1

Courses
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Chemistry 1A, 1B, 12A, 30A, 30B, 31
Fall 2014
29
29
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
100%
Spring 2015
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Laurie Dockter, Donna Gibson,
Wayne Pitcher, Harjot Sawhney,
Maggie Schumacher, Andy Wells
Form Instructions:

Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported in this
Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Reporting Schedule.

Part I: CLO Data Reporting .
For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.

Part II: CLO Reflections .
Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.

Part III: Course Reflection.
In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole.
P ART I: C OURSE -L EVEL O UTCOMES – D ATA R ESULTS
C
N
ONSIDER T
UMBER OF
HE C
CLO
OURSE -L EVEL O UTCOMES
S WILL DIFFER BY COURSE
I NDIVIDUALLY

)
( THE Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 1: (Critical Thinking) Analyze experimental data and explain chemical processes at the molecular level.
(CLO) 2: (Communication) Communicate chemical concepts, understand definitions, and interpret experimental results.
See SLO
Attachments
(p10-15)
See SLO
Attachments
(p10-15)
See SLO
Attachments
(p10-15)
See SLO
(p10-15)
Attachments
(CLO) 3: (Development of the Whole Person)
Recognize and appreciate the impact of the scientific
See SLO
Attachments
See SLO
Attachments principles of chemistry in day-to-day life.
(p10-15)
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
(p10-15)
* Defined Target Scores : What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
2

P ART II: C OURSE LEVEL O UTCOME R EFLECTIONS
A.
C
OURSE
-L
EVEL
O
UTCOME
(CLO) 1:
1.
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
2.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
B.
C
OURSE
-L
EVEL
O
UTCOME
(CLO) 2:
1.
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
2.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
C.
C
OURSE
-L
EVEL
O
UTCOME
(CLO) 3:
1.
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
2.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
3

P ART III: C OURSE R EFLECTIONS AND F UTURE P LANS
1.
What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
2.
Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
3.
What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
X Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
X Change to assessment methods
X Other:___ See SLO Attachments (p10-15) ______________________________
4

Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Chemistry 10
Fall 2014
1
1
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
100%
Spring 2015
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Donna Gibson, Margaret
Schumacher
Form Instructions:

Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported in this
Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Reporting Schedule.

Part I: CLO Data Reporting .
For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.

Part II: CLO Reflections .
Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.

Part III: Course Reflection.
In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole.
P ART I: C OURSE -L EVEL O UTCOMES – D ATA R ESULTS
C ONSIDER T HE C OURSE -L EVEL O UTCOMES I NDIVIDUALLY ( THE
N UMBER OF CLO S WILL DIFFER BY COURSE
 )
(CLO) 1: Develop an appreciation for and/or a better attitude toward the learning and use of science.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80%
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
76% Method 1
100% Method 2
(CLO) 2: Students will compare and contrast two sources of scientific information on a chemistry related topic and write a four paragraph analysis.
80% 86%
(CLO) 3: Students will apply scientific principles and communication skills to either a research or experimental project.
75% 68%
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores : What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
5

P ART II: C OURSE LEVEL O UTCOME R EFLECTIONS
C.
C
OURSE
-L
EVEL
O
UTCOME
(CLO) 1:
3.
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome?
The actual scores varied depending on the question used to assess this student learning outcome. The first question, in which 76% of students agreed or strongly agreed, asked if taking the Chemistry 10 course increased their interest in science. The second question, in which 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed asked if taking the course increased their confidence in understanding scientific information. If the results of the two questions were combined, the average of 88% exceeded the goal set of 80%.
4.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Students who do not readily view themselves as interested in or able to learn science are usually surprised that they actually found the class interesting and could see how having an understanding of the subject matter can be helpful in everyday situations. We believe it is important to have a scientifically literate population and would like to increase our efforts to get more students to take the class. The percentage of students who agreed or strongly agreed did increase since our last evaluation in 2011 (from 75% in 2011 to 88% in
2014).
D.
C OURSE -L EVEL O UTCOME (CLO) 2:
3.
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome?
The 80% goal established for this student learning outcome was exceeded with 86% of students completing the assignment used in the assessment with a score of at 80%.
4.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The structure of the assignment was changed slightly from the previous assessment in
2011. The assignment was made a bit more challenging since in 2011 100% of students met the student learning outcome. The change in difficulty level did reduce the percentage of students who scored at least an 80% on the assignment (from 100% in 2011 to 86% in 2014), however, we still exceeded our goal in the percentage of students. We did have an issue that not everyone submitted this assignment, which is an ongoing issue for classes taught in with an online component. It seems students still struggle with knowing due dates. We will continue to try to increase our awareness of due dates by working on the design of the website for the course.
6

C.
C OURSE -L EVEL O UTCOME (CLO) 3:
3.
How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome?
We did not meet our goal with our third student learning outcome. Only 68% of students received a 70% or higher on the research paper or project assignment for the semester.
23% of students were just below the goal of 70% on the assignment and 9% of students failed to submit the assignment.
4.
Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Students continue to have difficulty when asked to work on a project of some depth using the subject matter of the course in either an experimental project or a research paper.
What is surprising is that a higher percentage are successful with the experimental project than with the research paper. Most of the research papers that did not meet the criteria for success were lacking the actual science content of their topics. It seems when students do an experimental project, they are forced to address the science to come up with enough information for their presentations, whereas when students complete a research paper, they can talk about the social implications more and do not focus on the science in the detail that is requested in the assignment . Although the percentage of students meeting the goal did not change significantly from 2011 (69% in 2011 to 68% in 2014), the overall scores on the assignment did improve; 23% of students just missed the cutoff of
70% on the assignment whereas in 2011, 30% of students were significantly lower than the
70% cutoff score.
7

P ART III: C OURSE R EFLECTIONS AND F UTURE P LANS
4.
What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
The assessment of the first student learning outcome was split into two separate questions to better identify if students perceived an increase in their interest in chemistry or increased confidence in scientific information in general or both. From the data, it seems that we are doing a good job in this area but of course, we must continually tailor the course to current issues.
Another change that was made was in the delivery of the content. The class now meets once a week rather than once every other week. This change has helped to keep students more connected and we will hopefully be able to verify this by an upward trend in student success rate over the next couple of semesters. Since the sample size of each semester is small, it is difficult to come to a conclusion without looking at several semester’s worth of data.
5.
Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
As a whole, our division should be a stronger voice for the need for scientific literacy in our population. We should make a stronger effort to recruit students into our general education physical science classes. For the chemistry discipline, our goal will be to increase the enrollment of chemistry 10 to offer a double section at least once throughout the year, whereas now we are only offering a single section in fall, spring and summer. As for the specifics of the course, I believe continuing to improve the interface for students with the online portion of course will help to improve our retention and success rates.
6.
What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
X Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
8

Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: __Chemistry STEM Pathway____
 PLO #1: (Critical Thinking) Analyze experimental data and explain chemical processes at
 the molecular level.
PLO #2: (Communication) Communicate chemical concepts, understand definitions, and interpret experimental results.
 PLO #3: (Development of the Whole Person) Recognize and appreciate the impact of the scientific principles of chemistry in day-to-day life.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
Program: ___Chemistry Allied Health Pathway__
 PLO #1: (Critical Thinking) Analyze experimental data and explain chemical processes at the molecular level.
 PLO #2: (Communication) Communicate chemical concepts, understand definitions, and interpret experimental results.
 PLO #3: (Development of the Whole Person) Recognize and appreciate the impact of the scientific principles of chemistry in day-to-day life.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program?
See SLO Attachments (p10-15)
9

For assessing our Student Learning Outcome results, the Chemistry subdivision has adopted the process developed and used by the Mathematics subdivision. Our Math colleagues determined over the past three years that the old process was not meeting their needs (background and details can be found in the Mathematics 2015-16 Program Review document). After an initial presentation by Robert Yest and further discussions with him, we decided to use Math’s process to assess the following courses: Chemistry 1A, 1B, 12A, 12B, 30A, 30B, and 31. We are still assessing Chemistry 10 using the old method. Note that Chemistry 12B is only offered in the Spring, so it will be assessed this semester and the results reported in the Fall.
PLOs and CLOs
We consider the Chemistry subdivision to have two programs: the STEM pathway, consisting of
Chem 31, 1A, 1B, 12A, and 12B, and the Allied Health pathway, consisting of Chem 30A and
30B. For the courses in these pathways, we are changing the learning outcomes to be:
1.
(Critical Thinking) Analyze experimental data and explain chemical processes at the molecular level.
2.
(Communication) Communicate chemical concepts, understand definitions, and interpret experimental results.
3.
(Development of the Whole Person) Recognize and appreciate the impact of the scientific principles of chemistry in day-to-day life.
By tying our course-level outcomes directly to our program-level outcomes and the collegewide learning goals, we will be able to collect meaningful data that will be used to help with both teaching and long-term planning.
The Assessment
Students will complete a twelve question multiple choice self-assessment survey. Ten questions will be problems based on the courses outcomes from the course outline—with at least two questions based on communicating information. Instead of asking students to perform the task and having instructors evaluate the data, for each problem, the student’s choices are:
A.
I know immediately what to do, and I know I will get this answer 100% right.
B.
I think I can get this if I really think about it, and most likely do well on this question.
10

C.
I could get the answer if I had my notes or textbook, and I’m not sure what score I would receive.
D.
If I had aid of a tutor while working on this question, I could probably do it.
E.
I have no idea how to answer this question.
Two other questions will target the confidence of the student:
Question 11.) Based on your performance in the class, what grade do you anticipate receiving?
Question 12.) Your confidence in chemistry:
A.
Has improved when you compare it to the beginning of the semester.
B.
Is about the same as it was at the beginning of the semester.
C.
Has gotten worse since the beginning of the semester.
By making this shift from evaluating completed problems to self-assessment offers a different perspective on the learning process. It also allows for uniform assessment across all sections of a course, by removing discrepancies in which questions are used and how they are graded between instructors. (A sample survey is in Appendix A on p. 14)
Gathering the Data
A simple method was used to collect the student responses: a common “bubble in” form used during class. This ensured that a significant number of students participated while minimizing the impact to class time.
During the assessment process in Fall 2014, the surveys took at most 10 minutes to complete in each section. All sections of Chem 1A, 1B, 12A, 30A, 30B, and 31 completed the survey. Again,
Chem 12B is only offered in the Spring, so it will be assessed then. Also, Chem 10 is being assessed using the old method.
The inputting of data was done using a reader with appropriate software. Instructors delivered the completed forms to the lead instructor for each course and the lead instructors delivered all forms to Robert Yest for scanning and analysis. The scanning was performed in the Office of
Institutional Research, which generated an Excel spreadsheet with student answers.
For each student, his or her individual median score was determined. That student’s score for each question was compared to his or her individual median. If the question yielded a score less than or equal to the median minus one, then the question was deemed to be a low outlier.
By comparing the ten responses in this manner, we are essentially asking the student where his or her weaknesses are. It is the spread of the scores that help identify the lower outliers—not if the student over or under estimates his or her performance or if the student scores each question with the exact same answer.
11

For each question a percentage of students with that question as a low outlier was determined, and the questions were ranked for each class. This ranking was what was used in the Closing the Loop discussions. The results from Fall 2014 are included in Appendix B on p. 15.
Closing the Loop
During the Chemistry subdivision’s discussions, we compared the results (percentage of low outliers) to the specific survey questions and came to the following general conclusions:

The wording/phrasing of survey questions matters.

Students at all levels had less confidence in short-answer questions.
 Emphasis of topics can vary by instructor.

