updated and are currently annotated with an effective date of “Fall 2012.” All courses reflect current course content, current text book dates, and conform to CurricUNET formatting standards. Therefore a five year cycle calendar is not needed at this time. All German courses will be reviewed again in five years at the time of the next Comprehensive Program and Planning Review or earlier, if the need for modification arises. Additional Curriculum Information The German discipline has a history of a student-centered curriculum which meets the needs of all students interested in acquiring functional language skills for personal and/or academic goals and offers transferable and non-transferable courses at four levels. At Level 1 students’ proficiency is equivalent to Level A1 and A2 of the “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages” defined as “ Basic User”: A1 Breakthrough or Beginner

• Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type.

• Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has.

• Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help

A2 Waystage or Elementary

• Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type.

112

• Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has.

• Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help

At level 2 students are becoming “Independent Users,” on par with the European Framework’s definition of “Threshold or Intermediate:”

• Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc.

• Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken.

• Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest.

• Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

At levels 3 and 4 students continue at the level of “Independent Users,” as defined by the European Framework. GER 203 and GER 204 courses are available via “Credit by Exam” only. This modality is designed for and utilized by native speakers, near native speakers, and self-directed learners. Students are required to prepare on their own for two to three separate exams per level. The enrollment process is highly selective. In addition to native or near-native speakers, only learners who are able to work independently are permitted to register for these courses to assure student success. External validation of the level of proficiency, which is attained after passing either GER 203 or 204, is documented through follow-ups with alumni. Alumni Follow-up • Isabelle Morse (GER 203/fall 2006 and GER 204/spring 2007) graduated from

Cuesta with an AA in International Studies. Upon transferring to UC Berkeley she was successful at the intermediate level in German. She graduated in 2009 with two B.A.s (Linguistics and German).

• Anna Weltner (GER 203/fall 2008) spent the academic year 2009/2010 on a Congress-Bundestag scholarship in Germany. She is currently employed as the arts editor at the New Times and is pursuing an AA in International Studies at Cuesta.

• Jonathan Wilson (GER 203/fall 2010) transferred to Arizona State Univ., where he continued his German studies. He reported that upon transfer he was successful at the intermediate level.

113

• Frank Wyer (GER 203/fall 2010 and GER 204/spring 2011) transferred to Middlebury in fall 2011, majoring in International Politics and Economics. He is continuing his German studies and he reported that upon transfer he was successful at the intermediate level of German.

• Joseph Wyer (GER 203/spring 2012 and GER 204/fall 2012) reported that he passed the SAT exam in German in summer 2012 with a score in the 600 range, placing him at the intermediate level.

German offers students a choice of transferable and non-transferable courses at level 1 and 2.

In spring 2013 only five of all students enrolled in German courses chose to register in non-transferable courses, equaling 10% of the total German semester enrollment of 56. For comparison with Math and English enrollments in spring 2013:

• 1,441 of all students enrolled in Math courses chose to enroll in non-transferable courses (Math 003 through Math 127), which represents 47% of the total Math semester enrollment of 3,048 students.

• 520 of all students enrolled in English courses chose to enroll in non-transferable courses (ENGL 099 and ENG 156), which represents 23% of the total English semester enrollment of 2,236 students.

Over the last four years the majority of German learners have been taking transferable courses GER 201 and GER 202. Depending on the level and the academic year, 16% to 34% were enrolled in a non-transferable German course by the end of the semester.

German Level 1 and 2

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 GER 201 / 202 (transferable)

75% (80) 84% (76) 82% (85) 68% (63)

GER 110 / 120 (not transferable)

31% (36) 31% (34) 19% (20) 24% (20)

Total Enrollment 116 110 105 83

German Level 1 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

GER 201 (transferable)

68% (65) 66% (60) 81% (66) 78% (50)

GER 110 (not transferable)

32% (31) 34% (31) 19% (16) 22% (14)

Total Enrollment 96 91 82 64

114

German Level 2

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 GER 202

(transferable) 75% (15) 84% (16) 82% (19) 68% (13)

GER 120 (not transferable)

25% (5) 16% (3) 18% (4) 32% (6)

Total Enrollment 20 19 23 19 The difference between GER 201/202 and GER 110/120 in terms of Student Learning Outcomes is that writing is not a student learning outcome in GER 110 / 120.

GER 110 and GER 120 are designed for students who

• already have transferable language credits and want to acquire conversational and reading skills in a second modern language, not necessarily for transfer

• are not interested in transfer units (personal enrichment) • are enrolled in GER 201 or GER 202, but are producing substandard writing,

either by quantity or quality, and decide to switch their focus to conversational and reading skills

The latter option is particularly student-centered. After students have invested considerable time and money in GER 201 or GER 202, but would not be successful in the transferable mode, they can still succeed in the non-transferable mode. V. DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR GERMAN (formerly known as German “Program” Learning Outcomes) Students will be able to 1. demonstrate aural-oral proficiency when engaging in conversations with native and

non-native speakers using idiomatic German (Interpersonal Communication - Listening/Speaking).

2. demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of written exchanges with native and non-native speakers using idiomatic German (Interpersonal Communication - Reading/Writing)

3. demonstrate aural proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic German spoken by native and non-native speakers (Interpretive Listening ).

115

4. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting authentic and non-authentic texts written by native and non-native writers in idiomatic German while also demonstrating dictionary skills (Interpretive Reading ).

5. demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising written information, concepts and ideas for an audience of native and non-native readers using idiomatic German, while also demonstrating dictionary and word processing skills (Presentational Communication - Writing).

6. describe and discuss in German and/or English the relationship of selected products and practices to the values and attitudes found in German-speaking cultures and demonstrate awareness of the links between language and culture (Culture).

The German discipline has a history of direct and indirect assessment of all SLOs starting 2007, which has been regularly reported in CPPRs and CPASs. The data was useful on a small scale by providing the instructor with evidence of both student achievement and student perception. The assessments have lead to modifications of content delivery and test modalities. However, none of the data was ever discussed with colleagues, because of general lack of interest in collecting and discussing comparable data by all languages. In addition, after five years of intense data collection, the workload became unsustainable. With the reorganization as interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program a new assessment plan has been developed and a joint assessment calendar has been established, which will ensure that data is collected and reported across all four disciplines and that collegial dialog will start to happen between the faculty of all four languages. (Please also refer to Section V. of the Modern Languages segment of this document.) VI. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES/ASSESSMENTS Note: A course CPAS is being submitted for GER 201 based on the fall 2012 interdisciplinary assessment conducted for the Modern Languages Program. Level 2 German courses are never offered in the fall semester. Therefore the CPAS for GER 202 filed in May 2012 for the proficiency report is being submitted. Level 3 and 4 German courses are offered exclusively via “Credit by Exam” and were not assessed in fall 2012. Therefore the CPAS for GER 203/GER 204 filed in May 2012 for the proficiency report is being submitted.

116

GERMAN 201 / 110 Course or Program Assessment Summary

Division: LANGUAGES AND COMMUNICATION Discipline : GERMAN

Date: February 15, 2013 v. 3 2012 Course in discipline - GER 201: German I

Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Petra Clayton Course-to-program outcome mapping document** is completed Yes ___X__

1 Student

Learning Outcome Statements X Course

Student will be able to 1. demonstrate aural-oral proficiency when engaging in conversations with native and

non-native speakers using idiomatic German in the present tense (Interpersonal Communication - Listening/Speaking)..

2. demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of written exchanges with native and non-native speakers using idiomatic German in the present tense(Interpersonal Communication - Reading/Writing).

3. demonstrate aural proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic German spoken by native and non-native speakers in the present tense (Interpretive Listening ).

4. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting authentic and non-authentic texts written by native and non-native writers in idiomatic German in the present tense (Interpretive Reading ).

5. demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising written information, concepts and ideas for an audience of native and non-native readers using idiomatic German in the present tense, while also demonstrating dictionary and word processing skills (Presentational Communication - Writing).

6. describe and discuss in English the relationship of selected products and practices to the values and attitudes found in German-speaking cultures and demonstrate awareness of the links between language and culture (Culture).


• PLO #1 was chosen for direct assessment for fall 2012 for the interdisciplinary Modern Languages assessment, which corresponds to course SLO #1 for German 201.

• All faculty in all four disciplines of the Modern Languages Program, including German (2 sections) administered an oral interview/exit interview at level 1.

• German faculty used a rubric with four assessment criteria in determining the number of students who performed successfully: 1. Comprehensibility/ Pronunciation 2. Fluency 3. Vocabulary 4. Grammar

• German employs student-to-student interaction for the oral interview. • Interview partners are determined at random by drawing numbers on the day of the

assessment event. • Each student asks and answers approximately 10 questions.

117

• The verbal exchange is somewhat scripted, as students are prompted by cue cards containing key words and pictures, with which they are familiar through in-class practice. The order of the cue cards is random.

• One student asks questions in the formal, the other student in the familiar address. The type of address is determined by the equivalent of a coin toss.


• The class size for the two sections was a total of 40 students, of whom 27 students participated in the assessment event.

• Performance was scored as A, B, C, D, F


Overall 96% of all students who participated in the direct assessment of PLO #1 succeeded. 33% of all students who were registered did not participate in the assessment event. Since no-shows did not earn a performance score, they were not included in the calculation of performance success/failure. • 33% earned an A (9 students), 56% earned a B (15 students), 7% earned a C (2

students), and 4% earned a D (1 student). There were no Fs. • German awarded more Bs and fewer As when comparing grade distribution for

successful students with the three other languages. 5 Discussion of


German faculty participated with other Modern Languages faculty in the discussion of the pros and cons of the various assessment methodologies, such as


extemporaneous)


In upcoming meetings German faculty will participate in examining various scoring rubric models in an effort to create a common rubric by which to define student performance for a score of A, B, C, D, F. German faculty will continue the current methodology for the oral interview. All Modern Languages faculty will report their assessment results again at the end of spring 2013 for a comparison with the fall 2012 data. Effective fall 2013, in an effort to assess all PLOs in the next five years, German faculty will participate in assessing either PLO #2 or PLO#5 (see Assessment Calendar for the Modern Languages Program). Results from direct assessment will again be collected across all four languages and will be used for analysis and collegial discussions regarding teaching and testing methods and their effectiveness. For a discussion of the success rate in the German discipline please see section III of the CPPR Addendum for German.

118


German faculty participated in the meetings of Modern Languages faculty in January and February 2013 , when the assessment results were discussed. Minutes of each meeting reflect the participation.

