Department of German

CLASS PARTICIPATION, currently 25%, globally assessed; no explicit criteria

Who uses? Instructor to 1) globally gauge overall student interest in and preparation of materials; 2) gauge individual student engagement; 3) give feedback to students in office hour and in mid-semester review about their level of participation in the class; and 4) assign final grade. Students to 1) gain insight into how well they are projecting their interest, preparation and willingness to speak German in the classroom; and 2) to modify their participation behavior. At a informal level, teacher colleagues share information about overall class participation to gauge how well materials are being received in the classroom. 

What is being assessed? Class participation assesses 1) students’ global preparation of materials; 2) willingness to be an active participant in class; 3) student comfort level and individual preferences in terms of activity types; use of new vocabulary and advanced structures; and 4) oral production on-line. 

Who/What is impacted? - Primarily students (grade), whole class (by quality of participation and ability to move forward with goals of class), teacher (by level of preparation and active participation of students), types of activities in class.

Why? Connects to the overall goal of the course to place emphasis on ongoing preparation and consistent active participation in the oral activities of class. Also meets the course goal to place emphasis on the production of oral speech beyond fragments and short utterances, to incorporate the vocabulary of the texts into course discussion and to encourage the use of chunks and discourse appropriate to discussion. Finally, class participation feedback connects with the course goal to encourage self-awareness and independent responsibility for the quantity and quality of their own language use. 

Problems and Possible Solutions:

1. In addition to a global check (+/-) recording system on a weekly basis, criteria might be developed for activities that are frequently used in the classroom, e.g., pair work at the board, group work, individual presentation (if not one of the formally assessed oral planned projects). 

Some criteria for paired/group activities could be:
a. Cooperation in the group;
b. Use of German during pair/group activities;
c. Engagement in the activity;
d. Prior preparation.
Criteria for individual work could be:
a. Readiness to contribute information;
b. Prior preparation;
c. Use of thematic vocabulary and/or discourse chunks;
d. Appropriateness of contribution and linguistic accuracy. This type of assessment could initially be recorded on a grid and later just through mental note-taking (depending on instructor preference).
This would provide a more substantial way of assigning an overall grade at the end of the course and would allow the student to understand better how class participation is being measured.
2. Students should receive precise information about expectations. A statement of "the model student" in terms of preparation and participation could be used (based on Barb Serfozo’s model used in the mid-semester review).
3. Criteria should be set up in way that encourages the use of certain advanced language features identified by the curriculum, e.g., discourse markers, language to introduce and/or substantiate an opinion or argument. This could be done either with the grids or with a bonus point system. By making all of these things explicit, the instructors will have a better way to assess class activities as well.
4. (New) Students will receive written assessments of their oral participation after the completion of each theme (i.e., twice in the regular sequence, four times in the intensive sequence). This assessment could be combined with students’ self-assessment of the extent to which they met the objectives of each theme. Instructors should meet with individual students to compare and discuss the two assessments.

ESSAY WRITING: 25%, assessed through process writing 4x per semester. Second version grade recorded, capped by grade from first version. (Alternatively, both versions are graded and then averaged.)

Who uses? Students use the information from the essay grades to gauge their problem areas and to improve their writing. Instructors use the information to give feedback and to target certain areas for further instruction in class. Instructors use the essays for consultation with students in office hours. The essay assignments themselves are used by instructors to provide students with a framework to integrate the thematic content from the readings with targeted language use. Curriculum developers: The essays are linked very closely to the content and sequence of the curriculum. How well essays are completed by the students will have a washback effect on decisions about the curriculum at this level.

What is being assessed? Students’ ability to appropriately use new vocabulary and structures in a content-based writing assignment. Ability to improve their writing style through self-editing and instructor guidance. Students’ ability to become more complex and move from the private to the public, from the more narrative to the more argumentative. Currently, essay assignments target: narrative, interview, presentation of information, argument, opinion, thesis and substantiation. Finally, essays are integrated into the thematic content of the curriculum so that students are assessed on how well they have understood different facets of the content covered.

Who/What is impacted? The student is impacted - what the student is brought to focus on, grades, motivation. Curricular goals and instruction are impacted by the assignments (getting students ready; doing remedial work, etc.) Instructors (particularly non-natives) are impacted in their own language ability and their ability to selectively and appropriately edit their students’ writing. 

