Assessment Report Standard Format
July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011
PROGRAM(S) ASSESSED Environmental Sciences PhD
ASSESSMENT COORDINATOR Don Cipollini, Director
With assistance by Cathy Kempf, Administrative Specialist
*** Program began in Fall 2002 (first year of student admissions). Fiscal
2011 represents year 9 of the program with a total of 10 graduations.
1. ASSESSMENT MEASURES EMPLOYED
Briefly describe the assessment measures employed during the year.

What was done?
A. Student progress was assessed in areas of major advisor/thesis
committee assignment; passage of preliminary exam and thesis proposal
development; progress toward graduation, and participation by students in
external presentations and peer-reviewed publications.
B. Program satisfaction was assessed through an exit questionnaire for
graduating students.
C. Major discussions of the semester curriculum conversion began in
Spring 2009 and moved through the approval process during Fisal 11.

Who participated in the process?
Interdisciplinary Review Committee (IRPC), Admissions committee,
Program faculty and students, Program support personnel.

What challenges (if any) were encountered?
Getting timely input and information from certain faculty/students.
2. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
List the objectives and outcomes assessed during the year, and briefly
describe the findings for each.
A. Student progress
1. Three graduations occurred during the reporting period; all
students were between 5 and 5.5 years in the program. One graduate
moved directly into a job as an environmental specialist at WPAFB, one
received a NRC postdoctoral fellowship to work at a USEPA laboratory in
Corvallis, OR, and one took a postdoctoral position at the University of
Jyväskylä in Finland. Two of these students had received two-three years
of stipend from P.I. grant funds, and the other was funded for three years
on a EPA-GRO graduate fellowship.
One student passed their preliminary exam, and two students had
their proposals accepted during the year. All first and second year
students in the program have advisors and have begun plans for their
preliminary exams. One student left the program for family reasons.
Students are assessed by the program director at the end of each Spring
quarter. Each student and their advisor received an assessment letter
indicating the cumulative progress made during the year. Three students
served as instructors at Wright State or at other universities.
2. ES PhD students were co-presenters on approximately 16
poster or oral presentations at meetings, and co-authors on approximately
8 peer-reviewed papers during the year. Many papers are published after
students graduate as well. One student won best oral presentation at a
meeting of the Southeast Exotic Plant Pest Council. One student won an
external fellowship from Ducks Unlimited (~10K), and one received a
renewable Botany-in-Action fellowship (~3K) from Phipps Conservatory in
Pittsburgh. Two other submitted proposals for predoctoral graduate
fellowships to EPA and NSF. One student is an associate editor of a
scientific journal, and students co-chaired sessions at regional or national
meetings. Several students have served as manuscript reviewers.
B. Student Satisfaction: Our three graduates during the reporting period
each responded to our exit questionnaire, which consists of 28 questions
about program satisfaction. At this point, our overall average on this
questionnaire is 3.36 out of 4 (4 being the response “highly agree” on a
number of questions concerning access to resources, faculty quality,
courses, and overall program quality) based on 9 of 10 graduating
students who have responded.
3. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
List planned or actual changes (if any) to curriculum, teaching methods,
facilities, or services that are in response to the assessment findings.
A. Student participation in external presentations and publications was
good. Student progress in the program was also good during the year.
We had three graduates during this assessment year, with approximately
four-five graduations expected in the Fiscal 12 reporting period. All of our
graduates were either employed at the time of graduation, or leaving for
positions shortly thereafter. From this standpoint, our program has
accomplished what it set out to do.
B. The primary low points indicated in our exit questionnaire have
historically been associated with the number of required courses and the
way that they were taught. The semester conversion has allowed us to
address this issue, and our new curriculum is further streamlined and
more flexible.
C. Some other concerns related to resource availability have been
evident, particularly voiced by students who have been advised by faculty
members who were unable to provide much funding. This dissatisfaction
reveals some of the risks that our current funding scheme entails, and
argues for our continued need for additional GRA lines to help fill in the
gaps.
4. ASSESSMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE
Explain deviations from the plan (if any).
None
5. NEW ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENTS
Describe developments (if any) regarding assessment measures,
communication, faculty or staff involvement, benchmarking, or other
assessment variables.
A. We are continuing to build a database of responses to our
questionnaires, which will allow us to track changes through time. We
have set a goal of producing 3-5 graduates each year, as agreed to by
the Dean. As program director, I have taken a more active role in
directly promoting student progress through increased communication
and mentoring above and beyond the advisor level.