Unit: Languages & Literatures of Europe and the Americas
Program: French (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 9:56:36 am

1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.

1. Read and comprehend texts written in French from a variety of genres and contexts, (e.g. newspapers, commercial materials, literature, etc.)

2. Analyze and demonstrate understanding of major French literary, philosophical, and artistic works, genres, periods, and topics.

3. Engage in oral communication in French  in various communicative contexts.

4. Engage in writing in French in various contexts and for various audiences, using correct grammar and demonstrating appropriate vocabulary, tone, and style for the context.

5. Conduct research on the language, literature, and/or culture of France and the French-speaking world using knowledge and skills learned in the program,

6. Demonstrate familiarity with the current events, traditional and popular culture, and social structures of the society/societies in which French is spoken

2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL:
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:

3) Below is the link to your program's curriculum map (if submitted in 2009). If it has changed or if we do not have your program's curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2009:

4) The percentage of courses in 2009 that had course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is indicated below. Please update as needed.


5) State the assessment question(s) and/or goals of the assessment activity. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

The Division of French and Italian has begun a vigorous process of assessment, targeting multiple aspects of the French B.A. program. The assessment areas and questions have included, since Sept. 2009;

  • Strategic planning for the next decade. The short and long term goals of the program at all levels were discussed and analyzed by faculty, M.A. students,  B.A. students, language students, with contributions from faculty from other departments and units.
  • Understanding student expectations and responding to their perceived needs.
  • Better communicating to all students in our program about possibilities for use of the field of study in careers, study abroad, teaching abroad, etc.
  • Increasing feedback from students at all program levels
  • How to revise existing courses and/or prepare new courses that respond to student interests, that take advantage of research opportunities unique to U.H. and/or the Pacific, or that will enrich the learning experience
  • Seeking to establish better and deeper connections to other departments, units, and faculty with overlapping interests/fields of study.

6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.

The division gathered evidence in the following ways and forms:

A. Graduate faculty meetings and general faculty meetings to discuss assessment questions and goals listed in 5 above.

B. Regular meetings with faculty from other divisions and units both in the college and in other colleges (Pacific Area Studies, Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures, Center for Southeast Asian Studies) on shared interests and plans for developing a focus on the French-speaking sections of Oceania/Asia. Those meetings developed into a formal Initiative  on French-speaking Oceania and Asia.The Steering Committee is chaired by the Chair of French, Dr. Kathryn Hoffmann.

C. Data collected by the Division Chair. The Division chair maintains data on enrollment that includes numbers of enrolled students, students continuing to the next level, attrition, courses that have the heaviest enrollment, student/instructor ratios within the division and in comparison to other divisions, growth patterns over the past ten years, etc. Tables and charts are presented to the teaching staff every semester.

D. New series of meetings with students to assess program

The first meeting was called in October 2009, to which all majors, students preparing certificates, and language students were invited.  Students were presented with a PowerPoint on career possibilities,  jobs held by former students, scholarship opportunities, study abroad and teaching abroad possibilities. Students were invited to ask questions about the program,  provide feedback, express wishes for program development.

September 10, 2010: second meeting for French majors and all students taking French Meeting included an informational PowerPoint, oral feedback, and a written assessment activity.  The chair presented information on graduate school, study abroad, scholarships, the French-speaking Oceania/Asia Initiative, the French floor in the residence halls. Students completed an assessment questionnaire.

E. Informal information gathering from students. The Divisional Chair (who handles the bulk of the undergraduate advising) began questioning students about their needs and wishes for the program when they came in for required advising meetings. At the beginning of Fall 2010, the Division chair visited the majority of the first and second-year classes to invite feedback directly to the Division chair on all aspects of the new first-year book and teaching methodology that were introduced in Fall 2010.

F. Exit surveys. B.A. and M.A. exit surveys were distributed to the graduate faculty.

G. Student course evaluations.

7) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected?

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)

8) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence?

