California Foreign Language Project: Research and Publications

Less-Commonly Taught Languages
in Selected Elementary and Secondary Schools in California

Student Portfolios

Name: John

Level: 1

Date of Evaluation: July 1995

Comments:

Writing: All writing samples and tests were reviews of material covered in class. Since many activities were completed throughout this year, his overall writing improved gradually.

Reading: His reading skill was good for a first level student. On the 6/1 test, there was a long passage to read. He answered all the questions.

Listening: In the 10/28 audio tape, he had a difficult time understanding the teacher's language.

Speaking: Very good pronunciation in audio tape for 10/28 teacher-student interview. To check his oral skill progress throughout the year, it would have been better if the second teacher-student interview would have been included in the portfolio.

COCI Rating: Formulaic High

* The COCI was administered on 5/25. Student was able to engage in this activity, even though, I was a stranger to him. His listening and speaking skills are good for his level.

FLOSEM Score:

10/25/94	Total score = 6	(C--1, F--1, V--1, P--2, G--1)
2/1/95	Total score = 7	(C--1, F--1, V--1, P--3, G--1)
7/15/95	Total score = 9	(C--1.5, F--1.5, V--1, P--3, G--2)

Name: John

Level: 2

Date of Evaluation: July 17, 1996

(1) Types of Artifacts:

Table of contents, student's notes, kanji practice, dialogue, daily schedule, translation test, dictionary form practice, kanji test, fall semester final exam, sentence practice sheets, quiz, homework: questions & answers, an essay for CWCA, spring final project, audio and video tapes

(2) Quality of Student's Work:

The worksheets and practice sheets were very neat with good handwriting. However, his test scores were not always good. His fall semester final exam score was 69% and quiz in March for the negative form showed that he had only 8 correct answers out of 22 questions.

(3) Organization of Portfolio:

Student's portfolio was well prepared. It was ordered chronologically and it had his own table of contents and his comment about why he chose the tasks and what he learned from the them.

(4) Student's Language Growth.

Writing: The CWCA was rated in the Formulaic Mid range. Unfortunately, we did not have a CWCA writing sample for the beginning of the year. So it was not possible to compare growth in structure of sentences, phrases, transitions and vocabulary from the beginning to the end of the school year. Also, no information was available on how long it took to finish the essay and if the student used a Japanese dictionary or received outside help. From other worksheets or tests/quizzes, he seemed to have some trouble in grammar, particularly in the use of particles.

Reading: His reading skill was adequate for the level of instruction, but he was not sure of some words.

Speaking/Listening: In the interview with the Japanese teacher in spring, he could not answer many of the questions she asked. This was a surprise to me since he could understand my questions on the COCI in May. I thought that his language skills had constantly improved over the year.

Comparison of this year and last year's portfolios:

Last year's portfolio was also well prepared and it indicated that his listening comprehension was not good. This year's portfolio also showed that his listening comprehension has not improved much. However, based on my impression of the 1996 COCI, I believe that the student has improved greatly in listening comprehension. This is very interesting because my impressions seem to be supported by the teacher's FLOSEM ratings, which show the student having improved in oral skills by 2.5 points over the year. Although the improvement is not large, it does show that his oral abilities in Japanese have improved. The teacher's ratings on the FLOSEM corroborate my COCI rating (Formulaic High in 1995 and Created Low in 1996). As for writing, there is still much room for improvement.