**Course and program level outcomes are required by ACCJC to be aligned. Each program needs to complete a program map to show the alignment. See examples of completed CPAS and program mapping documents are available at http://academic.cuesta.edu/sloa Additional Assessment:

Assessing the Affective Domain Via Student Surveys “Use it or lose it.” Countless individuals have “taken” a foreign language in their lives and forgotten it. Foreign languages as cognitive skills have a tendency to fade from recollection if not consistently used. During and in the end of each college course students are evaluated, by direct or indirect assessment, in how well they can process, store and retrieve a body of measurable knowledge and skills. Assessment of cognitive knowledge and skills also drives students’ short-term goals (grades). In addition, the German instructor also collects student data in the affective domain. The surveys are designed to assess how important the learning outcomes are to students, how they rate their current satisfaction with their achievements and how their current satisfaction influences their plans for future language use.

The underlying assumption is that if students feel a sense of accomplishment when first acquiring proficiency in another language, they will have a long-lasting positive attitude towards other languages and cultures and sufficient motivation to continue to use and improve their language and culture skills throughout their lives.

One of the surveys used by the German instructor assesses student reaction after a conversation session with native speakers.


119

Reaction to Conversing With Native Speakers German 201 / 110

Survey Summary Spring 2007 through Spring 2012 strongly

agree somewhat

agree neutral somewhat

disagree strongly disagree

1. I enjoyed the classroom experience of conversing in German with native speakers.

High 100% Low 71%

High 27% Low 0%

High 5% Low 3%

2. Being able to converse in German with native speakers is important to me.

High 90% Low 55%

High 36% Low 10%

High 9% Low 3%

High 3% Low 3%

High 3% Low 3%

3. I felt the native speakers understood what I was saying.

High 39% Low 18%

High 70% Low 42%

High 28% Low 3%

High 9% Low 3%

High 3% Low 3%

4. This classroom experience makes me want to travel to German-speaking countries.

High 82% Low 41%

High 41% Low 14%

High 28% Low 5%

High 7% Low 3%

5. I understood everything the native speakers were saying.

High 18% Low 0%

High 72% Low 29%

High 55% Low 14%

High 32% Low 6%

High 10% Low 5%

6. This classroom experience makes me want to continue to improve my German skills.

High 86% Low 58%

High 36% Low 10%

High 7% Low 4%

High 3% Low 3%

7. I felt confident communicating in German.

High 18% Low 0%

High 72% Low 14%

High 50% Low 21%

High 33% Low 16%

High 10% Low 3%

8. I wished there were more opportuni-ties for me to practice my German speaking skills outside of class.

High 94% Low 50%

High 40% Low 20%

High 18% Low 4%

High 3% Low 3%

High 3% Low 3%

9. Other comments:

pclayton 08/13/2012 Background Information

• The survey results span a period of 11 semesters of GER 201/110, from spring 2007 through spring 2012.

• The students were beginners, some with little, most with no prior knowledge • Students were surveyed during the 14th week of the semester after a group of

native speakers visited the class

120

• The pool of respondents in the fall semester is higher than in the spring due to the fact that in the fall two sections of GER 201/110 are offered while only one section is offered in the spring.

• The spring pool is fairly small, so that percentages in the range from 3% to 10% represent one or two students and are considered outliers.

Analysis of survey data

The following areas are surveyed:

• Past and future enjoyment of conversing with native speakers: items #1, 8 • Motivation as expressed through buy-in to the learning outcome of

interpersonal oral communication, incentive to travel and improve language skills: Items #2, 4, 6

• Self-assessment of interpersonal oral communication skills: # 3, 5, 7

Interpretation of Likert Scale: “Strongly agree” and “somewhat agree” are considered in agreement with each statement. “Neutral”, “somewhat disagree,” and “strongly disagree” are regarded as not agreeing with the statement.

Over the period of 11 semesters a high percentage of students consistently reports that they consider developing oral interpersonal communications skills important (item #2). Most students also indicate that they enjoy using these skills with native speakers (item #1) and that they would welcome more opportunities to practice their speaking skills outside of class (item #8). Only one or two students in some of the semesters have disagreed over the course of 11 semesters. A high percentage also regularly reports that they are both motivated to continue to improve their German skills, and feel inspired to travel to German speaking countries. Again, only a few students have disagreed over the period of the study (items #6, 4). As to the communication process itself: A relatively high percentage of the students feels that the native speakers understand what they are saying. Fewer students report they understand everything the native speakers are saying (item #5). Therefore it is no surprise that the ratings for “confidence” when communicating in German (#8) mirror item #5. After all, the students in GER 201/110 are beginners who have only engaged with the language for three months by the time they met the native speakers.

121

The native visitors often express their amazement as to how well the students are navigating the conversations after such a short exposure of formal instruction. When witnessing the interactions it is striking to observe that interpersonal communication involves more than verbal skills. Students’ personality plays a significant role on how effectively they interact, using both verbal and non-verbal strategies. Building confidence is a life-long endeavor and requires time and energy. The high importance which oral interpersonal communication has for the students together with their strong motivation to continue to improve their skills seem to indicate that the German courses inspire life-long learning. The skills are guaranteed to grow with further exposure and engagement. Another survey asks students to evaluate their performance and attitudes at the end of the semester. The following summary is a sample:

QUESTIONNAIRE Spring 2012

Reaction to Completion of German 201 / 110 strongly

agree somewhat

agree neutral somewhat

disagree strongly disagree

10. I am satisfied with how my German skills progressed in the course of this semester.

6 (43%)

8 (57%)

11. Being able to converse in German is important to me.

10 (71%)

4 (29%)

12. I can understand and speak more German today than on the first day of class.

10 (71%)

4 (29%)

13. Being able to read and write is important to me.

8 (57%)

6 (43%)

14. I can read and write more German today than on the first day of class.

10 (71%)

4 (29%)

15. Being able to learn about German culture is important to me.

5 (36%)

9 (64%)

16. I know more about German culture today than on the first day of class.

7 (50%)

7 (50%)

17. I feel confident listening to and speaking German.

1 (7%)

11 (79%)

2 (14%)

18. I feel confident reading and writing German. (1 blank)

1 (7%)

10 (71%)

3 (22%)

19. This course makes me want to travel or study in a German-speaking country.

9 (64%)

4 (29%)

1 (7%)

20. Other comments:

pclayton 07/30/2012

122

Spring 2012 Reaction to Completion of German 201 / 110

Survey Summary At the end of German 201 / 110 100% of the students reported that they were satisfied with the progress they had made in learning German. They had bought into all course learning outcomes to an exceptionally high degree: 100% for interpersonal communication, culture, and reading and writing.

As to their growth in cognitive skills over the course of the semester: 100% of the students reported an increase in all four language skills (reading/writing, understanding/speaking), and 100% stated they knew more about German culture than before. Reporting on their level of confidence, 78% - 86% felt confident in using the four language skills, which corresponds to their high level of satisfaction with their own progress and having bought into the learning outcomes. As to the broad discipline goals: 93% felt motivated to travel or study in a German-speaking country. All in all, it seems that the German discipline is providing not only the cognitive skills but is also a sense of accomplishment which may motivate students to apply these skills outside the classroom. GERMAN 202 / 120 Note: German level 2 courses have not been assessed during fall 2012, because level 2 courses are only offered in the spring. Therefore a CPAS for the most recently taught GER 202 course is being submitted (spring 2012). This GER 202 CPAS was submitted in May 2012 for the proficiency report. Similar to GER 201/110 student surveys are administered to assess the affective domain. Students are polled after conversing with native speakers and at the end of the semester. For the sake of brevity these survey results and summaries are not included in this addendum. They are, however, available upon request.

123

Course or Program Assessment Summary Division: LANGUAGES AND COMMUNICATION Discipline : GERMAN Date: May 22, 2012 v. 3 2012 Course in discipline - GER 202: German II

Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Petra Clayton



1. demonstrate aural-oral proficiency when engaging in conversations with native and non-native speakers, using idiomatic German in the present and past tense (Interpersonal Communication - Listening/speaking).

2. demonstrate aural proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic German spoken by native and non-native speakers in the present and past tense (Interpretive Listening ).

3. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting authentic and non-authentic texts written in idiomatic German in the present and past tense by native and non-native writers, while also demonstrating dictionary skills (Interpretive Reading).

4. demonstrate writing proficiency when composing and revising written information, concepts and ideas using idiomatic German in the present and past tense for an audience of native and non-native readers , while also demonstrating dictionary and word processing skills (Presentational Communication - Writing).

5. describe and discuss in English and/or German the relationship of selected products and practices to the values and attitudes found in German-speaking cultures while demonstrating expanded awareness of the relationship between language and culture (Culture).

2 Assessment

Methods Plan (identify assessment instruments, scoring rubrics, SLO mapping diagrams)

In spring 2011 and spring 2012 the following assessments were used: • Direct Assessment (Performance Exams)

o Written Final to assess Interpretive Listening, Interpretive Reading and

Presentational Communication (Writing) (SLOs #2, 3, 4) o Oral Final to assess Interpersonal Communication (Listening/Speaking)

(SLO #1) o Culture Test (during the semester) to assess Cultural Competence (SLO #5)

• Indirect Assessment (3 Student Surveys) to assess students’ personal attitudes,

behaviors and values.

124

3 Assessment


All GER 202 course outcomes have been formally assessed and tracked by direct and indirect methods every semester since spring 2007. • GER 202 (one section) is only offered in the spring (sample size 11 to 21) Dates for performance exams for GER 202

o week 11: Culture component (SLO #5) o week 16: Listening, Reading, Writing (SLOs #2, 3, 4) o finals week: Interpersonal Communication (Listening/Speaking) (SLO #1)

• Dates for student surveys for GER 202

o week 11: Student survey to assess attitudes toward Culture component (educational system in Germany) (SLO #5)

o week 13/14: Student survey to assess how students evaluate their interpersonal communication skills after interviewing native speakers in class (SLO #1)

o finals week: survey to assess how students evaluate their interpersonal communication, listening, reading, writing skills at the end of the semester (SLOs # 1, 2, 3, 4).