Used a rubric or scoring guide
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)

9) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated.
If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

Six out of seven full-time faculty; one lecturer; all graduate assistants (10); the outside members of the French-Oceania and Asia Steering Committee and other interested faculty (7); approximately 40 students at each of the two student meetings (80 total); majors, certificate seekers and language students who saw the chair for advising and were willing to discuss the program (est. 90 or more yearly). Exit surveys: 3 BA graduates (a 38% return rate);  6 MA graduates (a 67% return rate). Narrative course evaluations: approx. 1,500 students from Fall 2009-Summer 2010 (evaluation ongoing).

10) Summarize the actual results.

Actual results included:

A. Interest in developing a French-speaking Pacific/Asia focus was high among all groups (Divisional faculty, students, faculty in related disciplines/units).

B. More (and better quality) information on student needs and wishes was gathered than previously and the data were analyzed. The Sept. 10, 2010 written assessment activity revealed particular student interest in the following areas (26 total undergrad respondents): study abroad opportunities (24): travel abroad (20); scholarships (20); French Oceania/Asia studies and/or Tahiti exchange (11); Brussels exchange (8); French floor (6). None of the respondents checked the “None of these” box. That all items on the assessment exercise were of interest to students confirms the exercise was well designed. Discussion and survey comments also indicated frustration among majors due to cuts in course offerings since 2008 (due to budget and staffing cuts) and wish by majors for additional courses to allow them to complete degree requirements in a timely manner.

C. Data analyzed by the Division Chair revealed a healthy program with markedly increased enrollment at the 101-102 levels. Enrollment at the first year level has more than doubled over the past ten years. Majors in 2009-2010 were at their highest point. Data also revealed a high student-to-instructor ratio at the 300 and 400 levels.

D. Exit survey results revealed high levels of satisfaction with achieving student learning outcomes,  faculty, advising, and quality of teaching. All respondents indicated interest in study and/or English teaching assistantships in France and careers involving the use of French.  Two respondents indicated wishes for more courses/more varied courses (one mentioned the effect of budget cuts). All would recommend the program.

E. Results include increased contact between students and Division Chair and increased level of overall input.  Students (even at the 101 level) greet the Division chair, one sent an email praising her instructor, and more students at all levels seek advising from the Division chair on careers involving French, teaching assistantships in France, and continuing French beyond 202. This assists with ongoing assessment and program development.

11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.

A. A cross-department/unit cluster was formed among the departments/units of  LLEA, IPLL, Pacific Area Studies, The Center for Southeast Asian Studies, with the support of the Hamilton Library Pacific collection. The French-speaking Oceania and Asia Initiative was given formal recognition by the Dean of LLL in 2010.  The Steering Committee produced a white paper outlining plans for shared curricular and faculty development, new/enhanced exchanges and shared endeavors with the universities of the French-speaking Pacific, and collaborative plans in Spring 2010. The initiative made two staffing requests for positions in  IPLL (Tahitian) and LLEA (French-speaking Oceania and Asia) that would advance the goals of the initiative (approval pending).  Further plans are ongoing.

B. Textbook and methodology change in French 101-201 and 311.  New textbooks, with emphasis on the French-speaking world are being phased in throughout 2010 in five courses.

C. Following assessment of student interest, discussions began in earnest with an advanced Institute of Translation in Brussels about a student exchange.

D. As interest in teaching assistantships in France was expressed at all student levels, the division chair now disseminates more information about study, work, and teaching assistant opportunities in France to students from 101 through grad level directly or via the instructors

E. In response to student complaints about delays in degree completion and frustration caused by insufficient courses and courses that were too large, the Division requested and was granted permission to return to its normal number of 300- and 400-level courses in Spring 2011.

F. In response to student interest, increased faculty effort was put into developing the French floor in the dorms.  Three faculty attended a meeting with the Housing office do discuss development of the floor and a possible Language House.

G. Assessment open-ended question revealed students particularly enjoy our weekly social and cultural activities and those are being maintained and enhanced.  We added a French restaurant excursion in September 2010.

12) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

13) Other important information: