Part 2: Data Collection and Analysis STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 1: Possess an understanding of theoretical chemistry appropriate for a baccalaureate candidate. Criterion 1.1: Student performance in upper level courses on theoretical portion of examinations. Instrument/Measurement: Selected questions (not known to the students) relating theoretical constructs in chemistry on all upper-division (3000-4000) courses have been evaluated as indicative of knowledge of critical or foundational subjects. Organic Chemistry Population: Undergraduate Students in upper level courses. Standard: Individual instructors recommend performance goals based on their experience in their discipline, and on their judgment of the relative difficulty of the problems used. The goals were discussed and approved or modified by the Chemistry Faculty as a whole during the departmental assessment meetings. The results and conclusions of this evaluation are summarized below. Objectives: Students will learn the basic terminology of organic chemistry; understand organic notation, stereochemistry and substitution and elimination reactions. Students will learn to predict products of oxidation/reduction reactions, cycloaddition reactions, electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions, nucleophilic acyl substitution reactions, and conjugate addition reactions. Assessment Instrument a: Coded Questions on Organic Chemistry Final Examinations. Performance Goals: 75% of chemistry majors will earn two thirds or more of the available points. Five coded final examination problems were used. The topics and results were: Problem No. Topic 1. Addition to alkenes 2. E2 Reaction and Seytzeff s Rule 3. Oxymercuration/demercuration 4. Synthesis 5. Mechanism 6. Hoffman Elimination, E2 Reactions 7. Hoffman Degradation 8. Nucleophilic Aromatic Substitutions Scores of 70% or better are considered satisfactory. The results show no deficiencies in questions 1 and 3-5, but students did not do as well answering question 2. 1
Summary Table of Results of Organic Chemistry Instrument: Embedded Test Questions Problem Topic CY CY 2012 Spring AY 2013- Average No. 2011 2013* 2014 1 Addition of alkenes 93% 55% 89 % 65% 74% 2 E2 Reaction and Seytzeff s Rule 60% 36% 67 % 62% 48% 3 Oxymercuration/Demercuration 100% 53% 78 % 75% 77% 4 Synthesis 92% 27% 71 % 63% 60% 5 Mechanism 100% 66% 38 % 76% 83% 6 Hoffman Elimination, E2 -- -- 40 % 32% -- Reactions 7 Hoffman Degradation -- -- 56 % 52% -- 8 Nucleophilic Aromatic Sustitution -- -- 60 % 38% -- * Spring 2013 is treated as an outlier in data collection because the program converted from a calendaryear cycle for data collection to an academic cycle for data collection, effective AY 2013-2014 The results show that students typically struggle most with the topics of epoxide ring opening, elimination reactions (e.g. Problem 2), nucleophilic aromatic substitution, and organic synthesis. Weakness in the area of synthesis could be remedied by emphasizing synthetic methods throughout the semester, as opposed to only at the end of the semester. More exposure to epoxide ring opening in the form of more practice problems might help students to grasp that particular reaction. More practice problems in lecture might be helpful to improve student understanding in these areas. Student strengths were in the areas of mechanisms, oxymercuration/demercuration, degradation, and synthesis. This indicates that coverage of organic mechanisms throughout the course is helpful in teaching students how to represent mechanisms on paper. Additionally, the fact that students did reasonably well in predicting the product of an oxymercuration/demercuration reaction shows that students, for the most part, grasp the concept of electrophilic addition reactions, including the topics of regiochemistry and stereochemistry. Students performance on the synthesis section indicates an ability to remember reactions covered throughout the course, and an ability to combine individual reactions to make a complex product. Additionally, the fact that students did reasonably well in synthesis indicates a good knowledge of the typical undergraduate organic reactions, as well as an ability to think critically in determining pathways to make complicated organic molecules. Physical Chemistry I Dr. Myers Course Last Offered in Fall of 2011, 2012 Objectives: Students will learn the basic principles of thermodynamics and be able to apply them to chemical systems. Problems were selected from the areas of basic heat and work, phase transformations, solutions, and electrochemistry. Data were collected for each area and a performance goal of 60 % of students to earn most or all of the points on the selected problems was set for each area Student performance in the various areas was evaluated as follows: 1. Basic Thermodynamics 1 problem 2. Phase Equilibria 2 problems 2
