Learning English for Academic Purpose

• Mission Statment

  The Weber State University LEAP Department (Learning English for Academic Purposes) provides intensive English language courses for students in the process of acquiring English as a second language for academic use. It is the mission of the Department to prepare these students to function effectively in mainstream academic classes where English is the language of instruction. In doing so, we also seek to familiarize students with American culture and the academic atmosphere of studying at an American university.

• Student Learning Outcomes
  • Tab Title
     
  • Tab Title
     
  • Tab Title
     

  At the end of their study in the LEAP department, students will be able to:

  • communicate in writing at an academic level.
  • read and comprehend an unadapted academic text.
  • communicate verbally with efficiency using vocabulary and Grammar forms at an academic level.
  • efficiently employ correct English grammar forms in all four language skills.
  • produce comprehensible sounds of English vowels and consonants, using correct syllable stress in spoken English.
  • communicate confidently using English skills in culturally relevant situations.
• Curriculum Grid

  

• Program and Contact Information

  The Learning English for Academic Purposes (LEAP) Department offers a broad spectrum of language courses for Englishlanguage learners (both resident and international). The language program consists of seven proficiency levels (beginning to high-advanced). Levels 1-6 consist of five classes each, with each class emphasizing a specific language skill, such as writing,reading, speaking and listening, grammar, pronunciation (levels 1-4) , and community engagement (levels 5-6). The seventhlevel, the Bridge level, offers high-advanced writing and reading courses. All courses in levels 4-7 are content based,introducing students to features of American academic and social culture, and history. They are also credit- bearing and canbe included as the language requirement for a BA degree, or electives in the BS degree

  Contact Information:
  Debi Sheridan (Sirideain)
  Weber State University
  1404 University Circle
  Ogden, UT 84408-1404
  Elizabeth Hall, Rm 269
  (801) 626-6775

  LEAP Program Website

• Assessment Plan

  

• Annual Assessment Results
  • Tab Title
     
  • 2018-2020
     
  • 2016-2017

    No report was submitted.

  • 2015-2016

    1) Reflecting on this year’s assessment(s), how does the evidence of student learning impact your faculty’s confidence in the program being reviewed; how does that analysis change when compared with previous assessment evidence?

    • This is the first year we have such detailed evidence, see Assessment plan 2014, Assessment plan 2015, and Assessment plan 2016, these plans were created as part of the self-study requirements of the CEA. However, as the department has recently substantially condensed the offering of classes to become more financially viable, there are still areas of the program that will be reviewed and condensed further to reflect student and department needs. The previously available 8860 classes have been removed from the curriculum and students who need to study for 20 credits a semester to reach approval of a scholarship body have been replaced by the additional 2750 classes, to reduce cost without reducing academic expectations and cultural preparation. The continued success of students in such a difficult, and demanding program, is testament to the dedication of faculty, staff and students alike. The rare student who repeats courses repeatedly include 2 students in the lower levels of the department, who are unfocused on school; lacking participation in class, and not producing homework. In the bridge classes there are another 2 students who not only lack participation and homework, but are chronically late for class every class, and often excuse themselves from requirements to attend other classes or use the writing center services during class time. These last two students also often

     

    2) With whom did you share the results of this year's assessment efforts?

    • This year’s assessment efforts were shared with the Associate Provost, Dr. Bruce Davis; the Dean of the Office of International Programs, Dr. Cliff Nowell; the full faculty – full-time and adjunct, and was posted on the department web page. 

     

    3) Based on your program's assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take?

    • These findings will form the basis of the Department Faculty, Department Assessment Committee, and Department Curriculum meetings for review and planning purposes.

     

    The full report is available for viewing. 

  • 2014-2015

    No report was submitted.

  • 2013-2014

    No report was submitted.

  • 2012-2013

    1) Reflecting on this year’s assessment(s), how does the evidence of student learning impact your faculty’s confidence in the program being reviewed; how does that analysis change when compared with previous assessment evidence?

    • Our program is confident in its ability to help our students meet the outcomes of their courses and progress through our program and eventually into general academic classes here at WSU or at other college or universities.
    • Level six student achievement data from 2011 is generally higher than where it was in 2012. The only exception to this is ESL 2430, which rose from an average of 87% student success in 2011 to 93% in 2012. We are currently planning to look at a number of factors affecting our overall student achievement including thresholds of success, assessment materials in all courses, and continuous failures by a significant number of our students. Also, our overall drop in success rates is probably is due to tightened assessment standards and procedures.
    • One of our major concerns as an entire department is the significant number of students that fail their classes, often repeatedly. Currently we have procedures in place to help students progress steadily though our program including a faculty/adjunct mentorship, student counseling procedures, and achievement data that helps us track students’ progress throughout our program.

     
     
     2) With whom did you share the results of the year’s assessment efforts?

    • Our assessment report has been shared and reviewed by the faculty and staff from our department.

    
     
     3) Based on your program’s assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take? 

    • We plan to continue the evaluation of our courses by level coordinators while exploring new options in our program including the implementation of skill coordinators (as opposed to our current level coordinators). Additionally, as mentioned above, we plan to explore and brainstorm alternative options for setting the threshold of success in our program and the difficulty level of the tasks associated with those thresholds throughout our entire program, from level one through level seven.
    • Regarding our level six writing exam, we think it is extremely difficult for students to write an entire essay for a final exam under exam conditions.  But they can write significant paragraphs (one or two, depending on volume) under test conditions (limited time, limited resources), especially to measure the “fairly easy to read” part.  “Significant paragraphs” covers content and volume. This is our reasoning behind assessing level six writing students on a paragraph writing sample, rather than an essay.
    • We also need as a faculty to address the role of hand-written work.  There’s a big difference between an exam produced with the assistance of the computer and an hand-written exam produced without the benefit of the computer resource. At this point, there isn’t complete congruency on the method of writing exams in our program; some are given via computer while others are given on paper.
    • Finally, we just recently adopted an overall student learning success goal of 77% to accompany our threshold of success of 77% for individual courses. Three out of four of our level six classes did not meet this goal in 2012, and we understand as a program that this initial goal may be relatively high. As a result, we plan to look at this 77% again in the near future after further analysis of student achievement data in Spring 2014. 

    
    To see the full report, select this link: LEAP 2012/13 Assessment Report

   

   

• Program Review

  2021-22

  2016-17
   

This information is part of the cyclical program review process. Details such as mission statements, learning outcomes, etc., are updated as part of the biennial assessment reporting process, an integral component of program review.