Scoring for Performance Exams for GER 202: A (87%), B (75%) C (62%) D (50%), F (< 50%) Scoring for Student Surveys: Likert Scale (5 ratings: “strongly agree, somewhat agree, neutral, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree”)


All Student Learning Outcomes for all German courses are evaluated via written assignments (completed inside and outside of class), chapter tests and a final exam with the primary purpose of providing feedback to students on a personal basis throughout the semester to improve individual student performance. These individual student assessments are essential to student success. Aggregated direct and indirect assessment results are tracked and recorded every semester for all courses and all SLOs. They are used to document trends and to comply with institutional reporting requirements. Sample Assessment Results: GER 202: Presentational Communication (Writing) (SLO #4) • Spring 2011: 93% of the students succeeded on the performance exam • Spring 2011: 100% subscribed to the learning outcome and 88% reported feeling

confident in their writing skills (student survey results at the end of the semester) • Spring 2012: 66 % of the students succeeded on the performance exam • Spring 2012: 100% subscribed to the learning outcome, 86 % reported feeling

confident in their writing skills (student survey results at the end of the semester)

125

5 Discussion of


The circumstance that the program is staffed by a single (tenured part-time) instructor has advantages and disadvantages. The assessment feedback loop is nimble and highly responsive to student and program needs. The manual tabulations and formal documentation, however, is very labor intensive. Review of assessment procedures, results, and effectiveness of previous improvement plans can all be handled expeditiously in consecutive semesters, since there is no consultation or “discussion” with other faculty. Sample Discussion of Assessment Results: GER 202: Presentational Communication (Writing) (SLO #4) 100 % of the students continue to buy into the learning outcome of Presentational Writing. However, the success in the performance exam decreased dramatically from 2011 to 2012 (93% to 66%) while the level of confidence decreased by only 2%. The reason for the decrease in 2012 must be a twofold change I made in the writing assignment required on the final exam. In 2011 only one writing sample was assessed, in 2012 a second sample was evaluated. One writing sample, which was assessed in both semesters, was an interview based on a narrative text. In 2011 the students wrote the interview in class, in 2012 the writing was to be done at home. To my great amazement in 2012 46% of the students were unsuccessful in completing the task: 13% did not do it at all, 13% only wrote part of it, and 20% did not follow instructions and wrote the wrong interview. However, all of those who completed the correct assignment succeeded (54%). In 2012 I added a second take-home writing assignment, a letter containing 20 questions seeking personal responses from the students. 20% of the students did not complete the task, while 80% were successful. Despite the level of success on the written portion of the performance exam in 2012, students seem to feel confident about their writing skills. In 2011 82% of the students reported confidence at the end of the semester, in 2012 the percentage was even higher, 86%. The decreased success rate in spring 2012 seems to be caused by perennial student issues: lack of persistence and time management skills. Students lack the time and / or motivation to practice their language skills, including writing, outside of class, as evidenced by their failure to complete writing assignments in a timely fashion. Most students attempt to succeed in the course based on what they are able to absorb during class time. They are not systematically reinforcing any of the skills through engagement with the material outside of class. The “two hours of work outside the class” for each hour in class per Title 5, is an unrealistic expectation (18 x 8 = 144 hours for a 4 unit course). As a result, many students are not fully prepared for the written communication demands at the time of the final exam, let alone in authentic settings, such as corresponding with native speakers. In order to force students to produce original writing samples I started to add take-home portions to all of the chapter tests in 2012. Creative writing is a valuable tool for several reasons and therefore will be continued despite the down-turn in statistics.

126

Learning Process Receiving feedback on writing assignments is essential for students’ skill improvement. Writing assignments by their very nature are highly personalized. They give each student the opportunity for self-expression. The assignments require individual feedback from the instructor. There is no answer key and no self-correction before submission. The assignments are labor-intensive for the students, the main reason why they are frequently not completed. Transparency in Assessment Procrastinating students are often unaware of the accumulation of missing homework and the effect this has on their learning, let alone their grade. However, when students fail at writing assignments, which are part of a test or exam, they become much more aware that they are underperforming. Without the take-home writing assignment the grade of the entire test is F, regardless of the performance on the in-class portion. The take-home writing assignment enhances the transparency of the assessment process, and hopefully minimizes grade disputes.


Students have been advised in the syllabus of the common reasons for underperformance: “Typically, low or failing semester grades are the result of sporadic attendance, failure to submit or correct homework and not enough time spent with the multimedia tools or study partners.”

The take-home writing assignment, which will continue to be a part of each chapter test, is usually a series of questions embedded in a letter from a fictitious peer in a German-speaking country. To make writing German more authentic, a new SLO will be added in fall 2012 for GER 202:

• “Students will be able to demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of written exchanges with native and non-native speakers, using idiomatic German in the present and past tense (Interpersonal Communication - Reading/Writing).”

The new SLO owes its emergence to a curriculum change which added a fifth contact hour to the weekly schedule effective fall 2012. In anticipation of the additional hour a pilot project was conducted in spring 2012 to connect students in GER 202 with key pals at a Gymnasium (college prep high school) in Munich for the purpose of offering students authentic cross-cultural communication experiences. The intent is to empower the students as they apply their linguistic skills in a real-world setting. Student achievement in the new SLO will be closely monitored and compared to the performance in the related, existing SLO #4, “Presentational Communication (Writing).” Spring 2013 will see some pedagogical experimentation in GER 202 as new teaching tools will be tested. In observing how students currently “solve” their writing assignments, I discovered that they are using inappropriate online tools, such as www.google.translate to find translations for words, phrases or entire sentences from English to German or vice versa. I will introduce and monitor student use of more sophisticated online dictionary tools, such as dict.leo.org, dict.tu-chemnitz.de, www.wortschatz.uni-leipizig.de, and www.wikipedia.de. I will require that students list the lexical items, which they have looked up, on one of two types of glossaries, one German to English, the other English to German. The format of the glossaries forces

http://www.wortschatz.uni-leipizig.de/

http://www.wikipedia.de/

127

them to classify the words and put them into the customary dictionary form, such as verbs into the infinitive form, nouns into the singular form with indication of their gender, adjectives minus grammatical endings. In the German to English glossary they must first record a hypothesis of the English meaning using etymological and contextual clues. Lastly, they have to record the meaning they found in the dictionary, choosing the one which best fits the context and indicating the source of their discovery. The requirement of keeping glossaries throughout the semester counteracts the students’ tendency to seek and receive instant gratification, i.e. to elicit a translation from German to English or English to German via the internet or via the instructor, put the word into the text or conversation at hand, and then forget it. Prescribing a thoughtful approach to dealing with unfamiliar words and creating a personal working tool should ultimately lead to an expansion of both, the passive and active vocabulary and support speedy comprehension and effective self-expression, both orally and in writing. The glossaries are a personal diary of the vocabulary acquisition process. In order to motivate students to spend time with German outside of class, credit will be awarded for selected out-of-class activities. Such activities will include exchanging emails with native speakers and maintaining glossaries. Documentation for a total of 20 hours per semester will be evaluated and will constitute 10% of the overall grade To that end students will be required to assemble a portfolio of emails and glossaries (German to English / English to German) for submission at the end of the semester. The integrity of self-reporting has been tested in the past with the result that students are surprisingly honest in reporting time spent outside of class. Inflated reporting can be identified fairly easily. Logging time spent outside of class also heightens the awareness of underperformance. Student glossaries represent a record of each student’s efforts outside of class and are legitimate sources for information retrieval inside and outside of class. Therefore students will be permitted to use them during in-class tests. Diligence would be rewarded not on tests alone, but in the overall effort, inside and outside of class, to use the language effectively. The information will be gathered and stored in a highly personalized manner. No two sets of glossaries will be the same. None other than the originator can use them effectively. Plagiarism, such as copying glossaries wholesale from fellow students or from printed or digital dictionaries, can be detected and dealt with appropriately.


As noted in item 5, the program is staffed by only one instructor. Assessment plans and results are not routinely discussed with faculty members of all three international languages. It would be ideal if discussions about pedagogy would take place among the faculty of all international language programs. However, faculty lacks the time for in-depth pedagogical conversations beyond their immediate discipline as they have maxed-out work schedules. All but one of the faculty teaching international languages are part-time employees and the only full-time instructor manages division chair duties in addition to a full-time load.

128

GERMAN 203 / 204 Note: When German was a single disciplinary program, the “program” was assessed by using the test results achieved by students in GER 203 and GER 204. The course modality for GER 203 and GER 204 is “Credit by Exam.” Students are required to prepare on their own for two to three separate exams per course. The enrollment process is highly selective. In addition to native and near-native speakers only learners, who are able to work independently, are permitted to register for these courses to assure student success. The CPAS below was submitted for the German “program” in May 2012. Course or Program Assessment Summary Division: LANGUAGES AND COMMUNICATION Discipline : GERMAN Date: May 22, 2012 v. 3 2012 Course in discipline - GER 203: German III and GER 204: German IV

Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Petra Clayton



1. demonstrate aural-oral proficiency when engaging in conversations with native and non-native speakers involving abstract topics, using idiomatic German in all tenses, indicative and subjunctive, and in the active and passive voice (Interpersonal Communication - Listening/speaking).

2. demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of written exchanges with native and non-native speakers involving abstract topics, using idiomatic German in all tenses, indicative and subjunctive, and in the active and passive voice (Interpersonal Communication - Reading/writing).

3. demonstrate aural proficiency when interpreting recorded and live idiomatic German spoken by native and non-native speakers involving abstract topics, using all tenses, indicative and subjunctive, and in the active and passive voice (Interpretive Listening ).

4. demonstrate reading proficiency when interpreting authentic and non-authentic texts written by native and non-native writers involving abstract topics, using idiomatic German in all tenses, indicative and subjunctive, and in the active and passive voice, while also demonstrating a further expanding vocabulary. (Interpretive Reading).

5. demonstrating writing proficiency when composing and revising written information,

concepts and ideas for an audience of native and non-native readers , using idiomatic German in all tenses, indicative and subjunctive, and in the active and passive voice, while also demonstrating a further expanding vocabulary.(Presentational Communication - Writing).

129

6. describe and discuss in German and/or English the relationship of selected products and practices to the values and attitudes found in German-speaking cultures, while continuing to demonstrate cultural knowledge and understanding based on social and historical context (Culture).


Course assessment results in GER 203 and GER 204 have been tracked and recorded since fall 2006. For the purpose of this Program Assessment Summary the period from fall 2010 to spring 2012 will be analyzed. In fall 2010, spring 2011 and spring 2012 the following assessments were used: • Direct Assessment (Performance Exams)

o Three written exams (GER 203) / two written exams (GER 204) to assess Interpretive Listening, Interpretive Reading, Presentational Communication (Writing) and Culture (SLOs #2, 3, 4, 5)

o Oral Final to assess Interpersonal Communication (Listening/Speaking) (SLO #1)

• Exit Interview to assess student’s perception of how the course promoted the depth and/or breadth of knowledge of the German language and culture.

• Alumni follow-up via e-mail after transfer to four-year institutions


GER 203: one section was offered in fall 2010 (sample size 3) GER 204: one section was offered in spring 2011 (sample size 2) GER 203: one section was offered in spring 2012 (sample size 1) o Dates for performance exams:

o GER 203: Week 5, 10, 15: Listening, Reading, Writing, Culture (SLOs #2, 3, 4, 5) o GER 204: Week 6, 12: Listening, Reading, Writing, Culture (SLOs #2, 3, 4, 5) o GER 203 / GER 204: Week 16: Interpersonal Communication

(Listening/Speaking) (SLO #1) o Dates for exit interview (GER 203/GER 204)

o week 16 to assess how students evaluate their oral communication, listening, reading, writing skills, and cultural competence at the end of the semester (SLOs # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

o Dates for alumni follow-up (GER 203/GER 204) o Within one or two semesters of leaving Cuesta College

o Scoring for Performance Exams for GER 203/GER 204

o A (87%), B (75%) C (62%) D (50%), F (< 50%)


Direct Assessment Students in all three sections offered since fall 2010 demonstrated proficiency in all five stated course SLOs for GER 203/GER 204 and by implication they have achieved the five SLOs of the German Program.

Exit Interviews Students in all three section expressed satisfaction with the progress they made in expanding their linguistic skills in the course of preparing for the performance exams. However, they regretted that there were fewer opportunities to enhance Interpersonal Communication (Listening/Speaking) than they had experienced in GER 201 / 202 which are taught face-to-face.

130

Alumni Follow-up • Jonathan Wilson (GER 203/fall 2010) transferred to Arizona State Univ., where he

continued his German studies. He reported that upon transfer he was successful at the intermediate level.

• Frank Wyer (GER 203/fall 2010 and GER 204/spring 2011) transferred to Middlebury in fall 2011, majoring in International Politics and Economics. He is continuing his German studies and he reported that upon transfer he was successful at the intermediate level of German. He is contemplating to study abroad in his junior or senior year, most likely in Germany.

• Joseph Wyer (GER 203/spring 2012) will continue with GER 204 in fall 2012. He is planning on taking the SAT exam in German in summer 2012.

5 Discussion of


The SLOs for GER 203 and GER 204 are assessed with the primary purpose of granting students academic credit for demonstrating proficiency in the course SLOs at level III and/or IV of the German Program. Review of assessment procedures, results, and effectiveness of previous improvement plans can all be handled expeditiously in consecutive semesters, since there is little consultation or “discussion” with other faculty.


Each written test routinely includes a take-home writing assignment, usually a series of questions embedded in a letter from a fictional peer in a German-speaking country requiring a written response. To make writing German more authentic a new SLO will be added in fall 2012.

• “Students will be able to demonstrate reading and writing proficiency in the course of written exchanges with native and non-native speakers, using idiomatic German (Interpersonal Communication - Reading/writing).”

Students registering for GER 203/204 will be advised to correspond with a key pal in a German-speaking country and assemble a portfolio of emails and glossaries (German to English / English to German) which will be evaluated along with the proctored performance exams. A successful pilot project in GER 203 was conducted in spring 2012. Joseph Wyer exchanged a number of emails with a native speaker and the correspondence was reviewed. Adding this course SLO to GER 203/GER 204 is considered feasible. Future students will already be accustomed to this learning outcome since it is being phased in with GER 201 effective fall 2012.


The program is staffed by only one instructor (tenured part-time). Program assessment plans and results are not routinely discussed with faculty member of the other three international languages, partially due to the difference in course modality. In the Spanish Program levels III and IV are being taught face-to-face. However, the French Program also employs “Credit by Exam” at level III. Faculty discussions have taken place in spring 2012 regarding the effectiveness of the course modality, including the assessment instruments, administration, analysis and implementation of improvements and such dialog will continue in the future.

131

VII. END NOTES The following testimonials are representative of a number of statements the German instructor received upon learning that German courses were targeted for elimination in fall 2012 semester. More statements are on file with the instructor and posted on the G-drive of the Languages and Communication division. The first writer, Isabel Morse, is a former student, the second writer, Mike Kinter, is a Cuesta College Mathematics instructor, the third writer is a French and Spanish instructor at Morro Bay High School.

12 December, 2012

Dr. Stork and the District Board of Trustees: I am writing to you today to express my concern over the cuts being made to the language program. My name is Isabelle Morse. I received my A.A. in International Studies from Cuesta in 2007, transferred to UC Berkeley that year, where I received two B.A.s in 2009 (Linguistics and German), then commissioned in the U.S. Army as a Military Intelligence officer. I understand that budget cuts have caused the President and the Board to consider downsizing or eliminating the language programs at Cuesta, and I urge you to not underestimate the power of learning a second language and the Cuesta Language Program’s role in the Central Coast community as a door to new cultures and ways of thinking. My first exposure to German was out of a self-teaching book during my final year in high school. It was a mere dabbling in the language, but it was enough to perk my interest in polyglotism. Cuesta’s German program was where my love for language truly blossomed—I consider it my “home” as a linguist even above UC Berkeley’s Linguistics Department. Petra Clayton truly encouraged me to think differently as I analyzed a new language—not to think as an English speaker speaking German, but as a German speaker speaking German. During my time at Cuesta, I took French I and German I and II, followed by German III and IV as independent-study courses. I benefited extremely from the mentorship of Frau Clayton and the use of the Language Lab. During my last semester, I tutored German and translated a short story and a book into German for practice. Under the guidance of Frau Clayton, I also entered Cuesta’s International Studies program and earned my A.A. in 2007. Perhaps many students take foreign languages at Cuesta to fill a requirement, but how many discover the beauty of a communication that weaves itself into patterns so different from English and that flows along different trains of thought? How many

132

students never had the opportunity to work with language instructors that have the credentials and the love and understanding for their language that Cuesta’s instructors have? I believe that if you remove the language program, you remove an opportunity for students to think outside of the American bubble they have grown up in. You remove an excellent source of encouragement and inspiration for students to explore the intricacies of foreign cultures—cultures whose societies those students may one day interact with, considering the international nature of American universities and many workplaces. In the August issue of The New Yorker, Lydia Davis said: "Each language (“around the world”) grows out of the culture that uses it, each culture is different, each is rich in its own way; if we lose the language we lose the culture, if we don’t know the language we don’t know the culture (from the inside), if we know even a few foreign languages we are still not acquainted with the huge richness and variety of the rest of the world’s cultures, and if we know no other languages but our own we are terribly isolated and impoverished” (“Language is Music,” Mary Hawthorn, August 13, 2012). During my time in the Army, I have met an incredible variety of Americans from all backgrounds. I find that one of the most frustrating things (particularly as an intelligence analyst) is to speak with Americans that have never traveled out of the United States, have never spoken a foreign language or considered a non-American culture, and, worst of all, have no desire to. I believe that it is truly selfish and limiting to isolate oneself to one’s own culture, and I have found that people who do so often have a difficult time adapting to new situations, understanding the consequences of their interactions with cultures or even American sub-cultures, and are less eager to broadly develop themselves. As a school, Cuesta College takes upon itself the task of teaching students, young and old, how to form themselves into the professionals they will become. I believe that the impact that Cuesta’s Language Program can have for creating a basis of broadened horizons for these individuals is something that may not be immediately apparent, but that will create Americans who are better off because of it. Respectfully, Isabelle J. Morse Cuesta Class of 2007 (International Studies) UC Berkeley Class of 2009 (Linguistics and German)

133

________________________________________________________________ November 13, 2012

German Program Testimonial -- Michael Kinter I am writing this testimonial in support of the German program at Cuesta College. My experience with the German program began prior to summer, 2007 when I traveled to Germany with my father. When we decided to go to Germany, I was excited about the opportunity to experience a new culture, but concerned that I did not speak any German. Consequently, I enrolled in Petra Clayton’s first-semester German course. Within one semester, I progressed from being totally non-fluent to feeling like I would be able to hold a basic conversation with a native German speaker. This fluency continually paid off during that summer trip – most dramatically when my father and I were in Jena, Germany. He caught pneumonia and was unable to leave our hotel room. By default, I was now responsible for finding him a doctor and traveling across town in the middle of the night to find medication. I honestly feel that his rapid recovery was due to only two things: the excellent German health-care system and the German speaking skills I gained in my German 1 class. The German course provided many other benefits to the class and me. Mrs. Clayton constantly wove culture into the course; consequently, we students became much more aware of the diverse ways in which people live – an opportunity that is not always readily available in the San Luis Obispo area. She even brought German speakers (several who were native Germans) to class to give us an opportunity to interact in a more authentic way. I have traveled a fair amount and have been exposed to different cultures, but for my 18-year-old self, a course like this would have really opened my eyes to the great cultural diversity in the German-speaking world. The German education system was one of the most interesting topics in my German course. What struck the other students and me was how profoundly it differed from the U.S. education structure. Mrs. Clayton did an excellent job differentiating the two systems, and we gained a keen appreciation for the advantages of each system. I have never taken a course in which educational systems were compared; consequently, this topic was enthralling. Another benefit of the German program is that it inspires its students to travel. I recall a graduation speech at Cuesta when a language professor encouraged students to “step out of their comfort zones,” emphasizing the need to see the world in order to develop as a

134

student and as a person. Mrs. Clayton constantly encourages her students to travel (in particular, overseas) as soon as they are financially able. One of my classmates, Anna Weltner, journeyed to Switzerland that following summer. She parlayed her cultural experience into a job as the New Times magazine Arts Editor. My German course also bettered me in ways I never would have anticipated. For example, my grammar improved, enhancing my writing and teaching. I still infuse some of the German commands I learned into my classes. For example, when my students are looking lethargic, I ask them to stand up and “Joggen Sie!” (run in place). Overall, German 1 was one of the most useful courses I have taken in my educational career. Anyone analyzing the German program’s overall effectiveness should consider the benefits that may not be immediately apparent, but made a huge difference in my and other students’ lives.