Why? Writing has a clear focus in the departmental curriculum. Students are expected to develop excellent reading and writing skills, facility at extended discourse, creative text production. The emphasis on process writing is reflected in the weighting given to essay writing in the final grade. Writing allows for clear means for error correction. Criteria set out on the grading grid allow the instructor to give pertinent feedback on areas of weakness and strength in language use. Students can work out many aspects of their language use this way which is not always possible with error correction during speaking. Process writing serves to encourage self-correction. Furthermore, the essays allow the student to hone critical thinking skills and to show comprehension of the thematic content in a novel and personalized way.

Problems and Possible Solutions:

1. The level III group exchanged essays and compared grading standards which led to a productive discussion regarding assessment practices. Since grading results at times varied considerably, occasional grading sessions should be scheduled in the upcoming fall semester. 
2. We are generally pleased with the grading grid but suggest a revision to accommodate some aspects of German language use that may not be transparent enough in the grid. We also may consider more explicit mention of the discourse chunks that we are looking for in particular essays in order to encourage their use. Although content is in focus in all the essays, greater explicitness about expectations under this category might be necessary. 
3. Process writing may not be emphasized enough just through the rewriting of essays. We may institute the practice that students submit their first draft with their first version (their 2nd draft) and thereby encourage more strongly the process of self/peer editing. 
4. Finally, students may feel overwhelmed by having to focus on complexity and accuracy in morphosyntax as well as lexical choice. In future, the guidelines should include explicitly what aspects of language use and grammar the student should especially focus on. This may be done for the group or on an individual basis, e.g., through bonus points in specific areas of the grading grid. This is also tied to the fact that accuracy doesn’t always improve because the essays progress in complexity and level of abstractness.
5. Continue use of feedback sheet (Allgemeine Fehler) to group as a whole. These have been positively received by students and used to improve their writing.

QUIZZES: 10%, two per theme 

Who uses? Teacher - 1) mainly to see how well students understand particular vocabulary or a particular grammar point; and 2) for final grade. Students get feedback on particular areas. 

What is being assessed? Very unclear overall - in retrospect used to test vocabulary knowledge (Wortfeldarbeit / Wortfamilien) and discrete knowledge of grammar (adjective endings, passive voice, etc.). Needs to be specified at the outset of the theme to make it more meaningful. 

Who/What is impacted? Students, instruction (can provide feedback on areas of weakness for class) 

Why? The quizzes are not tied explicitly to any of our stated goals for this level. The perception among instructors is that quizzes can motivate students to review vocabulary and particular areas of grammar.

Problems and Possible Solutions:

Quizzes can play a particularly effective role if they are integrated better thematically while allowing students to focus on a few areas of language use at a time.

ORAL PRESENTATIONS: 10%, formal grids designed for each type of activity, planned presentations 2-3x per semester. These include panel discussions, debates, and group presentations.

Who uses? Students gain insight into how well they can perform orally in a planned assignment. Teacher uses to gauge students’ oral production as well as their ability to independently comprehend, summarize and restate information from texts (both written and video).

What is being assessed? Overall, the student’s integration of content and language use in planned speech and the ability to amass appropriate ways to engage in interactive discourse. Specific criteria: pronunciation, linguistic accuracy, linguistic complexity (discourse chunks), delivery, engagement of audience, sharing the floor, and prior preparation. 

Who/What is impacted? Students (grade and motivation for preparation), curricular course content (oral work connects to content, needs pre-planning activities) 

Why? One of the level goals is to provide opportunities for students to engage in high level extended discourse. The oral presentations move students into pre-planned higher level speech. 

Problems and Possible Solutions:

1. Since various versions of grading criteria are currently used throughout the semester, one overall set of criteria should be developed. It can then be modified to meet the specific contingencies of the various formal oral activities. 
2. To promote self-awareness, students should have a part in the evaluation of their performance, e.g., through video recording the debate/discussion and then having students review and comment on it. 

HOMEWORK: 20%, check +/-, for each reading/text. 

Who uses? Teacher as a place to double check preparation, to give feedback on comprehension of material and linguistic production. Students use as a means for preparation, check comprehension and improve their accuracy and use of new vocabulary. 

What is being assessed? Primarily level of home preparation and comprehension of materials. Feedback is given in terms of content and linguistic expression. 

Who/What is impacted? Quality of class in terms of student preparedness; students in terms of their ability to participate fully in the class. Teacher in terms of the amount of feedback possible.

Why? Homework is 20% of final grade because the course emphasizes on-going, consistent preparation and use of the language. Students are responsible for using learning strategies to complete tasks - primarily reading; extracting information; note-taking for use in in-class discussion and/or follow-up activities. Homework also provides the opportunity for synthesizing activities, focus-on-form activities as well as scaffolding activities for later essays or oral presentations. 

