Chemistry Department Student Learning Outcomes Assessment 2015-2016 - Prepared by Anne Marteel-Parrish, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry and Chair ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Chemistry Department Student Learning
Outcomes Assessment
2015-2016
Prepared by Anne Marteel-Parrish, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Chair
Frank J. Creegan Chair in Green Chemistry
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 1Table of Contents
a. Summary of the Chemistry Department’s recent changes responding to
previous assessment
b. Presentation of student learning outcomes data (as they relate to our goals)
for 2015-2016
c. Analysis of student learning outcomes data as they relate to recent changes
d. Recommendations arising from this year’s assessment of student learning
outcomes
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 2a. Summary of the Chemistry Department’s recent changes responding to
previous assessment
One change and an addition have been implemented this past year in the Chemistry
Department. In the opinion of the Chemistry Department faculty members, these were
necessary to continue to improve the assessment of our students learning outcomes.
1) The change is the implementation of a new seminar course titled “Preparing our
chemistry majors for the 21st century”. This seminar course works to prepare our
chemistry majors for their future professional career so they become successful
professionals and experts in the chemistry field. It is expected that our majors 1) become
proficient at literature searching, reading and interpreting, 2) increase their awareness
about societal and ethical issues either professionally or as citizens and have the
background to constructively engage in debates, 3) understand the variety of career
options available to chemists, and 4) are involved in a course relying on critical analysis,
decision-making within a context, effective oral, written, and visual communication,
and cooperative teamwork (skills rarely emphasized in a single chemistry course).
Therefore, at the end of this course, the following “4 Cs” will have been practiced and
mastered: Critical thinking and problem solving, Communication, Collaboration, and
Creativity and innovation.
This course, which is replacing a two two-credit sequence in seminar, serves the
purpose of a “Disciplinary Research and Writing” course meeting the W-3 requirement.
It is to be offered annually in the spring and is a required course for all juniors majoring
in chemistry. It also fulfills four out of the six current learning goals for our department
as mentioned below. Finally it tentatively incorporates two new goals (Goals#7 and 8)
in the chemistry major as proposed below. These two new goals are only suggested
goals (by Anne as she designed this course) and haven’t been approved by the
department.
The following four learning goals are fulfilled in one course:
Goal #2: Effectively use the chemical and other scientific literature
Objective a. Students will be able to use the peer-reviewed scientific
literature effectively and evaluate technical articles critically.
Objective b. Students will know how to search and retrieve specific
information from the chemical literature, including using Chemical
Abstracts and related databases.
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 3Goal #4: Develop effective oral, written, and visual scientific communication skills while
gaining professional preparation and exposure
Objective a. Students will be able to present information in a clear and
organized manner.
Objective b. Students will be able to write well-organized and concise
reports in a scientifically appropriate style.
Objective c. Students will be able to use technology such as word-
processing programs, chemical structure drawing programs, and
computerize presentations in their communication.
Goal #5: Develop team skills
Objective a. Students will be able to work effectively in a group to solve
scientific problems.
Objective b. Students will be effective leaders as well as effective team
members.
Objective c. Students will be able to work collaboratively with a diverse
group of peers.
Goal #6: Develop proper concern for scientific ethics
Objective a. Students will conduct themselves responsibly and be aware of
the role of chemistry and contemporary societal and global issues.
Objective b. Students will understand the role of ethics in scientific
research and publication.
The following two new goals are proposed in response to the design of this new
seminar course:
Goal #7: Apply scientific expertise to societal issues either professionally or as citizens
Objective a. Students will show their scientific expertise regarding a
contemporary societal/moral issue either professionally or as citizens.
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 4Objective b. Students will be able to provide relevant information in
structured arguments to address contemporary issues related to
chemistry while working collaboratively.
Goal #8: Infuse sustainability science literacy through chemistry education
Objective a. Students will be able to connect/apply their knowledge of
chemistry to a global sustainability challenge that defines the 21st century.
