Estimados usuarios. Bienvenidos a nuestro sitio virtual de la UNIVERSIDAD MAGISTER en Slide Share donde podrá encontrar los resultados de importantes trabajos de investigación prácticos producidos por nuestros profesionales. Esperamos que estos Mares Azules que les ponemos a su disposición sirvan de base para otras investigaciones y juntos cooperemos en el Desarrollo Económico y Social de Costa Rica y otras latitudes. Queremos ser enfáticos en que estos trabajos tienen Propiedad Intelectual por lo que queda totalmente prohibida su reproducción parcial o total, así como ser utilizados por otro autor, a excepción de que los compartan como citas de autor o referencias bibliográficas. Toda esta información también quedará a su disposición desde nuestro sitio web www.umagister.com, Disfruten con nosotros de este magno contenido bibliográfico Magister esperando sus amables comentarios, no sin antes agradecer a nuestro Ing. Jerry González quien está administrando este sitio. Rectoría, Universidad Magister. – 2016.

1. UNIVERSIDAD MAGISTER
FACULTAD DE EDUCACIÓN
CARRERA DE LICENCIATURA EN LA ENSEÑANZA DEL INGLÉS
MEMORIA DE SEMINARIO DE GRADUACIÓN PARA OPTAR AL GRADO DE LICENCIATURA EN LA
ENSEÑANZA DEL INGLÉS
“A STUDY ON THE ASSESSMENT
ADMINISTERED TO THE FIRST LEVEL ORAL
COURSES OF BACHILLERATO EN INGLES
CON SALIDA LATERAL AL DIPLOMADO AT
SEDE INTERUNIVERSITARIA DE ALAJUELA,
2016”

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
What criteria should be included in a linguistic proficiency
profile and a scoring rubric to measure oral production in
oral presentations to create standardized assessment
rubrics?

3. GENERAL OBJECTIVE
To analyze the appropriate criteria for the
standardization of graded rubrics of first level
students’ expected outcome during oral
presentations in the oral courses through the
identification of a linguistic proficiency profile in
the Bachillerato en Ingles con Salida Lateral de
Diplomado at Sede Interuniversitaria de
Alajuela.

4. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. To recognize the linguistic characteristics of students
from first level.
2. To identify the required objectives and contents of the
oral courses in first level.
3. To establish first level students’ linguistic profile for
the oral courses.

5. 4. To determine the different criteria professors
use in the evaluation of oral production.
5. To standardize evaluation rubrics used in the
oral courses.
6. To propose an English oral outcome assessment
when presenting orally based on standardized
assessment rubrics.

6. VARIABLES
1. Linguistic general characteristics of English Bachelor
students
2. Content and objectives of the oral courses
3. First level linguistic profile
4. Professors’ criteria for oral production evaluation
5. Standardized graded evaluation
6. Assessment rubrics

7. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
UNA
Sede Interuniversitaria de Alajuela
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Oral Proficiency Language Proficiency
Fluency Feedback
Common European Framework: Language competence

8. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
1. Types of Investigation: Descriptive
Combination of elements of both methodologies in the
same investigation.
Quantitative / Qualitative
Determine the type of questions asked in the
investigation

9. 2. Data Collecting Instruments: Observation and
Questionnaires
3. Subjects of Investigation: Students of first Level
SIUA
4. Sources of Information
Primary: Instruments (Questionnaires / Observation)
Secondary: Books, articles, newspapers, syllabus,
magazines

10. 5. Population
6. Data Collecting Instruments:
Classroom Observation
Questionnaires
7. Information Processing:
Electronic tools, Materials, Graphs, Charts, Subjects of
investigation

11. GRAPH 1 THE OPINIONS OF ENGLSH PROFESSORS ON
THE USAGE OF RUBRICS TO ASSESS ORAL
PERFORMANCE

12. GRAPH 2 THE OPINIONS OF ENGLISH PROFESSORS ON
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY,
PRONUNCIATION, CONTENT, ORGANIZATION OF IDEAS AND
FLUENCY TO BE GRADED IN STUDENTS’ ORAL
PRESENTATIONS

