Assessment Report Standard Format
July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010
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
2009-2010 represents year 8 of the program with a total of 7 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 are moving through the approval process.

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. One graduation during the reporting period who was in his sixth
year of the program. This graduate moved directly into a post doctoral
position. Five students completed their proposals. Two students, one
second year, one first year, passed their preliminary exams. All first and
second year students in the program have advisors and have begun plans
for their preliminary exams. One long-time part-time student passed his
proposal, one new part-time student completed several course
requirements, and one long-time part-time student only minor advances in
his program. One student left the program. One student switched labs.
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.
2. ES PhD students were co-presenters on approximately 25
poster or oral presentations at meetings, and co-authors on
approximately12 peer-reviewed papers. Many papers are published after
students graduate as well. Two students won research awards from the
Department of Biology. One student was a poster winner at a regional
conference. One student continued on an EPA GRO award during this
reporting period. One student did an internship at WPAFB. One student
is an associate editor of a scientific journal, and two students co-chaired
sessions at regional or national meetings.
B. Student Satisfaction: Our single graduate during the reporting period
has not responded to our exit questionnaire, that consists of 28 questions
about program satisfaction. At this point, our overall average on this
questionnaire is 3.4 out of 4 (4 being the response “highly agree”) based
on 7 graduating students.
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 good during the year. We
had several students get through the preliminary exam and proposal stage
during the year, including a few who were lagging behind. We had one
graduate during this assessment year, with approximately five graduations
expected in the Fiscal 10-11 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. In light of these concerns, and of those of
several faculty, the conversion to semesters has allowed us to rethink our
course structure. This process began with a program faculty meeting in
Spring 2009 and then continued through a survey approach seeking input
on proposed course requirements and options. In Fall 2009, a proposed
curriculum went out for a vote to all program faculty, receiving a vote of 18
in favor, and 3 against, by those who chose to vote. Importantly, the new
curriculum includes decreases in overall core course requirements and
increased flexibility, allowing students to get started on research earlier.
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.