135

October, 30th 2012 To whom it may concern, My name is Silvia Kohler, and I am a French and Spanish teacher at MBHS. I am also a student at Cuesta College taking German I. This is a great experience, not only for my personal enrichment, but also due to the opportunity to learn from Petra Clayton, an amazing and highly experienced teacher. I am aware of the possible termination of the French and German courses at Cuesta College, and I would like to petition in favor of keeping them. As a foreign language teacher, and a student of a fourth language, I see the positive outcomes of learning different languages, not only for personal reasons, but in a worldly sense. Today business is global and German and French are leading languages in the financial world. Learning languages offers many more opportunities, not only speaking the language, but also understanding their culture. This is the beauty that language classes offer, and it is sad to hear that the programs may be terminated. We need to be servicing all the needs of our students and provide them with diversity. I have had the opportunity to speak to some of my colleagues, especially from foreign language departments, about this issue and we were wondering how our community will view the fact that Cuesta College will be offering less variety of languages than the local public high schools. I believe this will hurt the image of the college and possibly effect enrollment. It makes me sad to learn that some of my students will not have the option to move on with a third language eventually. For example, a former Spanish student of mine wanted to learn German and had the opportunity to go to Switzerland. It was so enriching for her to take German at Cuesta and have a strong knowledge of their culture and language. Her experience abroad was even better, because she was “ahead” and was able to communicate with native speakers from the start. I understand that we are in a financial hard time, but I strongly believe that we cannot seclude ourselves from other cultures, and we need to provide our students with other options to succeed. Even though Cuesta College is a smaller college, it must offer the basics, and foreign languages are basic to better understand and participate in the world. Sincerely, Silvia Kohler French and Spanish teacher, MBHS

136

ADDENDUM

FOR THE SPANISH DISCIPLINE OF THE MODERN LANGUAGES PROGRAM (MLP)

INSTRUCTIONAL CPPR (COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM PLANNING AND REVIEW)

The following segment of the CPPR for the Spanish Discipline was written by Tony Rector–Cavagnaro (Lead Faculty member in Spanish) during the spring semester of 2013. I. GENERAL INFORMATION AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES

Introduction Spanish, our planet’s second most geographically extended language, is spoken as a first language by over 400 million people around the world. Spanish, known by its two names castellano and español, is the official language of 21 countries (19 of them in the Americas and one in Africa): México, Cuba, Puerto Rico, República Dominicana, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panamá, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Guinea Ecuatorial (in Africa) and España (Spain, in Europe). It is also a functional language in Andorra (Europe), in parts of the Caribbean region (Belize, Netherlands Antilles), in the Spanish enclaves of Morocco (Ceuta and Melilla), in the Philippines (Manila Area), and in the United States of America, where at least 35 million are native speakers or near-native speakers of Spanish. Also known as Castilian, Spanish is additionally the Internet’s third most used language (over 150 million users), after English and written Chinese. No fewer than 22 Nobel Prize winners have hailed from the Spanish-speaking world, covering areas such as literature, medicine, peace, and chemistry. Significant contributions of famous modern and contemporary Hispanics include –but are not limited to– areas such as the arts, sports, music, literature, business, film, sciences and architecture. With these solid facts in mind, our discipline strives to promote the learning of standard Spanish in a balanced approach that stresses practical and essential communication within an appropriate cultural context.

Spanish Discipline at Cuesta College: Background and History

Spanish language instruction has taken place at Cuesta College since 1965. Tenured professors since the discipline’s inception include Ramona Frost (deceased), Nancy Shearer (retired), Tony Rector-Cavagnaro (active) and Ralph Sutter (retired). For the record: In 1992 we had another Spanish instructor tenured at 62.5% (Ana Ferrer), and Susan Lloyd (another 62.5% tenured

137

instructor who currently teaches French exclusively) has taught Spanish courses in the past. Since the last Program Review (2007), presently known as CPPR (Instructional Comprehensive Program Planning and Review) the Spanish Language Discipline (currently incorporated in the Modern Languages Program) at Cuesta College has maintained its overall high-quality instruction. Based on data for academic years 2007-2008 through 2011-2012, our Spanish language course offerings, from early morning to late evening, on three locations (San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles and Arroyo Grande), have seen a slight decline. Conversely, the overall efficacy of the program, particularly in the last two years, has been enhanced and reinforced by a substantial increase in technology utilization in the classroom, and Spanish continues to be a popular discipline on all three centers. Currently, the schedule structure is under review so that classroom enrollments augment and return to previous levels. More recently, the number of sections offered was cut from 18 to 14, though one class was cancelled before the beginning of term, so the actual number is 13. A staff of at least 3 full-time Spanish professors and a stable number of part-time faculty members is a paramount factor for a cohesive and well-balanced Spanish Language Discipline at an institution the size of Cuesta College. At one time (1994–1996) we had four tenured Spanish instructors (3 full-time and one part-time). Factually, the main challenge the program continues to face in the future is a lack of faculty, primarily full-time (1 currently) and part-time (7) who actively teach academic 5-unit courses. The North County Campus in Paso Robles, which in the past 5-year period (2002-2003 through 2006-2007) saw adequate growth, currently operates only with part-time Spanish instructor; the same is true for classes taught at the Arroyo Grande Center. In over 50 years Cuesta College has only had a total of 4 full-time (100% teaching load) Spanish professors. In Academic Year 2011-2012, since the retirement of two full-time instructors (Nancy Shearer, 2007; Ralph Sutter, 2011) the Spanish discipline has had only 1 full-time faculty member (Tony Rector-Cavagnaro), and in his capacity as a chair (AY 2010-2011 through AY 2013-2014) is unable to instruct more than 2 or 3 courses per term. Additionally, we have routinely cancelled classes since the last program review. This partly is due to lower enrollments across the District. With a reduction from 18 to 14 class sections per term, we temporarily have an adequate number of adjuncts in our discipline. Usually, a Spanish part-time teacher pool takes place every academic year both at Cuesta (once or twice a year) and at Cal Poly (once a year), so both institutions are constantly competing for instructors. We also compete for Spanish part-time faculty with Allan Hancock College, and two of their three full-

138

time Spanish professors (Sofía Ramírez-Gelpí, Ana Gómez) are actually former Cuesta adjunct professors. As a result of this state of affairs, we need at least two more tenure-track full-time Spanish faculty positions: one replacement professor exclusively for the San Luis Obispo Campus, and one professor at large (North County Campus, Arroyo Grande Center and San Luis Obispo Campus). Our current (Spring 2013) talented Spanish active part-time faculty pool is composed of Lisha Duarte, Dawn Feuerberg, Rebecca Morris, Yolanda Solís (NCC), Linda Janzen (NCC, retiring this term),Claudia Plascencia (Arroyo Grande, SLO) and Brittany Anderson Cain (newly hired). Tony Rector-Cavagnaro, is the only full-time instructor, but in his capacity as chair only teaches two courses this term (spring 2013). Per AB 1725, and in theory, 75% of academic courses should be taught by full-time faculty. This semester, out of 13 Spanish academic courses, only 2 will be officially funded with full-time pay. This means, in practice, that this term 15.38%% of Spanish class sections are officially taught by a full-time faculty member, or, 84.62% of Spanish classes are taught by non-tenured adjunct faculty. With a hands-on, student-centered approach –more typical of elite private colleges– the areas targeted in our teaching of the Spanish language include:

Acquisition of practical vocabulary Fine-tuning of listening comprehension Extensive oral interaction Learning of communication-based grammatical concepts Continual progress in reading comprehension, critical thinking and

writing Dissemination of broad cultural information on Spain and “Spanish

America” (Hispanomérica)

139


The Spanish Discipline supports the district’s efforts in achieving Institutional Goal 1: Institutional Objective 1.1 and 1.2, and Institutional Goal 2: Institutional Objective 2.2 Institutional Objective 1.1: “Increase the percentage of transfer-directed students who are transfer prepared (by 2% annually)”

Transfer Directed Students Spanish

(Three-year total: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11) The following data was manually compiled and aggregated from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website. Enrollment figures are included to indicate total pool sizes.

Became transfer-directed in 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11

Did not become transfer-directed in 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11

Total Enrollment

Spanish 14% (323) 86% (2,043) 2,366 Modern Languages

Total 12% (589)

88% (4,412)

5,001

An average of 14% of the students enrolled in the Spanish courses became transfer-directed during the three year period from 2008 to 2011. This was slightly above the Modern Languages Program average. 47.31% of students in a Modern Language classroom opted to enroll in Spanish. Cuesta College’s Spanish courses within the Modern Languages Program framework support both, Cuesta’s General Education and Institutional Learning Outcomes. Institutional Learning Outcome 4b refers to “understanding of world traditions and the interrelationship between diverse groups and cultures” and ILO #5b stipulates that students “demonstrate knowledge and sensitivity to diverse groups and cultures through studying the world’s languages, societies, and histories.” Currently Cuesta does not offer a degree in Spanish (or in any of the Modern Languages). Nonetheless, members of the Spanish faculty contribute to transfer-readiness by providing students with a solid foundation for continued language study at a four-year institution. In response to student demand, the Spanish Discipline strives to create student-centered class schedules. Spanish classes are offered at three locations. Class offerings start in the morning, as early as 8 a.m. and continue on until approximately 9 p.m.

140

Institutional Objective 1.2: “Increase the percentage of degree- or certificate-directed students who complete degrees or certificates (by 2% annually)” According to recent study (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, November 2012), of all students who started at a two-year public institution, 36.3% completed a degree within six years at a four-year institution. At Cuesta College overall transfers have decreased due to decreases in transfers to the CSU system. Beginning in 2009 the entire CSU system, in response to cut backs in state funding, began reducing the number of transfer slots. Since the Spanish Discipline does not offer a degree (and there is no interdisciplinary Modern Languages degree), our faculty members have no direct impact on the rate of completion of degrees. Conversely, Spanish courses are options for a Liberal Arts degree with an emphasis in Arts and Humanities (Art, Art History, Communications, Drama, English, French, Spanish, German, Music and Philosophy). Currently, a CSU transfer model curriculum is being developed for Spanish. Additionally, our four academic Spanish courses fulfill the language requirement for transfer to the University of California system. At present only one Cuesta degree program has a language requirement. The A.A. in International Studies requires two semesters of the same language, and one of the options is Spanish. The data below was manually compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website and is provided for the purpose of gauging student interest in obtaining an A.A. in International Studies.

Students Enrolled in the Modern Languages Program (MLP) Who Declared International Studies as Their Major

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Spanish 3 2 4 6 Total 7 6 10 14 The interest in obtaining an A.A. in International Studies seems to be increasing. Over the past four years a total of 37 students, who have been enrolled in language courses, have declared International Studies as their major. Institutional Objective 2.2: “Increase the local high school capture rate by 2% annually” As referenced in the Modern Languages CPPR, over the course of the next eight years California is expected to numerically lose more high school graduates than any other state in the United States. On the other hand, by 2019-20 Hispanics

141

will make up nearly half of all California high school graduates, and a sizable portion of them will be heritage speakers interested in enrolling in Spanish classes. The sole full-time Spanish faculty member (Tony Rector-Cavagnaro) is available to actively participate in any outreach activities organized by the district, including accompanying Cuesta counselors to the local high schools in an effort to promote Cuesta College and recruit prospective students. III. PROGRAM DATA ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM-SPECIFIC MEASUREMENTS Summary Data: Spanish Discipline at Cuesta College For the current review of the interdisciplinary Modern Languages Program (MLP) all Data was manually compiled from the SLCCCD Institutional Research and Assessment website and correlated in a format, which facilitates analysis and interpretation. Spanish by Level

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

SPAN 201

579 23 25 14.50 616 25 25 13.09 548 23 24 12.96 541 24 23 11.81

SPAN 202

244 13 19 10.92 261 11 24 12.66 237 11 22 11.34 210 11 19 10.04

SPAN 203

56 2 28 14.52 51 2 26 13.69 47 2 24 11.82 42 2 21 11.29

SPAN 204

20 1 20 10.74 19 1 19 10.19 13 1 13 6.45 12 1 12 6.45

TOTAL 899 39 23 12.98 947 39 24 12.93 845 37 23 12.24 805 38 21 11.13

Enrollment, Number of Sections, Students per Section, FTES/FTEF

Over the last four years the Spanish Discipline has served a total of 3,496 students in a regular classroom setting, an average of 874 students per year.

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

SPAN 899 39 23 12.98 947 39 24 12.93 845 37 23 12.24 805 38 21 11.13

ML TOTAL

1915 81 24 12.63 2030 81 25 13.14 1790 76 24 12.44 1747 80 22 11.46

142

Until recently (2012-2013), the overall number of Spanish class sections remained fairly steady over the four-year period, around 38 sections per year, with a dip of four sections in 2010-11, when summer session was canceled. However, overall enrollment has dropped recently since the total number of offerings was reduced to 26 sections per year. In the Modern Languages Program over the last four years an average of 46% of its students (3,500) studied Spanish. This decrease in enrollment has coincided with a decrease in district-wide enrollment, possibly due to Cuesta College’s continued accreditation issues, which started in spring 2009. It was partially further fueled by the cancelation of summer session 2010. Additionally, the enrollment throughout the California Community College system has shown a downward trend in recent years (17% over the past four years), due to reduced funding from the state. The optimal size for a Spanish class is between 15 and 20 students according to the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. The average class size of a Cuesta College Spanish (2008-2009 through 2011-2012) was 23 students per section, with a cap of 25. In spring 2013 the cap was raised to 28 students. The FTES/FTEF ratio fluctuated from a high of 13.14 (2009-2010) to a low of 11.46 (2011-2012). Though fill rates in Spanish have dropped, they do not reflect productivity. A better measure of efficiency for college-wide comparison is the average number of students enrolled per section, which correlates with FTES/FTEF ratios.

Summary Data for the Spanish Discipline by Level Spanish I (201)

Over the last four years a total of 2284 students were enrolled in a Spanish level 1 course (available at three locations). The average was 571 students per year, which represented 51.59% of the total enrollment in Spanish classes. The annual average number of level 1 sections offered per year was 24. Class size showed a steady average of 24 students per section. At this time, no further level 1 classes should be cut.

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

SPAN 201 579 23 25 14.50 616 25 25 13.09 548 23 24 12.96 541 24 23 11.81

MLP TOTAL 1253 48 26 1408 55 26 1213 49 25 1256 55 23

143

Spanish II (202)

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

SPAN 202 244 13 19 10.92 261 11 24 12.66 237 11 22 11.34 210 11 19 10.04

MLP TOTAL 493 25 21 516 21 25 449 21 21 425 21 20

Over the last four years a total of 1883 students were enrolled in a Spanish level 2 course (available at two campuses). The average was 471 students per year, which represented 42.53% of the total enrollment in Spanish classes. The annual average number of level 2 sections offered was 11.5. Class size showed a steady average of 21 students per section. At this time, no further level 2 classes should be cut. Spanish III (203)

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

SPAN 203

56 2 28 14.52 51 2 26 13.69 47 2 24 11.82 42 2 21 11.29

MLP TOTAL

97 4 24 66 3 22 72 3 24 54 3 18

Over the last four years a total of 196 students were enrolled in a Spanish level 3 course (only on the San Luis Obispo campus). The average was 49 students per year, which represented 4.43% of the total enrollment in Spanish classes. Historically, the average yearly number of level 3 sections has been 2. Class size showed a steady average of 21 students per section. At this time, no further level 3 classes should be cut. Spanish 203 is currently the only Modern Languages level 3 courses offered in a traditional classroom format. Spanish IV (204)

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

Enrollment

# of Sections

Stud per sect

FTES/FTEF

SPAN 204

20 1 20 10.74 19 1 19 10.19 13 1 13 6.45 12 1 12 6.45

MLP TOTAL

44 3 15 19 1 19 10.19 13 1 13 6.45 12 1 12 6.45

144

Over the last four years a total of 64 students were enrolled in a level 4 course. The average was 16 students per year, which represented 1.45% of the total enrollment in Spanish classes. The average number of level 1 sections offered was 1. Spanish 204 is the only Modern Languages level 4 courses offered in a traditional classroom format. Unfortunately, there has been a decline in enrollment and this course is not being offered in AY 2012-2013.

Success and Student Enrollment Summary data for Spanish Spanish: Success and Retention by Level Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Spanish 201 69.9% (579) 67.4% (616) 67.2% (548) 64.9% (541) Spanish 202 71.7% (244) 74.3% (261) 71.3% (237) 72.4% (210) Spanish 203 64.3% (56) 72.5% (51) 68.1% (47) 64.3% (42) Spanish 204 100.0% (20) 84.2% (19) 53.8% (13) 83.3% (12) Annual Success 70.8% (899) 69.9% (947) 68.1% (845) 67.1% (805) Annual Retention

83.4% 82.3% 82.3% 81.9%

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Modern Languages: Success

70.8% (1,915)

69.0% (2,030)

69.4% (1,790)

69.5% (1,747)

Modern Languages: Retention

84.5%

83.4%

83.0%

83.4%

Overall success and retention rates in Spanish are similar to the average for MLP.

Statewide Success and Student Enrollment: Summary Data for Academic Year 2011-12 Spanish

All Languages

Spanish

69.6% (188,472)

68.9% (107,851)

Cuesta College Spanish success rates similar to those at the state level.

145

Cuesta College Success and Student Enrollment:

Summary Data for Spanish by Level Spanish Level 1 Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Spanish 201 69.9% (579) 67.4% (616) 67.2% (548) 64.9% (541) Cuesta College Spanish level 1 success rates are similar to those at the average state level. Spanish Level 2 Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Spanish 202 71.7% (244) 74.3% (261) 71.3% (237) 72.4% (210) Cuesta College Spanish level 2 success rates are above to those at the average state level. Spanish Level 3 Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Spanish 203 64.3% (56) 72.5% (51) 68.1% (47) 64.3% (42) Cuesta College Spanish level 3 success rates are similar to those at the average state level. Spanish Level 4 Success 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Spanish 204 100.0% (20) 84.2% (19) 53.8% (13) 83.3% (12) Cuesta College Spanish level 4 success rates are above to those at the average state level.

Cuesta College Summary Data for Spanish: Student Enrollment by Gender Female Enrollment 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Spanish 51.0% (899) 53.1% (947) 52.7% (845) 53.2% (805)

146

In the Spanish Discipline a slight majority of students are females. Male Enrollment 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Spanish 47.8% (899) 45.7% (947) 46.8% (845) 46.2% (805) In the Spanish Discipline a slight minority of students are males. For further district and statewide statistics and analysis please refer to the Modern Languages CPPR (pages 26-28).

147

IV a. MLP CURRICULUM REVIEW SYNOPSIS Note: A Spanish Program Review is no longer applicable, since the Spanish Discipline is now part of the Modern Languages Program, effective spring 2013. In spring 2012 and fall 2012 all Spanish courses in the Modern Languages Program (MLP) have undergone major modifications in the process of increasing the lecture units from 4 to 5 (Span 201, Span 202, Span 203 and Span 204). At that time all four courses were updated to reflect current course content and to conform to CurricUNET standards. See individual language sections of the MLP CPPR for details and analysis. The only degree program affected by the increase in language course units was International Studies (for details and analysis please refer to the MLP CPPR). The following is a curriculum review for the Spanish Discipline: IV b. SPANISH DISCIPLINE CURRICULUM REVIEW Current Review Date: March 1, 2013 Reviewer: Tony Rector-Cavagnaro 1. Courses


Currently active


Major modification since last CPPR

Minor modification since last CPPR

Deactivated since last CPPR Notified impacted program(s)*

Span 201 Yes No

Yes: (effective Fall 2012) change from 4 to 5 lecture units

None No

Span 202 Yes No Yes: (effective Fall 2012) change from 4 to 5 lecture units

None No


None No


None No

148

Deactivated Course Impacted Program (s) Date affected program was notified Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Modified Courses Impacted Program (s) Date affected program was notified SPAN 201 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 SPAN 202 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 SPAN 203 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012 SPAN 204 (Unit change) International Studies Spring 2012

2. Course Review

Course Number SPAN 201 SPAN 202 SPAN 203 SPAN 204 1. Effective term listed on COR Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 Date: Fall 2012 2. Catalog / schedule description

is appropriate Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes

5. Grading Method is accurate Yes Yes Yes Yes 6. Repeatability is zero Yes Yes Yes Yes 7. Class Size is accurate Yes Yes Yes Yes 8. Objectives are aligned with

methods of evaluation Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes

14. Degree/Certificate information (if applicable) is correct

Yes Yes Yes Yes

15. Library materials are

adequate and current Yes Yes Yes Yes

149

3. Programs

Program / Certificate Title

Currently active

New program since last CPPR

Program modification since last CPPR

Deactivated since last CPPR

None of the disciplines in the Modern Languages Program, including Spanish, offer a degree

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

4. Five-Year Cycle Calendar All Spanish courses have been updated and are currently annotated with an effective date of “fall 2012.” All courses reflect current course content, text books and conform to CurricUNET formatting standards. A five year cycle calendar is not needed at this time. All Spanish courses will be reviewed again five years at the time of the next CPPR (Comprehensive Program and Planning Review). Note: The following Course Assessment Summaries were modified to reflect the change to the Modern Languages Program (effective Spring 2012). Spanish is now a discipline within this program, along with French, German and American Sign Language; it is no longer a stand-alone program.

150

V. PROGRAM OUTCOMES, ASSESSMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS NARRATIVE This section has been thoroughly addressed in the joint 2009-2012 Modern Languages Interdisciplinary Program Review (MLP CPPR). For complete information please refer to Section V of the MLP CPPR (pages 31-36).

• DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR SPANISH

These SLOs were formerly known as “Student Learning Outcomes – Spanish Program (Multi-Level).” Spanish Discipline Student Learning Outcomes (Multi–level) Upon completion of this program, each student should be able to: 1. Recognize and apply topic-centered vocabulary and basic to intermediate

grammatical concepts for every communicative goal contained in all four levels of Spanish when listening, speaking, reading and writing.

2. During oral interaction in Spanish, employ level-appropriate, topic-based questions and formulate oral answers in a timely manner with morphological accuracy.

3. In Spanish convey the meaning of topic-centered, level-appropriate materials without resorting to word-by-word translation, and formulate follow-up questions verbally and in writing.

4. Write sentences and paragraphs in Spanish referencing a variety of social and cultural situations which are presented in each level of the Spanish program.

5. Describe and discuss various basic aspects of Spanish–speaking cultures.

151

VI. SPANISH DISCIPLINE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES/ASSESSMENTS Definition of Program Learning Outcome No. 1 (Interpersonal Communication) according to the National Standards in Foreign Language Education (“Standards for Foreign Language Learning. Preparing for the 21st Century.”): “Students engage in conversation, provide and obtain information, express feelings and emotions, and exchange opinions” SPANISH DATA: FALL 2012 - Program Learning Outcome: Interpersonal Communication

Spanish Total

Number of Sections

Total Assessed

A* B* C* D* F* No shows**

Total Grades

Total (13 sections)

230 125 54%

60 26%

32 14%

12 5%

1 0.5%

22 9%

252

* Percentage calculated on “Total assessed” **Percentage calculated on “Total Grades”

Spanish: Level 1

Number of Sections

Total Assessed


Total Grades

Total (9 sections) 154 85 55%

37 24%

21 14%

11 7%

20 11%

174


Spanish: Level 2

Number of Sections

Total Assessed


Total Grades

Total (3 sections) 62 31 50%

20 32%

10 16%

1 2%

1 2%

63

* Percentage calculated on “Total assessed” **Percentage calculated on “Total Grades” Spanish: Level 3

Number of Sections

Total Assessed


Total Grades

Total (1section) 14

9 (64%)

3 (22%)

1 (7%)

1 (7%)

1 (7%)

15


Assessment Parameters Assessment Methodology Instructor-to-Student Student-to-Student SPAN 9 sections SPAN 4 sections Degree of “Scriptedness” Interpersonal Communication is highly scripted

Interpersonal Communication is somewhat scripted

Interpersonal Communication is mostly extemporaneous

SPAN 5 sections SPAN 8 sections SPAN Number of Questions Asked: The number of questions asked ranged from 7 to 25. A few sections used only the familiar address, and most sections used both familiar and formal address.

152

Spanish 201 Course Assessment Summary

Division: Languages & Communications Program: Modern Languages Date: February 28, 2013 Course: SPANISH 201 Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Rector-Cavagnaro, Tony; Morris, Rebecca; Duarte, Lisha; Feuerberg, Dawn; Janzen, Linda Course-to-program outcome mapping document is completed: Yes

1 Student Learning Outcome Statements for this Course

Upon completion of this course the student should be able to:

1. Recognize and apply topic-centered Spanish vocabulary and basic grammatical concepts presented in every communicative goal contained in this level when listening, speaking, reading and writing.

2. During conversation in Spanish employ level-appropriate, topic-based questions and formulate oral answers in short phrases and full sentences, with morphological accuracy.

3. In Spanish, convey verbally and in writing the meaning of topic-centered, level-appropriate materials without resorting to word-by-word translation.

4. Write complete sentences and brief paragraphs in Spanish referencing a variety of social and cultural situations presented in this level of the Spanish program,

5. Describe and discuss various basic aspects of Spanish–speaking

cultures.

2 Assessment Methods Plan

Every spring term (2010, 2011 and 2012) on the day of the final exam, every instructor teaching this level distributed a 5-question survey to his/her students. All students present were asked to self-assess their ability for the outcomes mentioned in item 1 above. Students used the following compulsory 5-point Likert-style psychometric scale (provided by Institutional Research) to report their perception of what they learned in the course: 5=Very Well; 4=Fairly Well; 3=Somewhat; 2=Slightly;1=Not at All

In fall term 2012 every instructor teaching this level provided direct assessment data on Course Learning Outcome No. 2 (Interpersonal Communication). All Spanish instructors participated and used a traditional scale of A, B, C, D and F to score results; C or better is considered passing (successful result).

153

3 Assessment Administration Plan

In the month of May of the year 2012 all students (from different class sections) present (on the date of various final exams) completed the standardized survey. The assessment results were compiled by class section and in the aggregate by Ryan Cartnal and his assistant, Amy LaRue, of the Office of Institutional Research. Note: We will no longer utilize this student-centered course evaluation procedure, which begun in 2010, every spring term. Instead we are now going to carry out direct assessment of our student learning outcomes (SLOs).

4 Assessment Results Summary

The spring term 2012 aggregate results were as follows: SLO 1: 4.22, with a 86.05% favorable perception* SLO 2: 4.05, with a 74.42% favorable perception SLO 3: 4.47, with a 93.02% favorable perception SLO 4: 3.88, with a 68.60% favorable perception SLO 5: 3.60, with a 49.42% favorable perception *Favorable perception combines Very well and Fairly well. In fall term 2012 every instructor teaching this level provided data on Course Learning Outcome No. 2 (Interpersonal Communication): Overall 100% of all students who participated in the direct assessment succeeded (earned a grade of C or better). 11% of all students who were registered did not participate in the assessment event. Since no-shows did not earn a performance score, they were not included in the calculation of performance success/failure. Results for 154 Students (9 Sections): 55% earned an A (85 students), 24% earned a B (37 students), 14% earned a C (21 students), and 7% earned a D (11 students).


Our most veteran Spanish language faculty (Rector-Cavagnaro, Morris, Duarte, Feuerberg) routinely meet at the beginning of fall term to discuss the assessment of the Spanish 201 SLOs, and to confer about strategies to improve them. Effective in Academic Year 2012-2013, Spanish 201 is a 5-unit course; this means students will now have 20% more in-class time to learn and acquire the material presented in this level. We found SLOs 1, 2 and 3 to be at acceptable levels. This academic year we will dedicate more class time to covering SLO 5 and more online homework will focus on SLO 4. By mutual agreement, all Spanish 201 class sections are taught by all instructors with the same language program, and since the enrollments are manageable (28-student course cap), it is simple to

154

analyze quantitative and qualitative results on an annual basis. The classroom course content presentations and activities are constantly being fine-tuned, improved and augmented to help advance student performance and success. Despite some level disparities among students, every effort is made to create an engaging learning environment for all students every day the class meets. All members of the Spanish faculty are full engaged and participate in this direct assessment process.


First, the additional 20% time in class will allow for more in-depth coverage by each instructor. Second, the additional hour of class time in class will give students the opportunity to improve on SLOs 4 and 5. Third, further time will be focused on discussing social and cultural themes (SLOs 4 and 5) and more of the out-of-class assignments will include cultural topics.


Our goal for academic year 2012-2013 is to meet more regularly (two or three times per term) to discuss progress in improving our SLOs achievement. This is the third year we have met to evaluate SLO assessment results and progress, and to generate and implement strategies for improvement.

155

Spanish 202 Course Assessment Summary Division: Languages & Communications Program: Modern Languages Date: February 28, 2013 Course: SPANISH 202 Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Rector-Cavagnaro, Tony; Morris, Rebecca; Duarte, Lisha; Feuerberg, Dawn; Solís, Yolanda Course-to-program outcome mapping document is completed: Yes


Upon completion of this course, the student should be able to:

1. Recognize and apply topic-centered Spanish vocabulary and basic grammatical concepts presented in every communicative goal contained in this level when listening, speaking, reading and writing.

2. During conversation in Spanish employ level-appropriate, topic-based questions and formulate oral answers in short phrases and full sentences, with morphological accuracy.

3. In Spanish, convey verbally and in writing the meaning of topic-centered, level-appropriate materials without resorting to word-by-word translation and formulate follow–up questions,

4. Write accurate sentences and concise paragraphs in Spanish referencing a variety of social and cultural situations presented in this level of the Spanish program.

5. Describe and discuss various basic aspects of Spanish–speaking cultures.


Every spring term (2010, 2011 and 2012) on the day of the final exam, every instructor teaching this level distributed a 5-question survey to his/her students. All students present were asked to self-assess their ability for the outcomes mentioned in item 1 above. Students used the following compulsory 5-point Likert-style psychometric scale (provided by Institutional Research) to report their perception of what they learned in the course: 5=Very Well; 4=Fairly Well; 3=Somewhat; 2=Slightly;1=Not at All In fall term 2012 every instructor teaching this level provided direct assessment data on Course Learning Outcome No. 2 (Interpersonal Communication). All Spanish instructors participated and used a traditional scale of A, B, C, D and F to score results; C or better is considered passing (successful result).


In the month of May of the year 2012 all students (from different class sections) present (on the date of various final exams) completed the

156

standardized survey. The assessment results were compiled by class section and in the aggregate by Ryan Cartnal and his assistant, Amy LaRue, of the Office of Institutional Research. Note: We will no longer utilize this student-centered course evaluation procedure, which begun in 2010, every spring term. Instead we are now going to carry out direct assessment of our student learning outcomes (SLOs).


The spring term 2012 aggregate results were as follows: SLO 1: 4.18, with a 79.48% favorable perception* SLO 2: 4.04, with a 75.64% favorable perception SLO 3: 4.42, with a 88.46% favorable perception SLO 4: 4.12, with a 78.21% favorable perception SLO 5: 3.84, with a 66.66% favorable perception *Favorable perception combines Very well and Fairly well. In fall term 2012 every instructor teaching this level provided data on Program Learning Outcome No. 2 (Interpersonal Communication): Overall 98% of all students who participated in the direct assessment succeeded (earned a grade of C or better). 2% of all students who were registered (63) did not participate in the assessment event. Since no-shows did not earn a performance score, they were not included in the calculation of performance success/failure. Results for 62 Students (3 Sections): 50% earned an A (31 students), 32% earned a B (20 students), 16% earned a C (10students), and 2% earned a D (1 student).