Not all survey questions are created equal.
The wording/phrasing of survey questions matters. During our discussions we realized that the wording of a survey question can have a profound effect on its perceived difficulty by students.
Seeming innocuous phrases like “In the eighth step of glycolisis…” can potentially cause students to panic about whether they know the answer. We discussed how students do not necessarily “think like we do.” What seems like a straightforward question to instructors can be complex from a student perspective. Also usage of particular terminology can affect survey results. Not every instructor refers to the quantum mechanical model of the atom in the same way. Results by course section seem to bear this out.
Students at all levels had less confidence in short-answer questions. In all courses students were less confident in their ability to answer questions that asked, “Explain…” or “Describe…” or “Compare and contrast…” This may be indicative of an overall lack of confidence in students’ own writing abilities.
Emphasis of topic can vary by instructor. With a large amount of information to convey to students, not every topic can be covered in the same detail. Different instructors will emphasize different topics. Some of the results by section confirm this.
Not all survey questions are created equal. Some of the survey questions on seeming easy concepts were actually quite difficult. We realized that the surveys we used last semester may have been assessing how difficult specific questions were and not just how difficult topics were.
As a result of our discussions, we are going to address these issues as follows:

Re-write several of the survey questions in each course to eliminate potentially confusing wording.

Adjust pedagogy as needed. For example, in Chem 12A students had difficulty with a complex synthesis problem. In the future we will introduce synthesis earlier in the course and/or structure a lab assignment specifically toward synthesis.

Compare our perceived difficulty of the survey questions to student performance. That is, are students less confident about the questions we feel are most challenging.
12

Although we are only required to assess and report once every three years, we are going to use this new SLO assessment process every semester in as many sections as possible. That way, we can continually make changes in our instruction and see the effects those changes have.
In Conclusion
Like the Math subdivision, Chemistry believes that this process is the best process to balance— and still meet—our objectives in having a useful SLO process.

The process is incredibly easy to administer and all sections completed the survey.

The data is robust and can be continually mined for topics for improvement in instruction.
 The process is deeply integrated with course outlines while directly mapped to CLOs,
PLOs, and the college-wide learning goals.
 This system puts the focus of utilizing Student Learning Outcomes back into improving instruction.
The Chemistry subdivision will continue to refine this process and adapt it to our specific needs.
Already we are working on ways to improve student learning based on the survey results, which is more than we progressed with the old SLO process.
13

Appendix A: Sample Course Assessment Survey
CHEMISTRY 1A : For each of the ten questions below, mark the appropriate response on the
answer form provided. The possible responses are:
A.
I know immediately what to do and I know I will get this answer 100% right.
B.
I think I can get this if I really think about it, and most likely will do well on this question.
C.
I could get the answer if I had my notes or textbook, and I’m not sure what score I would receive.
D.
If I had the aid of a tutor while working on this question, I could probably do it.
E.
I have no idea how to answer this question.
1.
Suppose the reaction Ca
3
(PO
4
)
2
+ 3H
2
SO
4
 3CaSO
4
+ 2H
3
PO
4
is carried out starting with 127 g of
Ca
3
(PO
4
)
2
and 71.9 g of H
2
SO
4
. How much phosphoric acid will be produced?
2.
Write a balanced net ionic equation for the reaction that occurs when solutions of carbonic acid and sodium hydroxide are mixed.
3.
What will be the coefficient of Br - once the following oxidation-reduction equation is balanced?
Al + Br
2
 Al 3+ + Br –
4.
One of the postulates of Dalton's atomic theory is “All atoms of a given element are identical.”
Is it true? If it is not true, what makes it wrong?
5.
What is the correct name for Sn(NO
2
)
2
?
6.
For NCl
3
, give the electron pair geometry, molecular geometry, and hybridization.
7.
Draw two resonance structures, including formal charges, for SO
4
2 .
8.
What types of chemical bonds are present in potassium carbonate, K
2
CO
3
?
9.
In front of you are two one-liter flasks containing real gases at room temperature. Flask A contains 0.200 moles of HF while Flask B contains 0.200 moles of CO
2
. In which flask will the measured pressure be lower? Explain.
10.
For the process H
2
O( l )  H
2
O( g ) , predict the signs of

H and

S. Is the process spontaneous at all temperatures?
For questions #11 and #12, mark the appropriate response on the answer form.
11.
Based on your performance in the class, what grade do you think you will receive?
A) A B) B C) C D) D E) F
12.
Your confidence in chemistry:
A) has improved when you compare it to the beginning of the semester.
B) is about the same as it was at the beginning of the semester.
C) has gotten worse since the beginning of the semester.
14

Appendix B: Results for Student Learning Outcomes for Chemistry Fall 2014
15