Problems and Possible Solutions:

Criteria for grading homework are presently up to the individual instructor. General guidelines for handing in homework (e.g, what a check, check plus, check minus mean, what the consequences are for late homework) should be reiterated several times throughout the course. Individual consultations with students may be necessary. Because homework is a place where students should try things out and get feedback, the major emphasis should remain on assessing primarily the thoroughness of preparation. 

Reactions to Extensive Reading (Honigmann). Currently part of homework. Assessed globally (check +/1)

Who uses? Teacher to check comprehension; Students to summarize and synthesize; curriculum to connect themes of course to a literary work.

What is being assessed? Overall (global) comprehension and ability to react at a more global level. This is not designed to become a major assignment but rather a doable parallel assignment in reading. 

Why? This assignment fulfills the curricular goal of giving students the experience of reading a larger piece of literature in a framework of "extensive reading" as contrasted with the more intensive readings for in-class discussion. The novel connects some of the overarching themes of Theme 3 & 4 in a new way, motivating students to do the reading and as a comprehension check as well as a spring board for discussion. 

Problems & Possible Solutions:

1. The reading and the written reactions require a fair amount of time and effort. Suggest increasing the weight of this assignment in the grading components. 
2. Develop clearer guidelines for the reactions and the grading thereof. Suggest placing primary emphasis on the students’ comments and less on accuracy. May provide the students either with sample exemplary reactions or a set of expectations for different grades. Caveat: Because of the writing element, this assignment could become too involved which could take away from its original intent. So far, students seemed pleased with the experience. 
3. Possibly excerpt pieces of commentary from the different student reactions and use as a way to get into discussion. 

FULBROOK SUMMARIES: 5% for Adv. I and for Intensive (how assessed?)

Who uses? Teachers use to ensure a basis of background knowledge to support the content of the course. Graded to motivate the students to do it. Students use summaries to synthesize, make connections to thematic content. 

What is being assessed? Primarily, the completion of assignment and ability to summarize most important points. 

Who/What impacted? Students in the amount of time devoted to outside (English) reading and summarizing. Curriculum in terms of assuring requisite background knowledge.

Why? The thematic content of this and subsequent courses requires a certain amount of knowledge of Germany’s history and culture. Reflects underlying belief that L1 knowledge enhances L2 reading and comprehension. 

Problems & Possible Solutions.

I. We currently have no way of assessing whether the assumed transfer of L1 reading to L2 performance is occurring. Suggest fostering explicit references to Fulbrook in class discussions (requires instructor preparation of Fulbrook, too.) Award bonus points to students who reference information gained in the Fulbrook book in class discussion. 
Alternatively, brief discussions of the Fulbrook reading could be included in the course (drawback - in English). 
2. Students resist this requirement and do not enjoy it. Above suggestions might impact on the relevance of the assignment and therefore reduce the resistance to it. 

EXIT INTERVIEW: 5%, one time interview, 10 min. long. Adv. II & Intensive

Who uses? Teacher for assessing relatively unplanned one-on-one speaking. Should provide feedback to curriculum planners as to level of speaking ability attained by students in level 3. 

What is being assessed? Spontaneous speaking ability. Criteria: accuracy, content knowledge, fluency, pronunciation, appropriateness. 
Why? Relevance of exit interview must be made more explicit to instructors and to students. Ideally, the exit interview would be one point on a continuum of on-going assessment, whereby the students are given the experience of a face-to-face exchange for a relatively long amount of time.

Problems & Possible Solutions:

In order to integrate the exit interview more fully into the goals of the curriculum, the following changes will be implemented:
1. The exit interview will be introduced into Advanced I (Students in Advanced II will continue to discuss the novel by Honigmann in the exit interview because this provides a good opportunity for spontaneous discourse which is based, however, on previous writing assignments and class discussions.) 
2. Students will do the interview in pairs. Advantages are that students will have more opportunities to use the communicative phrases and discourse markers (e.g., when they disagree or agree on certain points) and that working in pairs will make it easier to practice the interviews in a class setting. 

FINAL EXAM:

Discussion on the nature and the various components of a final exam for level III is still ongoing. Components under consideration include: 

1. An in-class writing assignment (the rationale for this very different kind of writing assignment is that students should demonstrate to what extent they have learned to self-correct their own writing; "self-correction" can be seen as the ultimate goal of process writing);
2. Exit Interview
3. Listening and reading comprehension tasks that would require brief written answers. 

Compiled by Heidi Byrnes, July 17, 1999