Our most veteran Spanish language faculty (Rector-Cavagnaro, Morris, Duarte, Feuerberg) routinely meet at the beginning of fall term to discuss the assessment of the Spanish 202 SLOs, and to confer about strategies to improve them. Effective in Academic Year 2012-2013, Spanish 201 is a 5-unit course; this means students will now have 20% more in-class time to learn and acquire the material presented in this level. This year we found SLOs 1, 2, 3 and 4 to be at acceptable levels. This academic year we will dedicate more class time to covering SLO 5 and more online homework will focus on SLO 5. By mutual agreement, all Spanish 202 class sections are taught by all instructors with the same language program, and since the enrollments are manageable (28-student course cap), it is simple to analyze quantitative and qualitative results on an annual basis. The classroom course content presentations and activities are constantly being fine-tuned, improved and augmented to help advance student

157

performance and success. Despite some level disparities among students, every effort is made to create an engaging learning environment for all students every day the class meets. All members of the Spanish faculty are full engaged and participate in this direct assessment process.


First, the additional 20% time in class will allow for more in-depth coverage by each instructor. Second, the additional hour of class time in class will give students the opportunity to improve on SLO 5. Third, further time will be focused on discussing cultural themes (SLOs 5) and more of the out-of-class assignments will include cultural topics.


By mutual agreement, all Spanish 202 class sections are taught by all instructors with the same language program, and since the enrollments are manageable (25-student course cap), it is simple to analyze quantitative and qualitative results on an annual basis. The classroom course content presentations and activities are constantly being fine-tuned, improved and augmented to help advance student performance and success. Despite some level disparities among students, every effort is made to create an engaging learning environment for all students every day the class meets. Our goal for academic year 2012-2013 is to meet more regularly (two or three times per term) to discuss progress in improving our SLOs achievement. This is the third year we have met to evaluate SLO assessment results and progress, and to generate and implement strategies for improvement.

158

Spanish 203 Course Assessment Summary Division: Languages & Communications Program: Modern Languages Date: February 28, 2013 Course: SPANISH 203 Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Rector-Cavagnaro, Tony (Until spring 2013 I was the only person teaching this once-per-term course. I am also the only bona fide tenured, full-time faculty member in the Spanish Discipline) Course-to-program outcome mapping document is completed: Yes



1. Recognize and apply topic-centered Spanish vocabulary and intermediate grammatical concepts presented in every communicative goal contained in this level when listening, speaking, reading and writing.

2. During conversation in Spanish employ level-appropriate, topic-based questions and formulate oral answers with morphological accuracy.

3. In Spanish, convey verbally and in writing the meaning of topic-centered, level-appropriate materials without resorting to word-by-word translation, and formulate follow-up questions.

4. Write complex sentences and extended paragraphs in Spanish referencing a variety of social and cultural situations presented in this level of the Spanish program.

5. Describe, discuss, contrast and compare various basic physical and

sociological manifestations of Spanish–speaking cultures.


Every spring term (2010, 2011 and 2012) on the day of the final exam, every instructor teaching this level distributed a 5-question survey to his/her students. All students present were asked to self-assess their ability for the outcomes mentioned in item 1 above. Students used the following compulsory 5-point Likert-style psychometric scale (provided by Institutional Research) to report their perception of what they learned in the course: 5=Very Well; 4=Fairly Well; 3=Somewhat; 2=Slightly;1=Not at All In fall term 2012 the instructor teaching this level (Tony Rector-Cavagnaro) provided direct assessment data on Course Learning Outcome No. 2 (Interpersonal Communication). The instructor used a traditional scale of A, B, C, D and F to score results; C or better is considered passing (successful result).

159

3 Assessment

Administration Plan On the 16th of May, 2012 all students all students enrolled in this course completed the standardized survey. The assessment results were compiled by Ryan Cartnal and his assistant, Amy LaRue, of the Office of Institutional Research. Note: We will no longer utilize this student-centered course evaluation procedure, which begun in 2010, every spring term. Instead we are now going to carry out direct assessment of our student learning outcomes (SLOs).


Spring 2012 Results: SLO 1 = 4.14 18/22 Positive (7 Very Well, 11 Fairly Well, 4 Somewhat) SLO 2 = 3.77 14/22 Positive (6 Very Well, 8 Fairly Well, 8 Somewhat) SLO 3 = 4.29 20/22 Positive (8 Very Well, 12 Fairly Well, 1 Somewhat) SLO 4 = 3.77 12/22 Positive (5 Very Well, 7 Fairly Well, 10 Somewhat) SLO 5 = 3.23 7/22 Positive (2 Very Well, 5 Fairly Well, 15 Somewhat) In fall term 2012 the instructor teaching this level provided data on Course Learning Outcome No. 2 (Interpersonal Communication): Overall 93% of all students who participated in the direct assessment of PLO No.2 succeeded (earned a grade of C or better). 7% of all students who were registered (1) did not participate in the assessment event. Since no-shows did not earn a performance score, they were not included in the calculation of performance success/failure. Results for 1 section (14 students): 64% earned an A (9 students), 22% earned a B (3 students), 7% earned a C (1students), and 7% earned an F (1 student).


SLOs 1 and 3 have been identified as having successful achievement levels. Though SLO’s 2 and 4 need to improve, their attainment levels are considered satisfactory. SLO 5 (culture) will require and receive more consideration. Effective in Academic Year 2012-2013, Spanish 203 is a 5-unit course; this means students will now have 20% more in-class time to learn and acquire the material presented in this level. The foremost quandary in improving all 5 SLOs is posed by students who are underprepared for this level and/or do not dedicate sufficient time and put adequate effort into the coursework.


First, the additional 20% time in class will allow for more in-depth coverage by the instructor. Second, the additional hour of class time in class will give students the opportunity to improve on SLOs 2 and 4. Third, further time will be focused on discussing cultural themes (SLO 5) and more of the out-of-class assignments will include cultural topics.

160


In such a small department, this course is only taught by this instructor, and since the enrollments are relatively minute (25-student course cap, only one course section per regular term), it is complex to ascertain qualitative results on an annual basis. The classroom course content presentations and activities are constantly being fine-tuned, improved and augmented to help advance student performance and success. Despite some level disparities among students, every effort is made to create an engaging learning environment for all students every day the class meets. As of fall 2012 only direct assessment of PLOs will be used.

161

Spanish 204 Course Assessment Summary

Division: Languages & Communications Program: Modern Languages Date: August 28, 2012 Course: SPANISH 204 Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: Rector-Cavagnaro, Tony (204 instructor in previous terms; former division chair and department head; Sutter, Ralph 204 (instructor in 2010 and 2011; retired); Duarte, Lisha (204 instructor in 2012) Course-to-program outcome mapping document is completed: Yes



1. Recognize and apply topic-centered Spanish vocabulary and intermediate to advanced grammatical concepts for every communicative goal contained in this level when listening, speaking, reading and writing.

2. During oral interaction in Spanish, employ level-appropriate, topic-based questions and formulate oral answers in a timely manner with morphological accuracy.

3. In Spanish convey the meaning of topic-centered, level-appropriate materials without resorting to word-by-word translation, and formulate follow-up questions verbally and in writing.

4. Write complex sentences and extended paragraphs in Spanish referencing a variety of social and cultural situations which are presented in this level of the Spanish program.

5. Describe, discuss, contrast and compare various basic

physical and sociological manifestations of Spanish–speaking cultures and relate this to their own cultural perspective.

2 Assessment

Methods Plan

Every spring term (2010, 2011 and 2012) on the day of the final exam, every instructor teaching this level distributed a 5-question survey to his/her students. All students present were asked to self-assess their ability for the outcomes mentioned in item 1 above. Students used the following compulsory 5-point Likert-style psychometric scale (provided by Institutional Research) to report their perception of what they learned in the course: 5=Very Well; 4=Fairly Well; 3=Somewhat; 2=Slightly;1=Not at All

162

In the future instructor teaching this level will provide direct assessment data on Program Learning Outcome No. 2 (Interpersonal Communication). The instructor will use a traditional scale of A, B, C, D and F to score results; C or better is considered passing (successful result).


On the 14th of May, 2012 all students all students enrolled in this course completed the standardized survey. The assessment results were compiled by class section and in the aggregate by Ryan Cartnal and his assistant, Amy LaRue, of the Office of Institutional Research. Note: We will no longer utilize this student-centered course evaluation procedure, which begun in 2010, every spring term. Instead we are now going to carry out direct assessment of our student learning outcomes (SLOs).


Spring 2012 Results: SLO 1 = 4.33 4 Very Well, 4 Fairly Well, 1 Somewhat SLO 2 = 4.44 4 Very Well, 5 Fairly Well SLO 3 = 4.67 6 Very Well, 3 Fairly Well SLO 4 = 4.56 4 Very Well, 5 Fairly Well SLO 5 = 4.22 3 Very Well, 4 Fairly Well, 2 Somewhat Note: No data is available for AY 2012-2013 (the course was not offered).


The latest iteration of this course taught only once per year (in the spring term) had only nine students enrolled. Most or all of the students enrolled in this course did so because of a personal or professional interest in learning Spanish. Hence, it is not surprising that all 5 SLOs ranked so well. With a new instructor, this year numbers were an improvement over last years, and yet since the enrollments are relatively minute (20-student course cap, only one course section per academic year, typically 14-15 students enrolled), it is complex to ascertain qualitative results on an annual basis.


Effective in Academic Year 2012-2013, Spanish 204 is a 5-unit course; this means students will now have 20% more in-class time to learn and acquire the material presented in this level. This will allow further improving SLO 5 (culture) in particular. This course will be offered in the evening in spring 2013 to improve enrollment, otherwise it may get cancelled or only be offered every other year.


In such a small department, this course is only taught by one instructor with native fluency. Since the enrollments are diminutive, it is complex to ascertain qualitative results on an annual basis. The classroom course content presentations and activities are constantly being fine-tuned, improved and augmented to help advance student performance and success. Despite some level disparities among students, every effort is made to create an engaging learning environment for all.

163

SIGNATURE PAGE

Faculty, Director(s), Manager(s), and/or Staff Associated with the Program

Instructional Programs: All full-time faculty in the program must sign this form. If needed, provide an extra signature line for each additional full-time faculty member in the program. If there are no full-time faculty associated with the program, then the part-time faculty in the program should sign. If applicable, please indicate lead faculty member for program after printing his/her name.

Student Services and Administrative Services Programs: All full-time director(s), managers, faculty and/or classified staff in the program must sign this form.

Division Chair: Tony Rector-Cavagnaro Signature Date

Betsy Dunn: American Sign Language, Lead Instructor Signature Date

Susan Lloyd: French, Lead Instructor Signature Date

Petra Clayton: German, Lead Instructor Signature Date

Tony Rector-Cavagnaro: Spanish, Lead Instructor Signature Date

Documents

Retention and Student Success Plan Presentation · • Curriculum Committee approves redesign of ASL program effective fall 2013 (reduction from 3 levels to 2 levels, increase of