3. Chemical Equilibria and Solutions 2 problems 4. Electrochemistry 2 problems The actual results are shown in the following table: Summary Table of Results: Physical Chemistry Embedded Test Questions Year 1 2 3 4 CY 2006 64% 63% 67% 83% CY 2008 75% 75% 50% 50% CY 2010 100% 60% 60% 60% CY 2011 100% 67% 67% 67% CY 2012 71% 64% 63% 48% Averages 82% 66% 61% 62% In 2008, the students in Physical Chemistry I met predetermined goals in Basic Thermodynamics and Phase Equilibria, but narrowly missed the goal in Chemical Equilibria. Students performed generally better in the first two areas and more poorly in Chemical Equilibria and Electrochemistry in 2008. The previous class (2006) met all goals and was highest in Electrochemistry. In 2010 students met all goals, albeit narrowly in all but basic thermodynamics. In 2011-12 students generally met the Departmental goals, though narrowly in all but Basic Thermodynamics. Performance Goal: Students examined should attain the established performance goals in each area. Judgments: This goal was met in the area of organic chemistry and biochemistry. In the area of physical chemistry, students narrowly met the established performance goals in all areas Advanced Inorganic Chemistry Dr. Myers Course Offered Spring, 2013 Objectives: Students should learn the fundamentals of atomic structure and chemical bonding. They should become familiar with ionic and covalent bonding, and the application of group theory to symmetry considerations in molecular structures. Problems on examinations were selected from the areas of basic structure and bonding, group theory and symmetry, and coordination chemistry. A performance goal of 70% of students to earn 70% or more of the points for the given problem was set for each area. The results for Spring 2013 are as follows: Basic Structure/Bonding 3 problems 86 % of students Group Theory/Symmetry 3 problems 81 % of students Coordination Chemistry 3 problems 71 % of students Summary Table of Results: Advanced Inorganic Chemistry Embedded Test Questions Year Area/Percentage Scoring 70% Basic Structure/Bonding Group Theory/Symmetry Coordination Chemistry CY 2009 88% 75% 75% CY 2011 86% 81% 71% CY 2012 -- -- -- Spring 2013* 71 % 86 % 81 % Ave. 82 % 81 % 76 % 3
* Spring 2013 is treated as an outlier in data collection because the program converted from a calendaryear cycle for data collection to an academic cycle for data collection, effective AY 2013-2014 Course not offered during CY 2012 Students met or exceeded the performance goal. It should be noted that Dr. Myers has placed an increased emphasis on group theory in his Advanced Inorganic Chemistry course. Alumni who are currently in graduate school in chemistry have stressed the importance of group theory in their graduate work. American Chemical Society Standardized Exams may be used for future Inorganic Chemistry Assessment. Quantitative Analysis 3214 Dr. Scott In the Quantitative Analysis course, 5 questions from the comprehensive final exam worth 5 points each were chosen in order to assess student learning of determined core concepts. The questions chosen for this assessment were not disclosed to the students and none of the questions were multiple choice. Five questions were chosen and are provided in the rubric and supplemental material. The performance goal is that 75% of the students will score 80% or higher. This semester, 80% of the students met this goal. The respective individual percentages are listed below: Student 1 76% Student 2 88% Student 3 92% Student 4 92% Student 5 88% Spring 2013 The performance goal is that 75% of the students will score 80% or higher. This semester, 80% of the students met this goal. The respective individual percentages are listed below: Student 1 87% Student 2 83% Student 3 80% Student 4 87% Student 5 60% Comments for Improvement: While less emphasis was placed on acid base equilibrium, this allowed for more time to discuss electrochemical methods. Even less emphasis is required in order to allow the students time to practice the types of problems seen in electrochemistry and learn these concepts. Lastly, this approach will also permit discussion of additional analytical techniques toward the end of the semester. Spring 2014 The performance goal is that 75% of the students will score 80% or higher. This semester, 80% of the students met this goal. The respective individual percentages are listed below: Chemistry Majors Score Non-Majors Score 4