Objective b. Students will be able to address the role of chemistry in
solving (or trying to solve) a global sustainability challenge that defines
the 21st century.
As a side note, the other two existing goals (for a total of eight overall goals) are:
Goal #1. Develop problem solving, the ultimate goal of a chemical education
Goal #3. Develop proper concern for laboratory safety.
According to the ACS guidelines and evaluation procedures for Bachelor’s Degree
Programs, “in order to prepare students to enter the workforce or postgraduate
education, programs must provide experiences that go beyond chemistry content
knowledge to develop competence in other critical skills necessary for a professional
chemist.” Table 1 summarizes the learning outcomes and the methods of assessment
covered in this new course:
Table 1: Learning outcomes and methods of assessment for the new seminar course.
Learning Outcomes Methods of assessment (assignments)
Search and use the chemical Worksheet on literature searching developed in
literature (Objectives 2a and 2b) partnership with the information literacy
librarian
Effectively communicate scientific Oral:
material in oral, written, and visual Participation grade involving in-class
formats while gaining professional debates and discussions
preparation and exposure Mock interview (in collaboration with the
(Objectives 4a through 4c) Career Development Center)
Questions for professionals in the field of
chemistry (through Anne’s alumni
connections)
Practice and final presentations
Written:
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 5 Ethics case study
Resume building (in collaboration with
the Career Development Center)
Reflection article on mock interview
Evaluation of peer reviewed article
Abstract for final presentation
Visual:
Individual poster on sustainability
science literacy
Team website on societal issue related to
chemistry
Develop team skills while learning Team website on societal issue related to
about societal issues related to chemistry
chemistry (Objectives 5a through 5c)
Develop a greater understanding and Ethics case study
appreciation of scientific ethics
(Objectives 6a and 6b)
Apply scientific expertise to Website on a societal/moral issue related to
contemporary societal issues chemistry
(Objectives 7a and 7b)
Connect and apply knowledge to a Poster on sustainability science literacy
global sustainability challenge of the
21st century
(Objectives 8a and 8b)
2) The additional component is the implementation of areas of emphasis in the
chemistry curriculum, which was approved in December 2015.
As part of the most recent American Chemical Society (ACS) guidelines, the ACS has
encouraged chemistry departments to create “tracks” in the undergraduate chemistry
curriculum. According to the ACS guidelines, a degree track is described as a
“specialized, department-designed curriculum meeting the foundation, in-depth, and
laboratory requirements” with the goal of providing “a coherent program based on [the
department’s] expertise and interest, to strengthen and develop the chemistry education
of its students provided by the foundation course experience.”
In response to this request, we now offer “Areas of Emphasis” within the chemistry
major at Washington College. This gives students the option to gain recognition for
specialization within an area of chemistry, while ensuring sufficient breadth across the
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 6different sub disciplines. All students can still earn a B.S. in chemistry with or without
ACS certification, but students wishing to focus their studies may decide to choose their
elective coursework in a way that allows them to complete an area of emphasis. If
successful, this area of emphasis will be noted on a student’s transcript at graduation.
It is not the goal of this program to encourage more students to narrow their studies
and students will not be required to select an area of emphasis. Ultimately, we hope this
opportunity will increase student awareness for the many sub disciplines within
chemistry and will aid our efforts to recruit new students to the college by showcasing
the strengths and diversity of our faculty and curriculum.
In designing these “Areas of Emphasis” we had four primary goals: (1) create coherent
programs with sufficient breadth and depth, (2) capitalize upon and highlight the
expertise of our faculty, (3) utilize courses currently offered within chemistry and
related departments, and (4) imbed flexibility into each program to allow for student
choice and freedom in departmental course scheduling. Taking these criteria into
account, we developed the following optional areas of emphasis:
Organic and Medicinal Chemistry
Greener Materials Science
Physical and Instrumental Chemistry
Biophysics and Biological Chemistry
Additionally, the Chemistry Department continued to use a rubric for SCE assessment
for the fourth year and the ACS standardized tests in introductory and foundation
courses, as well as administered the Diagnostic of Undergraduate Chemistry
Knowledge (DUCK) exam for all chemistry majors at the end of the spring semester for
the third consecutive year.