13. GRAPH 8 THE OPINIONS OF ENGLISH PROFESSORS ON
USING A 1-5 SCALE WHEN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT
OF POINTS A RUBRIC SHOULD HAVE

14. GRAPH 12 THE OPINIONS OF ENGLISH PROFESSORS ON
SUBTRACTING ONE POINT AFTER 3 MISTAKES OR ERRORS
MADE

15. GRAPH 15 THE OPINIONS OF THE PROFESSORS ON THE
GRAMMAR STRUCTURES THAT FIRST LEVEL STUDENTS
SHOULD MANAGE AT THE END OF THE YEAR

16. GRAPH 16 THE OPINIONS OF THE PROFESSORS ON THE
LISTENING SKILLS THAT FIRST LEVEL STUDENTS SHOULD
MANAGE AT THE END OF THE YEAR

17. GRAPH 17 THE OPINIONS OF THE PROFESSORS ON THE
TYPE OF VOCABULARY THAT FIRST LEVEL STUDENTS
SHOULD MANAGE AT THE END OF THE YEAR

18. GRAPH 18 THE OPINIONS OF THE PROFESSORS’ ON THE
MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS A BEGINNER’S LINGUISTIC
PROFILE SHOULD INCLUDE

19. CONCLUSIONS
LINGUISTIC GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
ENGLISH BACHELOR STUDENTS
1. Variety of linguistic features in the class.
Barrier to reach a standardized linguistic competence.
2. Necessity of designing, implementing a linguistic
profile for first year learners.

20. CONCLUSIONS
3. Parameters or tools to homogenize the students’
language expertise.
CONTENT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ORAL
COURSES
4. Analysis of the syllabi’s content and objectives to design
a coherent linguistic proficiency profile to obtain effective
results in performance and competence.

21. CONCLUSIONS
FIRST LEVEL LINGUISTIC PROFILE
5. A linguistic proficiency profile that determines the
level of the language that learners must accomplish.
6. This linguistic profile should fulfill the needs the
major presents in terms of language production.

22. CONCLUSIONS
PROFESSORS’ CRITERIA FOR ORAL
PRODUCTION EVALUATION
7. Differences in the way students are graded.
8. Unify in one rubric the evaluation criteria as
well as the grading method.

23. CONCLUSIONS
STANDARDIZED GRADED EVALUATION
9. It is necessary the standardization of a rubric to assess
the students’ oral outcome to avoid contradictions.
10. A grading rubric that includes the aspects suggested
by the instructors.

24. 11. With the standardization of a rubric and the grading
system, discrepancies are less possible.
ASSESSMENT RUBRICS
12. Instrument based on standardized evaluation criteria
to avoid inconsistencies.

25. COST OF STUDY
DESCRIPTION COST PER UNIT
COLONES
QUANTITY TOTAL COST
(COLONES)
TOTAL COST
(DOLLARS)
Profesional Hours 17.773.50 150 2.666.025 4790.09
Printing 4.000 20 booklets 80.000 143.73
Transportation 2.500 30 bus tickets 75.000 134.75
Total 2.821.025 5.068.57
Fuente: Montero, Susan y Pizarro, Jenny (2016)
Exchange Rate: August 17, 2016. Sell ₡556,57/ Purchase ₡543,97
Professional hour Colypro ₡17.773.50 (10/5/16)

26. RECOMENDATIONS
LINGUISTIC GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
ENGLISH BACHELOR STUDENTS
1. Implement a placement test (professors).
CONTENT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ORAL
COURSES
2. Go over all the syllabi from first level to identify
similarities and inconsistencies.

27. RECOMENDATIONS
FIRST LEVEL LINGUISTIC PROFILE
3. Create a linguistic proficiency profile for second,
third and fourth year of the major.
PROFESSORS’ CRITERIA FOR ORAL PRODUCTION
EVALUATION
4. Choose carefully the features that will be part of the
assessment criteria to cover remarkable aspects of
the oral production evaluation

28. RECOMENDATIONS
STANDARDIZED GRADED EVALUATION
5. Systematize the evaluation criteria and the grading
system in one assessment rubric to have a clear and
cohesive instrument of evaluation.
ASSESSMENT RUBRICS
6. Strengthen and support the standardization of the
evaluation rubric.