Student 1 87% Student 7 67% Student 2 80% Student 8 90% Student 3 90% Student 9 80% Student 4 90% Student 10 70% Student 5 47% Student 11 70% Student 6 47% Results and Comments: For this year, the class was divided into Chemistry Majors and Non-Majors. To meet this standard 4.5 majors were required to score 80% or higher on these 6 questions. In this case, only 4 majors met this objective. In the group of Non-Majors, only 2 out of 5 scored 80% or higher not meeting this standard. Based on being told by one student that they did not do the homework initially as suggested, this will now be required. This seems to be the case more for this class than previous sections. Historically, this course has been centered on the premise that the students are to do assigned homework and use quizzes to prepare for the exams which has resulted in meeting this standard previously. Future modifications are required in order to see that students meet and exceed the standard without revealing the questions being evaluated. First and foremost, homework will now be required utilizing OWL Version 2 which will be bundled with the text. A review for the final will also be conducted. Distinctly, students missed some of the above questions which were directly related to previous exam questions that they did correctly. The lack of retention directly contributed to not meeting this standard. These questions are administered as part of a comprehensive final. A more in depth review will be conducted regarding topics covered on the final. These modifications will be implemented during the next offering of this course and are expected to see that this standard will not only be met but exceeded. Summary Table of Results: Analytical Chemistry Embedded Test Questions Year No. Students No. Students Scoring Percent 80 % CY 2012 5 4 80 % Spring 2013* 5 4 80 % AY 2013-2014 5 4 80 % Average -- -- 80 % * Spring 2013 is treated as an outlier in data collection because the program converted from a calendaryear cycle for data collection to an academic cycle for data collection, effective AY 2013-2014 Biochemistry Dr. Crittell While biochemistry is not currently a required course for a Chemistry Major, the Department is evaluating a curricular revision that would make it a required course. For that reason, and because a significant number of majors do take the course, Assessment Data has been collected and is presented here for comparison purposes. The following areas were selected from exams in order to assess the chemistry majors. They are selected such that the four major biomolecules groups are tested. Additionally questions concerning metabolism and pathways were also included. Area 1 Amino acids, proteins, enzymes 3 problems 5
Area 2 Lipids and membranes 2 problems Area 3 Sugars and carbohydrates 2 problems Area 4 DNA and RNA 2 problems Area 5 Pathways 2 problems The data were collected and combined for each major area. A performance goal of at least 70% was set for each area. Results for 2010-2013 are summarized in the table below: Summary: Student Averages for Each Area by Year for Biochemistry Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 Averages 1 87% 87% 82% 88% 86% 2 87% 78% 79% 85% 82% 3 88% 85% 66% 92% 83% 4 85% 70% 88% 88% 83% 5 85% 65% 59% 75% 71% The performance goals for all areas are met currently. The majors sampled for this report meet the biochemistry performance goals. A score of 70% or better is to be considered satisfactory. Criterion 1.2: Performance on standardized American Chemical Society Examinations. Use of Standardized Exams in Physical Chemistry and Organic Chemistry Instrument/Measurement: Student performance on standardized ACS examinations in physical chemistry and organic chemistry will be used to judge student learning of theoretical aspects of these two subjects. Item analysis will be used to evaluate student understanding of specific aspects of the subjects. The use of standardized examinations may be expanded in future years to other courses as well. Population: Undergraduate Students in upper level courses. Standard Individual instructors recommend performance goals based on their experience in their discipline, and on their judgment of the relative difficulty of the topics. The goals were discussed and approved or modified by the Chemistry Faculty as a whole during the departmental assessment meetings. The results and conclusions of this evaluation are summarized below. American Chemical Society standardized exam have been administered beginning spring of 2011 for students in Organic Chemistry II. An analysis of the questions answered correctly or missed, indicate that strong points are: IR spectroscopy, NMR spectroscopy, reducing agents, nucleophilic acyl substitution, conjugate addition, Grignard reagents, nucleophilic aromatic substitution, and oxidation of alkenes. Weak points typically have been cation rearrangements, SN2 reaction, and carbohydrates. These results are being followed from year to year for evidence of any trends in strong and weak points. 6