In order to maintain rigor in the development of effective oral and written scientific
communication skills throughout existing disciplines, evaluation of lab reports and
professional letters allows us to assess writing in the discipline starting with general
chemistry up to 300-level courses such as chemistry of biological compounds and
inorganic chemistry.
b. Presentation of student learning outcomes data (as they relate to our
goals) for 2015-2016
Measurements of objectives listed under goals 1, 3 and 5 through tracking of topics:
Due to the linearity of our program, a tracking system was developed to measure
students’ progress over four years of undergraduate studies in chemistry. Topics from
general chemistry have been tracked in organic chemistry for the past six years, in
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 7inorganic chemistry for eight consecutive semesters, in analytical chemistry for six
consecutive fall semesters, and in physical chemistry for the past six years. Scores for
each tracked topic were recorded and averages were tabulated (Tables 2-5).
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 8For organic chemistry: CHE 201 and CHE 202
Table 2: Average scores on tracked topics for organic chemistry.
Tracked topic 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- Average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2010-2016
1.Lewis 62% 69% 77% 64% 80% 68% 70%
structures
2.Hybridization 72% 89% 83% 75% 73% 72% 77%
3.Dipole 79% NA 85% NA NA NA 82%
moments
4.Kinetics 75% 80% NA 63% NA 60% 70%
5.Resonance 56% 56% 59% 65% 80% 73% 65%
structures
6.Functional 75% 82% 85% 69% 89% 84% 81%
groups
7.Energy 63% 65% 77% 82% 75% 77% 73%
8.Acids and 77% 76% 75% 54% 43% 53% 63%
bases
9.Amino acids 84% NA NA NA NA 85% 85%
10.Boiling 60% NA 61% 50% 60% 74% 61%
points
11.Effective 83% 76% 77% 82% 85% 82% 81%
writing skills
(lab portion)
Overall 73%
average score
2010-2016
For inorganic chemistry (usually offered in the Fall): CHE 311
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 9Table 3: Average scores on tracked topics for inorganic chemistry.
Tracked topic Spring Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Average
2009 2009 2010 2011 2012 Beginning/ Beginning/ Beginning/ 2009-2015
End End End
1.Lewis 79% 87% 48% 80% 90% 83%/93% 81.5%/92% 91.3%/90.1% 81.5%
structures,
VSEPR and
hybridization
7.Energy 65% 81% 81% 76% 100 76%/NA 91.7%/NA 86.7%/NA 82.2%
%
12.Stereoisom 86% 67% 60% 83% 83% NA/93% NA/93.8% NA/94.7% 82.6%
erism
13.Points 72% 83% 78% 79% 89% NA/79% NA/73.8% NA/87.7% 80.2%
groups and IR
(functional
groups)
14.MO 85% 91% 93% 87% 90% NA/92% NA/84.4% NA/91.7% 89.3%
diagram
15.Solids 74% 80% 100 76% 82% NA/74% NA/81.4% NA/91.2% 82.3%
%
16.Coordinati 86% 84% 85% 87% 94% NA/84% NA/80.2% NA/95.3% 86.9%
on chemistry
17. 18-electron 83% 90% 84% 90% 93% NA/89% NA/89% NA/84.3% 87.8%
rule
19.Organomet 56% 69% 75% 70% 84% NA/86% NA/82.2% NA/83% 75.7%
allics
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 1020.Catalysis 68% 90 64% 46% 92% NA/82% NA/75.3% NA/86% 75.4%
%
11. Effective 85% 89 78% 85% 88% NA/87% NA/87.5% NA/87.8% 85.9%
writing skills %
(lab portion)
Overall 82.7%
average score
2009-2015
For analytical chemistry (only offered in the Fall): CHE 301
Table 4: Average scores on tracked topics for analytical chemistry.
