Program: English Language Institute
Date: Thu Oct 09, 2014 - 3:51:35 pm
1) Below are your program's student outcomes (SOs). Please add or update as needed.
Student Learning Outcomes
ELI Listening & Speaking Curriculum Area
After successful completion of ELI Listening & Speaking courses, students will be able to:
- demonstrate effective use of strategies for: comprehending advanced academic lectures in English; critically evaluating speakers’ perspectives, techniques, and arguments; and incorporating information from academic lectures into their overall studies
- make academic presentations (individually or in group or panel contexts) with a high degree of formal accuracy and cultural and stylistic appropriacy
- autonomously lead academic discussions using academic English, and demonstrate effective use of advanced strategies for participation in academic discussions with expert users of English
- self-assess their strengths in terms of listening/speaking abilities, identify areas for continued development, and state a range of strategies to address those areas
Student Learning Outcomes
ELI Reading Curriculum Area
After successful completion of ELI Reading courses, students will be able to:
- select reading and note-taking strategies appropriately for a range of different academic reading tasks, in accordance with courses they are enrolled in as well as their own purposes for reading advanced academic English texts
- evaluate authors’ messages, perspectives, techniques, and arguments
- evaluate print and web-based sources
- self-assess their strengths in terms of reading abilities, identify areas for continued development, and state a range of strategies to address those areas
Student Learning Outcomes
ELI Writing Curriculum Area – Undergraduate Level
After successful completion of ELI Writing courses, undergraduate students will be able to:
- fluently generate sufficient written text, at the brainstorming and drafting stages of the writing process, in response to a writing assignment
- Compose college writing that achieves a specific purpose and responds adeptly to an identifiable audience.
- Provide evidence of effective strategies for generating, revising, editing, and proofreading a text in order to produce finished prose.
- Compose an argument that makes use of source material that is relevant and credible and that is integrated in accordance with an appropriate style guide.
Working definitions for SLO #2 (by committee representing ELI and the English Department – the two programs offering FW):
- Revising: making global changes (e.g., adding, deleting, or moving content; rewriting for a different audience; rewriting in a different tone)
-
Editing: making changes at the sentence level, including changes in sentence style, syntax, phrasing
-
Proofreading: correcting grammar, punctuation and mechanics, spelling, formatting
Student Learning Outcomes
ELI Writing Curriculum Area – Graduate Level
After successful completion of ELI Writing courses, graduate students will be able to:
- fluently generate sufficient written text, at the brainstorming and drafting stages of the writing process, in response to a writing assignment
- analyze discipline and genre-specific academic English writing conventions and effectively apply that knowledge to graduate level writing tasks
- self-assess their strengths as academic writers, as well as areas for continued development, incorporating personal reflection and feedback from others
- appropriately incorporate a variety of reliable information sources that are relevant for doing graduate-level research in their academic writing
2) Your program's SOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Program's Website. URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/eli/students/SLO.html
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure. URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: Other: Other: 3) Provide the program's activity map or other graphic that illustrates how program activities/services align with program student outcomes. Please upload it as a PDF.
- File (10/09/2014)
4) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning activities to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys, etc.)
Yes
No (skip to question 14)5) For the period between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the student outcomes that were targeted, if applicable.
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.
7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? Check all that apply.
Program faculty/staff member(s) Faculty/staff committee Ad hoc faculty/staff group Director or department chairperson Persons or organization outside the university Students (graduate or undergraduate) Dean or Associate Dean Advisory Board Other: 9) How did he/she/they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? Check all that apply.
Compiled survey results Used quantitative methods on student data (e.g., grades, participation rates) or other numeric data Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, or other open-ended response data Scored exams/tests/quizzes Used a rubric or scoring guide Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used) External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., Social Science Research Institute) Other: 10) For the assessment questions/goals stated in Question #5, summarize the actual results.
11) What was learned from the results?
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
13) Reflect on the assessment process. Is there anything related to assessment procedures your program would do differently next time? What went well?
14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.
The ELI and the Department of Second Language Studies (where the ELI is housed) have long been interested in program evaluation and assessment. For years, we have encouraged faculty and graduate students in SLS to conduct research in the ELI, particularly in areas related to curriculum, student achievement, and other aspects of our program’s ongoing evolution and development. Relevant information from these projects has been discussed by ELI administrators and in curriculum area meetings, with actions and reforms taken as appropriate. This was possible largely because the ELI had two full-time administrators, which made it possible to handle day-to-day operations of the program as well as engage in long-term planning and improvement.
Unfortunately, our current program- and department-level resources are not adequate to support sustained comprehensive assessment of SLOs. Specifically, in January 2011 (when the BA program in SLS was approved and moved from the Interdisciplinary Studies program to being housed within SLS), 1.00 FTE of these two administrators’ time was stripped from the ELI and reallocated to the very important jobs of coordinating the BA program and providing advising to its students. Since that time, the ELI has had no choice but to run on “maintenance mode” (i.e., we are now able to handle only the day-to-day operations of the program). Further exacerbating matters is the popularity of the BA program in SLS, with more than double the number of declared majors than was anticipated; this places even more demand on the limited time of the two administrators whose energies were previously devoted primarily to the ELI.
In Spring and Summer 2015, ELI administrators hope to be able to work with Assessment Office experts to develop ways of assessing ELI SLOs at the end of each semester in our advanced-level ELI courses. While we would like to do much more, this stopgap practice would need to suffice until we are able to get additional human resources and support for program administration and assessment.
Other Notes
Unlike curricular programs (from which students graduate with a degree or certificate), the ELI is a co-curricular, non-degree program. Therefore, there is not a fixed set of courses that must be successfully completed by all students. Students’ course requirements are determined by a battery of placement tests taken at the time they enter UH Manoa, and students’ placements range from being completely exempt (no ELI courses required) to needing six courses across all three curriculum areas, with the majority of students falling somewhere in between. Thus, it is important to note that exempting out of a curriculum area based on the placement test does not guarantee that a student has mastered all the outcomes of that area.
The ELI is one of two ESL programs that are housed within the Department of Second Language Studies. The other is the Hawai`i English Language Program (HELP). The ELI is for students who have matriculated at UH Manoa, whereas HELP is an intensive English program for students whose English is not yet high enough for admission to university. Many students who complete HELP are admitted to UH Manoa and place into ELI courses. Because of our efforts to coordinate the SLOs of our two programs, the transition from HELP to ELI is usually as seamless as possible, and we aim, when resources allow, to make assessment an important part of that process. Thus, our assessment efforts are designed not only to serve within the ELI, but across our two programs.