HELP does not award an academic degree; instead, incoming students are tested, evaluated, and placed at one of four levels (100, 200, 300, or 400) based on their English language competency. Students then enroll at courses in their level until they are able to demonstrate that level’s required language skills (i.e. student learning outcomes) and can progress into the subsequent level. There is no prescribed length of time that students must study at each level or at HELP in toto. Students can enter the program at the beginning of any one of seven terms throughout the course of the year and stay for as many terms as they wish. Students cannot progress to the next level until they have demonstrated the required SLOs at their current level. Upon completion of the 400 (final) level at HELP, a student is equipped with the language and academic skills necessary to enter and succeed at the University of Hawai‘i (or other American college/university).The SLOs for each level in the HELP program are:

Upon completion of the 100 LEVEL, students will be able to:

[Students ready to enter the 200 level can:]

1. Express themselves and their opinions at basic levels of both speaking and writing in everyday
    English.

2. Identify the main ideas from simple readings and listening materials.

3. Produce basic English grammar structures accurately in speech and writing.

Upon completion of the 200 LEVEL, students will be able to:

[Students ready to enter the 300 level can:]

1. Identify the main ideas and key supporting details from modified text and audio passages.
2. Demonstrate knowledge of effective strategies for comprehending meaning, such as predicting,
    guessing
    meaning, skimming, scanning, and knowledge of text organization.
3. Express and support their opinion on various topics from their own point of view with ease (written
    and oral).

Upon completion of the 300 LEVEL, students will be able to:

[Students ready to enter the 400 level can:]

1. Identify main ideas and supporting ideas (details) in authentic aural materials.
2. Express a clear opinion supported by details in a group discussion or oral presentation.
3. Identify main ideas, major supporting ideas and text organization in various types of authentic
    readings.
4. Write multi-paragraph essays that are well-developed and well-organized.

Upon completion of the 400 LEVEL, students will be able to:

Students ready to begin study in the ELI level can:]

1. Identify main ideas and key details of academic aural materials such as lectures and academic
    discussions.

2. Orally express opinions and provide detailed support appropriately under time pressure.

3. Demonstrate understanding of and critically evaluate authentic academic reading materials on a
    variety of  topics.

4. Demonstrate understanding of the style and conventions of an academic research paper (e.g.
    paragraph/essay organizations, references, and citations).

      At the time of our last report, we were planning to implement a new curriculum in the spring of 2012, which included a change to core courses at all levels. It was our feeling that too many students, who intended to enter university, were avoiding taking courses in writing because they were difficult. It was this attitude, among other factors, that led us to believe that it was necessary to make writing, as well as reading, mandatory core courses at all levels. In preparation for this change, work was done to revise the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for each of the four levels and for each course. At the same time, we were curious to know to what extent the objectives/outcomes for our highest 400 level were aligned with the entry level for the English Language Institute in the Department of Second Language Studies. A research study was conducted by two of our graduate assistants/instructors during Fall 2011, which pointed to speaking and listening, especially to lectures, along with notetaking skills as more desirable than the reading and writing skills we had assumed were problematic for entering freshmen and graduate students.  Here is the intro to that report:

Administrators of the Hawaii English Language Program (HELP) expressed a need for assistance in evaluating the exit student learning outcomes (SLOs) for each of the four levels and skills of students exiting the HELP 400-level with in alignment with the ELI placement tests/skills. In particular, HELP administrators conveyed concerns about (a) the level of ELI courses HELP students are generally ready for, and (b) how to improve upon the HELP 400-level SLOs to better prepare students to directly transition into the ELI 80-level courses. The overall intended uses consist of: (a) identify specific ways to modify the HELP 400-level courses and course materials based on the HELP 400-level SLOs modifications, (b) take initial steps to develop a direct transition program into the ELI 80-level courses after completing the HELP curriculum, and (c) incorporate information into a mandated annual program review for accountability purposes. The following summarizes the main findings of the evaluation report. For more detailed discussion of results, including reported quantitative and qualitative findings by means of data analysis, student focus groups, and alumni interviews and survey, please refer to the main report and appendices.

Findings
Placement and Course Progression
• The English Language Institute’s placement test (ELIPT) shows a larger number of students placing at the 80-level or higher for all three categories of ELI courses (speaking/listening, reading, and writing) than those placing into the 70-level.  However, while just over half the students placed above the 70-level in speaking/listening (55.9%), both reading and writing showed that two-thirds of students placed higher than the 70-level (64.7% and 64.6% respectively). This indicates that, on average, HELP 400-level students do better in the reading and writing sections of the ELIPT, while showing lower scores in speaking and listening.

      As a result of the study, listening and speaking courses were added to the schedule of courses for the Spring Terms at all levels as electives. At the same time, work was started to revise the objectives/outcomes at the skill level. By the end of spring, it was apparent that we were off the assessment timeline set in Fall 2011(see Table 1).

During the summer, almost all of those who were directly involved with the assessment development were off island. Therefore, additional work on the objectives/outcomes was postponed in favor of concentrating on the development of teacher training on formative and summative assessments. The teachers would be instrumental in the creation of student final assessment forms with teacher comments, which would be sent to the student along with grade reports.

      Before the start of the Fall Term I, workshops were provided for all of the 17 instructors, ten of whom were brand-new to HELP. Part of the workshop was devoted to eliciting feedback from the teachers on drafts for the student final assessment rubric.

      #1.  Narasaki and Woo use surveys and focus groups for their report, which is attached.   Approx 25 total respondents.

#2. All the 17 teachers will submit student assessment forms.

As stated in #5, the Narasaki and Woo research study revealed that graduates of HELP found that they should have gotten more instruction in listening and note-taking, especially for lectures. In general, HELP graduates were able to enter the ELI at the higher of two levels in reading and writing, but at the lower level for listening.

The results of the study seemed counterintuitive as we have seen students’ writing over the years and firmly believed in the necessity of structured writing instruction. Although the sample size for the study was quite small, the comments by students gave us food for thought about the need for more listening instruction.

We were surprised that the results showed much more concern for Listening and Speaking challenges than Reading and Writing.  We have gone back to our curriculum map to look at ways to more effectively guide students into learning the L&S skills that they will need after transitioning to credit coursework at UHM or another college.

      While time-consuming, the assessment process has already proven to be a valuable exercise. Had we not started work on student assessment forms, we would have not really realized that many of the level outcomes and skill objectives in place poorly articulated desirable outcomes.

      What has gone particularly well is not the assessment itself but a byproduct of it – having teachers reexamine their curriculum planning in the light of backward design. Those who have embraced it have found that always keeping objectives/outcomes in the forefront helps them to stay on the right track with every activity and assignment the give. What was first seen as more work has proven to be make them better teachers.