Tracked topic Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Average
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2010-2015
21.Stoichiometry 86% 89% 87% 89% 80% 85% 86%
22.pH 77% 72% 85% 93% 76% 94% 81%
23.Molarity 80% 89% 87% 89% 88% 88% 87%
24.Solubility 75% 63% 70% NA NA 76% 71%
25.Redox 82% 82% 83% NA 81% 80% 82%
reactions
26. Nernst 71% NA 93% 79% 86% 62% 78%
equation
Overall average 81%
score 2010-2015
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 11For physical chemistry: CHE 305 and CHE 306
Table 5: Average scores on tracked topics for physical chemistry.
Tracked topic 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- Average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2010-
2016
27.Ideal gas law 100% 83% 94% 81% 92% 93% 91%
28.Standard heats 100% 91% 78% 75% 83% 93% 87%
of formation
29.Electrochemical 77% 94% NA NA NA 67% 79%
cells
30.Half life 100% 70% 53% NA 80% NA 75%
31.Activation 67% NA 91% 65% 80% 100% 81%
energy
32.Quantum 0% NA 85% 64% NA 96% 61%
numbers
33.Electronic 100% 89% 72% 75% 80% 76% 82%
configurations
1.VSEPR 85% 86% 85% 100% 89% 86% 89%
Overall average 81%
score 2010-2016
Measurements of objectives listed under goal 3 through organic chemistry laboratory
rubric:
A rubric was designed in organic chemistry laboratory to assess proper concern for
safety. Each semester of organic chemistry covers a total of six experiments. The
average score regarding safety was 95.5% in the Fall 2015 and 95.8% in the Spring 2016.
The average score regarding safety was 97.7% in the Fall 2014 and 99.6% in the Spring
2015.
Measurements of objectives listed under goal 4 through writing assignments in general
chemistry, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry and chemistry of biological
compounds:
Table 6 summarizes the average scores obtained by students in writing assignments in
general chemistry (lab reports and professional letters), organic chemistry (professional
letters in both semesters), inorganic chemistry (lab reports), and in chemistry of
biological compounds (final paper).
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 12Table 6: Average scores for writing in the discipline.
General chemistry Organic chemistry Inorganic Chemistry of
chemistry (lab biological
reports) compounds
Fall 2013: 84.6% Fall 2013: 82.5% Fall 2013: 87.4% Fall 2013: 90.9%
Fall 2014: 77.5% Fall 2014: 82.7%
Fall 2015: 80.3% Fall 2015: 82.3% Fall 2014: 87.5% Spring 2015: 91.8%
Fall 2015: 87.8% Spring 2016: 93.2%
Spring 2014: 84.8% Spring 2014: 81.2%
Spring 2015: 84.9% Spring 2015: 86.6%
Spring 2016: 86.2% Spring 2016: 86.6%
Average: 83.0% Average: 83.7% Average: 87.6% Average: 92%
Measurements of objectives listed under goals 2, 4 and 6 through seminar assessment
up to Fall 2015:
The results of assessment for chemistry seminar for Fall 2010-Fall 2015 are presented in
Table 7.
Table 7: Average scores for chemistry seminar (Fall 2010-Fall 2015).