29. PROPOSAL
A STUDY OF A LINGUISTIC PROFICIENCY PROFILE
OF STUDENTS AND A GRADING RUBRIC FOR FIRST
LEVEL PROFESSORS
Two informative workshops
Provide a proposed students’ linguistic profile and a
grading rubric for a standardized oral evaluation during
presentations or speeches

30. JUSTIFICATION
A tool that provides coherence and cohesion, so
inconsistencies in assessment criteria can be avoided.
GENERAL OBJECTIVE
To provide a students’ linguistic profile and a grading rubric to
first level professors of the English Major at Sede
Interuniversitaria de Alajuela for a standardized oral
assessment during oral presentations and speeches.

31. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. To explain professors about the reasons of designing a
first year students’ linguistic profile.
2. To show the instructors the structures, the contents and
the expected oral production outcome of the learners at
the end of the first year of the major.
3. To explain the evaluation criteria taken into account for
the design of the rubric.
4. To describe how to use the rubric when assessing oral
production during presentations and speeches.

32. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
Workshop 1:
Two- hour session
Focus on: key concepts, process of investigation,
importance of having a linguistic profile for students,
students expected outcome, the proposed linguistic
profile.

33. Workshop 2:
Three-hour session
Focus on: description of the evaluation criteria
considered to design the standardized graded rubric,
usage and benefits of the rubric.
Discussion session: suggestions, doubts, feedback

34. COST OF THE PROPOSAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
COLONES
TOTAL
COLONES
TOTAL
DOLLARS
Supplies:
Markers (black, blue, red,
green)
8 (2 of each) 750 6000 10.78
Pen 14 250 3500 6.28
Whiteout 3 1415 4245 7.62
Pencil 14 150 2100 3.77
Board Eraser 2 300 600 1.07
Note-taking booklet 14 800 11.200 20.12
Files 14 50 700 1.25
Photocopies 14 sets 50 700 1.25
Equipment:
Computer 1 0* --- ---
Overhead projector 1 0* --- ---
Desks 14 0* --- ---
Classroom 1 0* --- ---
Board 1 0* --- ---
Appetizers:
Coffee 2 packages 1200 2400 4.31
Cream 2 packages 650 1300 2.33
Soda 4 (2 liters) 1395 5580 10.02
Pastries 84 300 25200 45.27
Sugar 1 package 800 800 1.43
Plastic spoons 2 packages 450 900 1.61
Plastic plates 2 packages 580 1160 2.08
Plastic glasses 2 packages 375 750 1.34
Cups 2 packages 850 1700 3.05
Napkins 1 package 350 350 0.62
TOTAL 446 10.715 69.185 124.0

35. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL
INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT
Design of the first linguistic proficiency profile
ACADEMIC IMPACT
Students: know contents, structures, level.
Professors: work on each student advance, avoid
inconsistencies in evaluation.
Cohesion of evaluation: criteria, grading method
Provide tools, criteria and assessment instruments to improve
the process of correction, language competence and proficiency.

36. FURTHER POSSIBLE STUDIES TO BE DEVELOPED
FROM THE PRESENT RESEARCH
Linguistic profiles for different levels.
New grading rubrics for different levels and skills.
Impact that other types of evaluation have had on
students and professors.
Criteria to design assessment rubrics for other subjects
at university level.

37. SWOT ANALYSIS
Strengths: teaching experience, technological support,
major’s support.
Weaknesses: academic freedom, lack of time, different
assessment criteria.
Opportunities: improvement of the major’s level, new
ways of evaluation, new opportunities of research.
Threats: rejection by the professos to follow the
proficiency profile, negative response to apply the
standardized grading rubric.

38. THANK YOU