Assessment Report Standard Format
September 2011 – August 2012
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).
Academic year 2011-12 represents year 10 of the program with a total of
11 graduates.
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.

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. Movement through milestones: One graduation occurred
during the reporting period. This student was a part of our original class
and was a long-time, part-time student. He has remained employed as an
environmental scientist with LJB, Inc. in Dayton. Three current students
served as instructors at Wright State or at other colleges/universities.
Five students passed their preliminary exam, and one student had
their proposal 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 (Kelvin Lam) left the program for mixed
academic/personal reasons, and is now in a program in Education at
Wright State..
All 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, and identifying goals for the coming year..
2. Papers and Presentations: ES PhD students were copresenters on approximately 25 poster or oral presentations at meetings,
and primary authors or co-authors on approximately 20 peer-reviewed
papers during the year. Many papers are published after students
graduate as well. Approximately 8 PhD students gave presentations or
posters at the Campus Celebration of Scholarship.
3. Honors and Awards: We had an exceptional number of
awards and scholarships earned by students, most of which carried
monetary value. Katlin Bowman won the best student presentation at an
Ocean Sciences meeting and a Great Lakes Association STEM
scholarship. Deah Lieurance won a travel award from SERDP. Behzad
Ghanbarian won a top article award in the Third Iranian Water Engineering
Festival. Phil Lavretsky won an American Museum of Natural History
Chapman Grant, and was the program recipient of the Graduate
Excellence Award. Samantha Davis won another year of the Botany in
Action Fellowship for Phipps Conservatory. Kiran Dhami won a Biology
Award for Research Excellence from the department of Biological
Sciences.
4. Professional Service by Students: Our students are doing a
growing amount of professional service. Angela Clayton co-chaired a
regional meeting of the Geological Society of America in Dayton.
Students provided peer reviews for at least 12-15 articles, with many
performed by Behzad Ghanbarian, who is an associate editor of the
Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management. Behzad also coorganized a symposium at the 2012 EUROSOIL meeting, an international
congress sponsored by the European Confederation of Soil Science
Societies (ECSSS).
B. Student Satisfaction
Our single graduate during the year has not yet returned his 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 respondents of 11 graduates.
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
very good during Academic Year 2011-12. Student progress in the
program was also good during the year. We had one graduate
during this assessment year, with approximately four-five
graduations expected in the Academic 12-13 reporting period. This
graduate was already employed at the time of graduation. All of
our previous graduates have remained in academic research and
teaching, industrial research and private consulting, or
governmental work. From this standpoint, our program has
accomplished what it set out to do.
B. We had an exceptional year for the number of external and internal
awards and scholarships earned by our students. This is a
testament to the active and productive crop of students that we
currently enroll.
C. 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. We have streamlined course
requirements during the semester conversion, and have a waiver
policy that permits acceptance of some past graduate work toward
elective requirements.
D. Concerns related to resource availability have been evident
throughout our time as a program, 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.
However, we have seen departments more willing to offer
additional GTA slots to our students, and there have been some
other creative ways that funding gaps have been filled. Some
issues remain.
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.