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 13Learning Goal Fall Fall Fall Spring Spring Spring Fall Spring Fall 2014 Spring Fall 2015 Average
2010 2011 2012 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 senior 2015 senior 2010-2015
senior senior senior junior junior junior senior junior seminar junior seminar
seminar seminar seminar seminar seminar seminar seminar seminar seminar
Search the 90% 100% 90% 90% 90% NA NA 89% 97% 94% NA 92.5%
chemical
literature
(objectives 2a
and 2b)
Interpret and 90% 89% 97% 83% 89% 87% 97% 92% NA 92% NA 91%
synthesize the
scientific
literature
(objectives 2a
and 2b)
Effectively 81% 88% 90% 89% 90% 90% 89% 89% 90% 89% 90.6% 89%
communicate
scientific material
in written and
oral formats
(objectives 4a
through 4c)
Learn computer 90% 96% 90% 90% 93% NA NA NA NA NA NA 92%
tools commonly
used in the
discipline
(objective 4c)
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 14Develop a greater 80% 87% NA 96% 91% 93% 87% NA 88% NA 88% 89%
understanding
and appreciation
of scientific ethics
(objectives 6 a
and 6b)
Overall average 91%
score 2010-2015
Table 8 presents the assessment data for the new seminar course, which was introduced in Table 1.
Table 8: Average scores for the new chemistry seminar (SPRING 2016).
Learning Outcomes Methods of assessment (assignments)
Search and use the chemical Worksheet on literature searching developed in partnership with the
literature (Objectives 2a and 2b) information literacy librarian: 91.8%
Effectively communicate scientific Oral:
material in oral, written, and visual Participation grade involving debates, discussions, and questions for
formats while gaining professional professionals in the field of chemistry: 89.5%
preparation and exposure Practice presentation: 87.7% and final presentation: 92.3%
(Objectives 4a through 4c) Written:
Ethics case study: 88.2%
Resume building: 88.0%
Reflection article on mock interview: 91.6%
Evaluation of peer review article: 92.7%
Abstract for final presentation: 95.2%
Visual:
Individual poster on sustainability science literacy: 89.0%
Team website on societal issue related to chemistry: 87.9%
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 15Develop team skills while learning Team website on societal issue related to chemistry: 87.9%
about societal issues related to
chemistry (Objectives 5a through 5c)
Develop a greater understanding and Ethics case study: 88.2%
appreciation of scientific ethics
(Objectives 6a and 6b)
Apply scientific expertise to Website on societal/moral issue related to chemistry: 87.9%
contemporary societal issues
(Objectives 7a and 7b)
Connect and apply knowledge to a Poster on sustainability science literacy: 89.0%
global sustainability challenge of the
21st century
(Objectives 8a and 8b)
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 16Measurements of objectives listed under goals 1 through 4 using SCE assessment:
The results of assessment for SCE for Spring 2012-Spring 2016 are presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Average scores for SCE (Spring 2012-Spring 2016).
Criteria and corresponding objectives Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Average 2012-
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016
Neatness and appearance of the poster (objectives 89.7% 91.5% 90.0% 91% 91.3% 90.7%
4a and 4c)
Organization of the poster (objective 4a) 90.9% 91.2% 90.2% 90.5% 88.1% 90.2%
Effective use of graphs and other visual aids 89.4% 90.5% 89.2% 90% 89.4% 89.7%
(objective 4c)
Effective writing (grammar, spelling, coherent 87.2% 89.5% 89.2% 90.5% 88.8% 89.0%
writing) (objective 4b)
Effective use of literature searching (background) 87.5% 90% 87.9% 92.1% 88.8% 89.3%
(objectives 2a and 2b)
Ability to learn various laboratory skills and 90.6% 90.8% 88.3% 90.8% 89.4% 90.0%
instrumentation useful for the project (objectives
1b, 1c, 1d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d)
Ability to collect useful data for the project 90.9% 91% 89.8% 90.8% 89.4% 90.4%
(objective 1a)
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 17Ability to use technical vocabulary (objectives 4a 88.8% 89.5% 88.3% 90.5% 89.4% 89.3%
and 4b)
Ability to draw generalizations and conclusions 88.1% 88.8% 87.9% 90.5% 89.4% 88.9%
with appropriate evidence (objectives 1a, 1c and
1d)
Ability to answer questions during poster 89.7% 90.2% 88.6% 91.2% 90.6% 90.0%
presentation (objective 4a)
Overall average score 2012-2016 89.7%
Measurements of objectives listed under goals 1, 3 and 5 through ACS-standardized tests:
The results of the ACS-standardized test in organic, analytical, inorganic, physical, and general chemistry are presented in
Tables 10, 11, and 12.