The Fall 2012 Organic 2 class took the 2004 ACS Organic chemistry exam. The class average, including all majors was 23.5 out of 70 questions A score of 23 or better is considered satisfactory. This value is based on the national average (35) one unit of standard deviation (12) There was one chemistry major, who scored in the satisfactory range (26). There were 14 students of majors other than chemistry or pre-pharmacy who also took the exam, eight of these scored satisfactorily (57%). The instructor s feel that part of the reason why many of the students were unsuccessful is that there was not enough incentive for them to do well, as students were only offered a maximum 5 points out of a total of 500 possible points for the semester based on their performance. In the future the test will be tied directly to the student s grade so that they feel compelled to do better. The organic chemistry instructors did not use coded questions for this class but have come up with a list of coded questions that Organic2 students should understand. They will be used in the future. Student No. Major Score Student 1 other 17 Student 2 other 23 Student 3 other 25 Student 4 other 41 Student 5 other 21 Student 6 other 30 Student 7 other 30 Student 8 other 21 Student 9 other 21 Student 10 other 25 Student 11 other 21 Student 12 other 29 Student 13 Chemistry 26 Student 14 other 24 Student 15 other 22 Student 16 other Not taken The Fall 2013 Organic 2 class took the 2004 ACS Organic chemistry exam. The class average, including all majors was 29 correct out of 70 questions. A score of 23 correct is considered satisfactory. This minimum acceptable value is based on the national average (35) minus one unit of standard deviation (12). Five of the eight students met the standard. The Spring 2014 Organic 2 class took the 2004 ACS Organic chemistry exam. The class average, including all majors was 25.9 correct. The average for the chemistry and pre-pharmacy majors was 25.0 A score of 23 correct or better is considered satisfactory. This minimum acceptable value is based on the national average (35) minus one unit of standard deviation (12). Six of the eleven students met the standard. Of the Chemistry majors, 4 out of 6 received a satisfactory score. Of the non-majors, 8 out of 19 received a satisfactory grade. 7
Dr. Crittell indicated that he found the results somewhat confusing. The only student to get an A on each of the test only got 22 correct answers while two students who ended up with D s for the class got 45 and 31 respectively. (There were more than 2 D s). He felt that perhaps not all students are as serious about taking the standardized test as they need to be. The Department plans to discuss increasing the incentives for these examinations in a fall assessment meeting. CHEM 4114, Spring 2013 McInnes Standardized ACS Test Results Student Score 1 11 2 20 3 20 4 42 5 35 6 29 7 19 8 28 9 21 10 24 11 25 The Spring 2013 Organic 2 class took the 2004 ACS Organic chemistry exam. The class average, including all majors was 24.9 correct out of 70 questions. A score of 23 correct is considered satisfactory. This minimum acceptable value is based on the national average (35) minus one unit of standard deviation (12). Six of the eleven students met the standard. There was one chemistry major (in bold above). Summary Results for the Standardized ACS Test for Organic Chemistry Year No. Majors No. Majors with Score 23 Percent CY 2011 5 3 60 % CY 2012 1 1 100 % Spring 2013* 1 1 100 % AY 2013-2014 7 4 57 % Average -- -- 79 % 8
