CHEMISTRY UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 2005-06
The Department of Chemistry again conducted its annual assessment of its undergraduate
program based on the mission established in our most recent Middle States Self-study
Report. Our mission, as defined in that report is, “to provide a BS degree program for
students seeking an intense, directed major and a BA degree program for those desiring a
less intense major in the context of a broader undergraduate experience … (and to
provide) courses in general chemistry for students seeking science degrees in other Arts
and Sciences departments.” The department has adopted a five-part procedure to assess
how well this mission is being met. We have used the same questionnaires to facilitate
comparisons.
The results of the undergraduate program assessment are categorized into five parts:
(a) Indicators of superior student performance by undergraduate chemistry majors
(e.g. publications, presentations, honors theses, awards and fellowships);
(b) Examination of the graduate & professional programs and public sector jobs
undertaken by undergraduate chemistry majors after graduation;
(c) Responses from questionnaires distributed to alumni who graduated two years
ago, requesting feedbacks on how well the department prepared them for their
chosen careers;
(d) Responses from questionnaires distributed to undergraduate program directors
and programs requiring at least introductory chemistry for their majors, so as to
obtain feedback on how well the department is meeting the needs of cognate
majors; and
(e) Evaluation of chemistry majors taking Senior Seminar, Chem 496.
Part (a). Examination of the publications, presentations, honors theses, awards and
fellowships, and other indicators of superior student performance that
undergraduate chemistry majors obtain during their four years at SUNY
Binghamton.
The following students performed honors’ research projects, wrote honors’ theses, and
successfully defended the theses before a faculty examination committee and were
subsequently awarded the bachelor’s degree with the recognition of Distinguished
Independent Research in Chemistry in 2005-06:
William Cheung, “Thermally-Activated Size Evolution of Nanoparticles: Effect of
Chain Length of the Capping Alkanethiolates” (Advisor: Chuan-Jian Zhong)
Jean Gaffney, “Modification of Conducting Polymer Thin films by Self-Assembled
Transition Metal Monolayers” (Advisor: Wayne E. Jones, Jr.)
Samira Musah, “Probing the Nature of Intermediates formed between Quercetin
and Nucleic Acids using Electrochemical and Luminescent techniques” (Advisor:
Omowunmi A. Sadik)
Bhavna Rana, “Synthesis, Characterization and Application of Monoazo Dyes for
Monitoring Uranium (VI)” (Advisor: Omowunmi A. Sadik)
Stacie Rice, “Method Development for the Detection of Pharmaceuticals and Personal
Care products in Solid Environmental Matrices” (Co-Advisor: Rebecca M. Kissling)
Joy Romulus, “Electrochemical Characterization of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals”
(Advisor: Omowunmi A. Sadik)
Justin Sambur, “Decomposition of Dimethyl Methylphosphonate (DMMP) in Sodium
X-Type Faujasite Zeolite” (Advisor: David C. Doetschman)
The following students received awards during the 2005-2006 academic year:
ACS AWARD - American Chemical Society, Binghamton Section, Stacie L. Rice
DIC AWARD - American Institute of Chemists, Paula Wong
C. MAX HULL AWARD - Chemistry Department, Aaron F. Muth
MARTIN A. PAUL AWARD - Chemistry Department, Wui Ip
ACS ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY AWARD - American Chemical Society, Division
Analytical Chemistry, Yihua Liu
CRC FRESHMAN CHEMISTRY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD - CRC Press, Inc.,
Spring of previous year: CHEM 108, Scott T. Terwilliger, Elisa Rhee
Fall of previous year: CHEM 107, Edwin L. Johnson
Fall of previous year: CHEM 111, David R. Boyle
HYPERCUBE SCHOLAR AWARD - Hypercube, Inc., Karen Tang
STANLEY K. MADAN AWARD IN INORGANIC CHEMISTRY – Chemistry
Department, Jean P. Gaffney
WALTER E. KASKAN AWARD IN PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY – Chemistry
Department, Justin B. Sambur
DR. NATHAN V. COOPER MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP – Dana R. Kerker
DR. GILBERT E. JANAUER AWARD IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY – Chemistry
Department, Bhavna Rana
The following are chemistry professional publications appearing in 2005-06 to which
past or present undergraduates in chemistry have contributed:
(undergraduate names are in bold face)
1. I. S. Lim, F. Goroleski, D. Mott, N. Kariuki, W. Ip, J. Luo, C. J. Zhong,
“Adsorption of Cyanine Dyes on Gold Nanoparticles and Formation of JAggregates in the Nanoparticle Assembly”, J. Phys. Chem., B. 2006, 110, 66736682.
2. N.N. Kariuki, J. Luo, A. Hassan, I. S. Lim, L. Wang, C. J. Zhong, “Assembly of
Bimetallic Gold-Silver Nanoparticles via Selective Interparticle DicarboxylateSilver Linkages”, Chem. Mater., 2006, 18, 123-132.