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 18Table 10: Outcomes of the ACS-standardized tests in organic and analytical chemistry.
ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS
Org Org Org Org Analy Analy Analy
chem chem chem chem Chem Chem Chem
2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- Fall Fall Fall
Outcomes 2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015
Average score 44.7% 47.1% 40.9% 40.4% 53% 53% 61%
Median score 44.3% 45.7% 38.6% 39.3% 53% 51% 62%
Highest score 68.6% 74.3% 64.3% 77.1% 68% 76% 80%
Lowest score 15.7% 27.1% 25.7% 17.1% 38% 38% 46%
Percentile 35% 39% 32% 32% 47% 46% 64%
Average 34.5% 52%
percentile per
discipline
The percentile values indicate that our classes scored an average of 34.5th percentile over the past four years for organic
chemistry and an average of 52nd percentile over the past three years for analytical chemistry compared to the national
average.
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 19Table 11: Outcomes of the ACS-standardized tests in inorganic and physical chemistry.
ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS
Inorg Inorg Inorg Inorg Inorg Phys Phys Phys Phys
chem chem chem chem chem chem chem chem chem
Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015-
Outcomes 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average 42.4% 51.7% 44.1% 45.6% 46% 49% 54% 52% 61%
score
Median 40% 53.3% 46.7% 44.2% 47% 48% 54% 52% 62%
score
Highest 61.7% 56.7% 51.7% 61.7% 51.7% 68% 71% 75% 88%
score
Lowest 30% 43.3% 35% 35% 38.3% 36% 34% 29% 40%
score
Percentile 27.8% 47% 30.6% 33.9% 34.4% 33% 43% 39% 55%
Average 35% 43%
percentage
per
discipline
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 20Table 12: Outcomes of the ACS-standardized tests in general chemistry.
ACS ACS ACS
Gen chem Gen chem Gen chem
2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Outcomes
Average score 60.0% 58.9% 62.2%
Median score 63.8% 60.3% 60.7%
Highest score 84.8% 85.0% 86.9%
Lowest score 33.8% 38% 32.2%
Percentile 64.5% 61.9% NA
Average score 60.4%
over three
years
Note: The ACS standardized test was not administered in the spring of 2016 due to exceptional circumstances in the fall
semester leading to an extended period of missed classes. Because of the lack of preparation of the students for this type
of standardized test, it was decided to administer a common series of multiple choice questions equivalent to the ones on
the ACS standardized test as part of the general chemistry final exam.
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 21Measurements of objectives listed under goals 1, 3 and 5 through the DUCK exam:
The results of the DUCK exam are presented in Tables 13 and 14.
Table 13: Outcomes of the DUCK standardized test covering topics from organic,
analytical/instrumental, physical and inorganic chemistry (only for seniors majoring
in chemistry).
Average
Fall 2012 Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Spring 2016 ACS DUCK
2012-2016
Outcomes
Average 54.1% 44.7% 52.7% 49.4%
50.2%
score
Median 50.8% 45.0% 48.3% 48.3%
48.1%
score
Highest 85.0% 61.7% 71.7% 63.3%
70.4%
score
Lowest score 28.3% 16.7% 43.3% 36.7% 31.3%
Percentile 51.4% 35.5% 49.5% 42% 44.6%
The aggregate scores per discipline for the DUCK exam are presented in Table 14.
Table 14: Outcome per discipline for the DUCK exam.