Summary: Students typically fall within one standard deviation of the national average for students who take the ACS Standardized Test for Organic Chemistry. The Department feels that at this time this standard is being met at an acceptable level. Standardized ACS Test for Physical Chemistry In addition to the embedded test question assessment, additional assessment instruments were again used during the 2012 calendar year for Physical Chemistry I. The ACS Standardized exam was used as one component of the final. This was an exam categorized as Thermodynamics, although a few questions were over aspects of thermodynamics not usually covered in the first semester course at ECU. Student scores ranged from a high of 54% to a low of 24%. Twenty five percent of the class scored 50% or above. There were 50 questions on the ACS exam. A comparison can be made to the same four categories of physical chemistry problems on the standardized exam as were chosen for the regular exam. Using item analysis, the results were examined for specific questions falling into the four categories assessed on the regular final examination. (Questions which cover topics not treated in s course were selected against in this evaluation, although students attempted them as part of the exam.) Results are reported as class averages by topic. Student Performance by Topic on Standardized ACS Thermodynamics Examination Year Basic Thermodynamics Phase Equilibria Chemical Equilibria and Solutions CY 2006 50 % 30 % 50 % 70 % CY 2008 45 % 30 % 37 % 19 % CY 2010 44 % 35 % 67 % 50 % CY 2011 50 % 58 % 50 % 67 % CY 2012 54 % 40 % 44 % 47 % Averages 49 % 39 % 50 % 51 % Electrochemistry As in the previous reporting period, students did not perform as well on phase equilibria on the ACS exam as on the same kind of problems on the regular final. The ACS standardized exam is closed book and is taken without benefit of calculator. The problems tend to be more conceptual rather than numerical. The final exam in physical chemistry was open book and most problems were fairly numerically intensive, which is a fairly common format for this course across the country. The generally lower scores in the various categories on the ACS exam may reflect a need to stress the significance of concepts more, as opposed to the mechanics of specific calculations. Possibly a closed book component should be included in future physical chemistry exams. 9
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 2: Be able to communicate effectively, both in writing and orally. Criterion 2.1: Performance on research papers and class presentations. Instrument/Measurement: Laboratory reports written in Instrumental Analysis and Physical Chemistry Population: Undergraduate students (chemistry majors) Standard: Ninety percent of the students examined should receive a C or higher or their research papers and on their oral presentations Quality of written reports in Instrumental Analysis and Physical Chemistry Year A B C D F Number CY 2008 5 5 8 3 0 21 CY 2009 5 5 5 3 0 18 CY 2010 2 7 9 3 0 21 CY 2011 5 6 2 0 0 13 CY 2012 5 7 5 2 0 19 Spring 2013* 6 2 0 0 0 8 Total 28 30 29 11 0 98 Percent 29% 31% 30% 11% 0% 100% * Spring 2013 is treated as an outlier in data collection because the program converted from a calendaryear cycle for data collection to an academic cycle for data collection, effective AY 2013-2014 The Standard for this instrument is narrowly met for the reporting period. Writing will continue to receive an emphasis in the Department. Criterion 2.2: Performance on oral laboratory reports and class presentations. Instrument/Measurement: Oral laboratory reports or class presentations in Instrumental Analysis and Physical Chemistry Population: Undergraduate students (chemistry majors) Standard: Ninety percent of the students examined should receive a C or higher or their class presentations and on their oral laboratory reports 10
Quality of Class Presentations in Instrumental Analysis and Physical Chemistry Year A B C D F Totals CY 2008 4 2 2 2 0 10 CY 2009 6 2 2 0 0 10 CY 2010 1 4 4 2 0 11 CY 2011 6 2 0 0 0 8 CY 2012 6 4 1 1 0 12 Spring 2013* 4 2 1 0 1 8 Total 27 16 10 5 1 51 Percent 46% 27% 17% 8% 2% 100% * Spring 2013 is treated as an outlier in data collection because the program converted from a calendaryear cycle for data collection to an academic cycle for data collection, effective AY 2013-2014 The Standard for this instrument is narrowly met at 90% for the reporting period. Oral presentations will continue to receive an emphasis in the Department. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 3: Possess the necessary laboratory skills to be successful in chemistry or a related field. Criterion 3.1: Performance on Laboratory assignments in advanced chemistry courses. In particular, analytical chemistry and instrumental analysis are chosen for this criterion because of the precise nature of the results expected in an analytical industrial environment, and because the necessary laboratory technique for analytical chemistry is the most rigorous of all the laboratory techniques required in industry or research. Instrument/Measurement: Laboratory grades on analytical unknowns as supplied by a nationally recognized manufacturer of student laboratory standards (Thorn Smith Chemist). Population: Students in CHEM3214 Quantitative Analysis and CHEM3484 Instrumental Methods of Chemical Analysis. Standard: 70 % of students will attain 75% or higher on their laboratory unknowns in Quantitative Analysis Class. Depending on the difficulty of the analysis, this usually requires being within 3-5 % or better of the accepted value of their unknown. Results: Spring 2013 The performance goal is that 70% of the students will attain an overall lab grade average of 75% or higher. Analytical technique is gauged by having students analyzing prepared unknowns from Thorn Smith Laboratory. Points were assigned based on students being within 5% of the accepted value. The overall lab average for students 1 through 5 is 90% with 80% of the students having a lab average of 75% or higher. The respective individual averages are listed below: Student 1 93% Student 2 94% 11
Student 3 96% Student 4 70% Student 5 98% Spring 2014 The performance goal is that 70% of the students will attain an overall lab grade average of 75% or higher. Chemistry Majors Score Student 1 69% Student 2 94% Student 3 97% Student 4 97% Student 5 93% Student 6 98% Student 7 92% Student 8 97% Results and Comments: As 88% of the students had a lab average grade of 75% or higher, this standard was met. A greater emphasis was placed on keeping an organized notebook. The quality of the lab reports submitted as a result were markedly improved compared to the previous assessment of this standard. For labs not in a pdf version of suggested exercises, handouts provided previous to the lab made those labs clearer for the students assisting them in their written reports. One lab was not included in this assessment due to a problem with the instrument and this issue is being addressed. The materials used will continue to be modified to make things clear for the students and additional labs will be explored to include in the curriculum. The Data for 2009-present are tabulated below: Year Total Number of Students Number with Laboratory Scores 75% Percent CY 2009 6 6 100% CY 2010 12 10 83% CY 2011 Course was canceled -- -- CY 2012 5 4 80 % Spring 2013* 5 4 80% AY 2013-2014 14 11 79% Averages 86% * Spring 2013 is treated as an outlier in data collection because the program converted from a calendaryear cycle for data collection to an academic cycle for data collection, effective AY 2013-2014 This standard continues to be met and exceeded during this reporting period. Students in the Quantitative Analysis/Instrumental Methods sequence demonstrate a level of competence in analytical technique sufficient to be successful in an analytical laboratory setting. 12
Criterion 3.2: Student performance in an organic synthesis component, involving a multi-week synthesis experiment. Instrument/Measurement: Successful completion of the project requires that students learn the techniques of reflux, filtration, distillation and extraction. Additionally, students are required to understand the following chemical reactions and their mechanisms; Halogenation, the Grignard Reaction, and dehydration. Students also learn how to calculate a percent yield of their product. The synthesis project represents a broad range of skills and laboratory techniques essential to a practicing bench synthetic chemist. Population: Students in CHEM4114 Organic Chemistry II Classes Standard: 60 % of students will attain 75% or higher on their synthesis project in Organic Chemistry II Laboratory. Students completed a four-week multistep synthesis in the laboratory that involved the following techniques: - Refluxing a reaction mixture - Simple Distillation - Extraction - Vacuum filtration - Drying a crude reaction product - Vacuum distillation Spring 2013 Averaging the four weeks, ten of the twelve students scored 100%/100%. Two students scored 75%/100%. The data indicates that a large percentage of students are capable of performing the required techniques. No changes are necessary at this time. Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Averaging the four weeks, seven of the eight students scored 100%/100%. One student scored 75%/100%. The data indicates that a large percentage of students are capable of performing the required techniques. No changes are necessary at this time. For the lab notebook 15 points or higher (75%) is considered satisfactory. There were only two students that did not receive a satisfactory mark in this area. For the yield portion 4 points or higher (67%) is considered satisfactory. Again only two students did not meet the standard. These two students were in the same group. Summary Table: Performance on Organic Synthesis Laboratory Experiment 13
