Student Learning Outcomes that are measurable or observable:
- Have elementary proficiency in a second language
Direct evidence of student learning, though in addition indirect evidence may be used:
- Final course grade for LC courses or AP/IB/SAT2/TOEFL test score
Student products or performances that give us this evidence:
- Final course grade for LC courses or AP/IB/SAT2/TOEFL test score
Collection points for these products and performances:
- Annually during Admission process or Orientation for SAT2, AP, IB, TOEFL
- At completion of semester for all language courses with an EPSL attribute (102 or higher)
Procedure for evaluating this evidence:
- Test levels determined by FLL department for SAT2, AP, IB, and TOEFL
- Grade of D- or higher in applicable courses
Procedure for using this evaluation to improve student learning:
- Not applicable, although requirement subject to review by CEP and the faculty
Is entire cycle as short as possible, but no more than three years long?
Other observations and suggestions:
The operational version of GS consists of thee outcomes. GS3 is actually the Values component of the CCS and was addressed by a separate group. We would suggest it be eliminated from GS and be designated as its own area. GS2 is actually more aspirational and has no direct link to a current component of the CCS. We would suggest it be eliminated or possibly folded into the major component of assessment. If the faculty feels strongly that it be retained we would need to develop a corresponding CCS component and then determine how it might be assessed. GS1 is the outcome that focuses on achieving elementary proficiency is a second language and is addressed above. We would suggest that it be designated as its own area, rather than a single component under GS.