Discipline Organic Analytical/ Physical Inorganic
covered in the chemistry instrumental chemistry chemistry
DUCK exam chemistry
FALL 2013 64.1% 50.0% 46.9% 49.2%
% students who
got the correct
answers
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 22SPRING 2014 49.2% 48.3% 28.2% 50.0%
% students who
got the correct
answers
SPRING 2015 57.3% 50.6% 44.4% 52.7%
% students who
got the correct
answers
SPRING 2016 56.8% 46.4% 44.2% 46.2%
% students who
got the correct
answers
c. Analysis of student learning outcomes data as they relate to recent
changes
Analysis of measurements of objectives listed under goals 1, 3 and 5 through tracking of
topics (Tables 2-5):
The main outcomes of the analysis of the topics tracked are three-fold: 1) assess the level
of competency of our students throughout their four years of undergraduate studies, 2)
help our students pinpoint their weaknesses, and 3) try to reduce the gap among
students belonging to the same cohort.
Comparing the outcomes of the tracked topics in organic chemistry to the ones in
analytical, inorganic, and physical chemistry, the lower percentages obtained in organic
chemistry make sense since they reflect the wide variety of students’ background. The
wide discrepancy of students’ understanding of chemistry is also reflected in general
chemistry. Only a minority of students in organic chemistry are declared chemistry
majors.
On the other hand, students who are taking analytical chemistry are either declared
majors or minors in chemistry or are biology majors with a concentration in
biochemistry. The status of the students as well as their level of commitment need to be
taken into account when evaluating the data.
Students taking inorganic and physical chemistry are mostly majors while some are
minors. Additionally, inorganic chemistry is a course required for the ACS certification
(and mostly taken only by ACS certified majors). Only one semester of physical
chemistry is necessary to be on the ACS certified track. Consistency was observed this
year with some high notes along the way for these two courses.
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 23We need to keep in mind that we had an exceptionally strong class of graduated seniors
in May (final average GPA = 3.44). We also have an outstanding cohort of rising seniors
(current average GPA = 3.64) majoring in chemistry, which account for high
percentages obtained in 300-level courses.
Analysis of measurements of objectives listed under goal 3 through organic chemistry
laboratory rubric:
Objectives listed under proper concern for safety are quantified in organic chemistry
experiments.
While safety is reinforced in the laboratory sections of general chemistry and organic
chemistry, objectives listed under proper concern for safety are only quantified in
organic chemistry experiments.
A small decrease in percentages was observed this year. While teams of students
appropriately wore their personal protective equipment (PPE), some groups had
trouble using the correct solvents (even if they were properly labeled) in organic
chemistry laboratory.
Analysis of measurements of objectives listed under goal 4 through writing
assignments in general chemistry, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry and
chemistry of biological compounds (Table 6):
The data for the average score on assignments related to writing in the discipline either
increased or remained consistent this past year. This demonstrates the efficiency of the
process of introducing formal lab reports as well as professional letters at the
introductory level. It also shows that practicing consistent scientific writing through the
entirety of the undergraduate learning experience is a valuable way to reach
proficiency.
Analysis of measurements of objectives listed under goals 2, 4-8 through seminar
assessment (Tables 7 and 8):
The data acquired in junior and senior seminars for the past five years illustrates a
strong commitment of the instructor in charge of this course as well as a dedicated
group of chemistry majors to mastering goals 2, and 4-8.
Additionally, to the high caliber of our graduating cohort of seniors and of our most
recent group of juniors, it is anticipated that the new four-credit seminar course will
continue to provide a meaningful way to assess goals 2, 4-6, and tentatively 7-8. The
department’s new seminar course will also ensure that our students are fully prepared
as citizens of the 21st century and professionals in chemistry or in a chemistry-related
discipline.
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 24Eight assignments were delineated and assessed in the new seminar course. The one-
on-one guidance, the small class size (11 students), as well as the crafting of a detailed
rubric for each assignment helped fulfill high expectations (and ultimately higher than
expected grades).
This new seminar course is off to a great start but future data will convey if additional
modifications need to be implemented. It is expected that this course will be offered
annually in the spring semester and that consistency in content and format will be
maintained independently of the instructor.