Year No. Students No. Students with Scores 75% Percent CY 2012 12 12 100% Spring 2013* 12 12 100% AY 2013-2104 14 14 100% Averages 100% * Spring 2013 is treated as an outlier in data collection because the program converted from a calendaryear cycle for data collection to an academic cycle for data collection, effective AY 2013-2014 This standard has been met. The Department feels that the Standard for this Instrument is too low. The Department voted to raise the standard to expecting 70% of students to attain a score of 80 % or greater in future years. Analysis: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 1: Possess an understanding of theoretical chemistry appropriate for a baccalaureate candidate. Criterion 1.1: Student performance in upper level courses on theoretical portion of examinations. Standard: Individual instructors set performance goals based on their experience in their discipline, and on their judgment of the relative difficulty of the problems used. The results and conclusions of this evaluation are summarized below. This criterion has been met. Students in Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Advanced Inorganic Chemistry all met the established goals by wide margins. In Physical Chemistry, students narrowly met the established performance goals in all areas. Criterion 1.2: Performance on standardized American Chemical Society Examinations. Standard: Individual instructors set performance goals based on their experience in their discipline, and on their judgment of the relative difficulty of the problems used. The results and conclusions of this evaluation are summarized below. This criterion has been met. The long term results for Physical Chemistry indicate that phase equilibria should be stressed more heavily. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 2: Be able to communicate effectively, both in writing and orally. Criterion 2.1: Performance on research papers and class presentations. Standard: Ninety percent of the students examined should receive a C or higher or their research papers and on their oral presentations This criterion has been narrowly met in the case of written reports. All standards in this area are narrowly met or narrowly missed. Emphasis should continue to be placed on writing in upper level classes. This has been an ongoing area requiring emphasis. Criterion 2.2: Performance on oral laboratory reports and class presentations. 14
Standard: Ninety percent of the students examined should receive a C or higher or their research papers and on their oral presentations This criterion has been narrowly met in the case of oral reports. All standards in this area are narrowly met or narrowly missed. This should be an ongoing area requiring emphasis. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 3: Possess the necessary laboratory skills to find employment in chemistry or a related field. Criterion 3.1: Performance on Laboratory assignments in quantitative analysis and instrumental methods courses. Standard: 70 % of students will attain 75% or higher on their laboratory unknowns in Quantitative Analysis Class. Depending on the difficulty of the analysis, this usually requires being within 3-5 % or better of the accepted value of their unknown. This criterion has been met. Students who have progressed to the stage of taking the analytical chemistry sequence generally perform well in the area of quantitative laboratory work. Criterion 3.2: Performance in the Synthesis Portion of the Organic Chemistry Sequence. Standard: 60 % of students will attain 75% or higher on their synthesis project in Organic Chemistry II Laboratory. This criterion has been met. This criterion has been met. The goal of at least 60% of students achieving 75% or better was met. Students typically have done very well in the organic synthesis portion of the organic laboratory sequence. Because this is a new Criterion, only a limited amount of data is currently available. Students generally perform well in the area of experiment and laboratory work. ASSESSMENT TOTAL The total, unduplicated number of students assessed for AY 2013-2014 is 11. 15