Program

Saturday, 27 October

10:30-12:00 Advisory board meeting

11:30-12:30 Registration and lunch

12:30-12:45 Opening remarks and welcome

Session 1: Classroom based research: Setting higher expectations

12:45-1:15 Applying language assessment research to set expectations in higher education

Margaret E. Malone, ACTFL/AELRC, malonem@georgetown.edu

Fernando Rubio, U Utah, fernando.rubio@utah.edu

Drawing on empirical research, this session focuses on the student proficiency outcomes after different sequences and how these data can be used to set goals for students and instructors. The presenters will review specific research studies that demonstrate language proficiency targets, high leverage teaching practices, and instructor self-efficacy.

1:15-1:45 University classroom research: Using self-assessment to engage students in their second language

Dorian Dorado, Louisiana State U, ddorado@lsu.edu

Stéphanie Gaillard, U California San Diego, sgaillard@ucsd.edu

This research investigates the usefulness of a self-assessment device – the participation log – as a means of enhancing students’ engagement in the language classroom. This device is used daily by students then by instructors who agree or readjust students’ self-rating. The results show positive outcomes from both perspectives, students and teachers.

1:45-2:00 Session 1 Discussion

2:00-2:15 Coffee break

Roundtable 1: Assessment and Articulation in Community College and Four-year Institutions

2:15-3:45

Patrick Blaine, Dean of Literature, Language, and Communication, Lane Community College, blainep@lanecc.edu

Rachel Knighten, Lead Faculty, Spanish, LCC

Karem Krumrey, Lead Faculty, Speech and Communications Studies, LCC

Tammy Salman, Curriculum and Assessment Coordinator, LCC

3:45-4:00 Roundtable Discussion

4:00 Reception

Sunday , 28 October

8:30-9:00 Breakfast

Session 2: Student Writing and outcomes assessment

9:00-9:30 University Writing Assessment and ‘Open Outcomes’: Using Writing about Writing Principles as Critical Assessment Guidelines

Katie Jo LaRiviere, English, U Oregon, katiejol@uoregon.edu

Using principles from Writing about Writing pedagogy, I propose that composition program assessment takes a more ethical approach by adopting “open” outcomes. Though “open outcomes” require more nuance and time to assess, they promise the benefits of (1) an ethical approach to student assessment and (2) more accurate outcomes assessment based on peer-reviewed and field-specific research.

9:30-10:00 Comparing the Benefits of Contract Grading for Assessing Writing with Student Perceptions

Robert Zandstra, English, U Oregon, zandstra@uoregon.edu

This presentation shows how contract grading, as an alternative to conventional standards-based grading, provides many benefits for the assessment of writing. Furthermore, it shows student perception of contract grading varies widely based on how grading contracts are implemented and based on the racial background of the student and whether the student is a native speaker or language learner of English.

10:00-10:15 Session 2 Discussion

10:15-10:30 Break

Roundtable 2: Promises and Pitfalls: Five Composition Teachers Share Their Experience With Contract Grading and L2 Writers

10:30-11:30

Kara Clevinger, English, U Oregon

Kate Myers, kmyers@uoregon.edu

Tia North, tnorth3@uoregon.edu

Stephen Rust, srust@uoregon.edu

Emily Simnitt, esimnitt@uoregon.edu

Labor-based contract grading can refocus assessment to support development of writing processes. Five writing teachers piloting contract grading will share their experience and lead discussion in this 90-minute roundtable. Participants will be invited to share a writing assignment or assessment artifact to examine within a contract grading framework.

Session 3: Implementing program-wide initiatives

11:30-12:00 Of Labs and Logistics: Challenges in Program-wide Assessment

Robert L Davis, Romance Languages, U Oregon, rldavis@uoregon.edu

Paula Ellister, Romance Languages, U Oregon

Program-wide assessment is essential to the evaluation and success of multi-sectioned language programs, but it is notoriously difficult to implement. This session reports on a long-term (four-year) study of program-wide assessment in university-level programs and presents the range of issues that made implementation challenging. The assessment results themselves are interesting and have provided feedback for the improvement of instruction on a program-wide level. But documenting the experience of teachers and students during the assessment process (organizing large-scale testing, administering the on-line test, interpreting and disseminating results, etc.) has also provided interesting insights into the learning and assessment processes.

12:00-12:30 Outcomes, measures, and culture…oh my!

Christina Isabelli, Modern Languages and Literature, Gonzaga U, isabelli@gonzaga.edu

Luis García-Torvisco, Modern Languages and Literature, Gonzaga U

Rebecca Marquis, Modern Languages and Literature, Gonzaga U

Rebecca Stephanis, Modern Languages and Literature, Gonzaga U

We will share our process of building consensus with regard to learning outcomes and the assessment tools to measure aspects of intercultural competence that are reflective of content offered in our curriculum yet distinct from other non-language programs that also tout intercultural competence learning outcomes.

Final discussion

12:30-1:00 Wrap-up and closing luncheon

Report abuse