Analysis of measurements of objectives listed under goals 1 through 4 using SCE
assessment (Table 9):
All averages scores showed a slight decrease for each category of the SCE poster
presentation (except the first one) being evaluated. Our expectations may have been
greater than usual for this high achieving group of seniors.
The process of evaluation for the SCE poster presentation went digital this year via the
use of a Qualtrics survey for both the in-depth literature based SCE and the lab-based
one.
Analysis of measurements of objectives listed under goals 1, 3 and 5 through ACS-
standardized tests (Tables 10-12):
While the average scores decreased in organic chemistry, all other disciplines averages
increased (with significant increases in analytical chemistry and physical chemistry) or
remained the same this past year. This is very encouraging especially knowing that
students in inorganic chemistry, for example, only have one semester of instruction
while the ACS test is based on a two-semester course.
Conscious efforts are made through introductory and foundation courses to prepare
our students to take standardized tests under time constraint. However an unusual
course of events took place in November and due to the number of missed class periods
and the lack of preparation and practice, students in general chemistry did not take the
ACS standardized test as part of their final exam. As a compromise all students in the
three lecture sessions had to answer the same multiple choice questions phrased in a
similar manner to the ACS test questions. It is important to keep in mind that this year’s
data in general chemistry can’t be evaluated along the same lines as the ones for the
past two years.
While the overall average increased in general chemistry, once again significant
discrepancies were seen among all three sections of general chemistry, especially
between the honors general chemistry and the two regular sections of general
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 25chemistry. While this is expected, the department will evaluate best practices in general
chemistry (evaluation of the use of a textbook, content, and format of the course) after
the arrival of our new visiting assistant professor.
Analysis of measurements of objectives listed under goals 1, 3 and 5 through the DUCK
exam (Tables 13 and 14):
This closing-the-loop standardized test is a reflection of how our chemistry majors are
doing in our foundation chemistry courses. This was the fourth time this exam was
administered to our seniors (but the third time in the spring). Seniors are required to
take this diagnostic exam at the end of the spring semester as part of their graduation
requirements. Eight seniors took the exam this year.
Average scores for the DUCK exam were lower than last year and a similar decrease
was also observed in the percentage of students who got the correct answers across the
four foundation courses in chemistry. While all students are required to take organic
and analytical chemistry, this is not the case for inorganic chemistry and a year-long of
physical chemistry. It is worth noting that there is no incentive for students to study for
this test since it is not included in the grade computation associated with a course. If the
department would want to offer the option of having an “exam” as a third option for
the fulfillment of the Senior Capstone Experience, a different approach would be taken
by the department and ultimately by the students.
d. Recommendations arising from this year’s assessment of student
learning outcomes
The following recommendations will guide the Chemistry Department for its
assessment plan for 2016-2017:
Continue the tracking of topics throughout our hierarchical curriculum
Continue to use the new Qualtrics rubric developed for SCE and to administer
the DUCK exam at the end of the Spring semester for our seniors
Continue to use the ACS standardized test in introductory and foundation
courses in chemistry
Continue to work on the development of appropriate assessment tools for the
new seminar course
Possibly re-evaluate the process of obtaining departmental honors for chemistry
majors (our number of students wanting to go through the oral examination in
pursuit of departmental honors has decreased in the past couple of years
independently of the number of eligible students)
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 26 Continue to publicize our areas of emphasis (a new brochure was designed in
collaboration with the Admissions office) and possibly find a way to assess each
area of emphasis (Organic and Medicinal Chemistry, Greener Materials Science,
Physical and Instrumental Chemistry, and Biophysics and Biological Chemistry).
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Marteel-Parrish
Note: This is Anne’s fifth SLOA report as Chair of the Chemistry Department. The next
report will be prepared by Aaron Amick.
Chemistry Department-SLOA-Page 27You can also read