3. Derrick Mott, Jin Luo, Andrew Smith, Wai-Pan Chan, William Bozza, Anjana
Sarkhel, Sara Park, Chuan-Jian Zhong, “Silica-Supported Au and Pt
Nanoparticles and CO Adsorption” 0900-O01-06, MRS Proceedings Volume 900E,
Eds. C. J. Zhong, et al, 2006
4. I-Im Stephanie Lim, Wui Ip, Alice Pak, Jin Luo, Chuan-Jian Zhong, “A Kinetic
Study of Mediator-Template Assembly of Gold Nanoparticles” 0900-O08-07, MRS
Proceedings Volume 900E, Eds. C. J. Zhong, et al, 2006.
5. Lingyan Wang, Xiajing Shi, Sakienah Mahs, Jeongku Choi, Karan Sarup,
Guannan Roger Wang, Jin Luo, Susan Lu, Chuan-Jian Zhong, “Iron Oxide
Composite Nanoparticles and Sensing Properties” 0900-O06-26, MRS Proceedings
Volume 900E, Eds. C. J. Zhong, et al, 2006.
6. Peter N. Njoki, Jin Luo, Aisley Jacob, Rizwan Munawar, Bilal Khan, Chuan-Jian
Zhong, “Synthesis of Bimetallic AuPt Nanoparticles in Aqueous Solution and
Electrocatalytic Activity” 0900-O13-07, Nanoparticles and Nanostructures in
Sensors and Catalysis, MRS Proceedings Volume 900E, Eds. C. J. Zhong, et al,
2006.
7. E. S. Stevens, K. Baumstein, J.-M. Leahy, and D. C. Doetschman,
“Polymer/Plastics Experiments for the Chemistry Curriculum,” J. Chem. Ed., in
press.
8. Szu-Wei Yang, David C. Doetschman*, Jürgen T. Schulte, Justin B. Sambur,
Charles W. Kanyi, Jack D. Fox, Chrispin O. Kowenje, Barry R. Jones, and Neesha
D. Sherma, “Sodium X-Type Faujasite Zeolite Decomposition of Dimethyl
Methylphosphonate (DMMP) to Methylphosphonate. Nucleophilic Zeolite
Reactions I,” Microporous & Mesoporous Materials, in press.
9. Charles W. Kanyi, David C. Doetschman*, Jürgen T. Schulte, Kaking Yan,
Richard E. Wilson, Barry R. Jones, Chrispin O. Kowenje, and Szu-Wei Yang,
“Linear, Primary Monohaloalkane Chemistry in NaX and NaY Faujasite Zeolites
with and without Na0-Treatment. Zeolites as Nucleophilic Reagents II,”
Mesopourous and Microporous Materials, in press.
10. Hong Dong, Ed Fey, Anna Gandelman, Wayne E. Jones, Jr., “Assembly of
Metal Nanoparticles on Electrospun Poly(4-vinylpyridine) Fibers and Poly(4vinylpyridine) Composite Fibers, Chem. Mater., 2006, 18, 2008-2011.
.
The following are some of the presentations made by undergraduate chemistry students at
professional science and technology meetings in 2005-06:
(undergraduate names are in bold face)
1. Sadik O. A., Samira Musah, Electrochemistry Workshop, Department of
Chemistry, University of Lagos, Nigeria, January 17-22, 2006.
2. Andreescu D, Marcells O, Wanekaya A., Walker L., Uematsu M., Wong
L, Embrechts M., Sadik O. A, Analytical Applications of Palladium
Nanoparticles, 79th ACS Colloids & Surface Science Symposium, Potsdam,
NY, June 12-15, 2005.
Part (b). Examination of the graduate programs, professional programs, and
private and public sector jobs into which undergraduate chemistry majors entered
after graduation.
A total of 42 questionnaires were distributed to the 2005-2006 graduating seniors. A
sample of the questionnaire is attached in Appendix 1 with a summary of the data at the
end of this report. As in the past, the results of the survey are categorized into two parts
with Part I dealing with their professional and educational plans and Part II dealing with
how well the Department has prepared them academically.
Of this number, 19 responded to Part I. Eight of the respondents have applied for
entrance to graduate programs in chemistry or biochemistry, eight have applied to healthrelated schools, three have applied to enter a graduate program in a subject other than
chemistry or biochemistry, and four have accepted industrial or other professional
employment (note: some respondents filled in more than one category here). Only four
students have yet to receive an acceptance to graduate/professional schools or taken up
employment; three are awaiting the outcome of applications and one has yet to apply.
Students who have received acceptances have indicated that they plan to attend graduate
or professional schools at Binghamton University, Rutgers, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, Colorado State University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, St.
George’s University, Yale University, SUNY, Stony Brook, Washington University, and
the New England School of Optometry.
Students were asked, in Part II, to indicate how best the Chemistry Department has
prepared them for what they are about to do, in the areas of basic concepts, laboratory
techniques, analytical relationships, critical thinking, modern instrumentation, computer
use and ability to write and speak on the subject (including mastery of the chemical
literature). Here, there were 19 responses and these provide clear evidence that they feel
they have been well prepared (the summary scores for the aforementioned eight questions
are in the range 7.2 – 8.6, on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 high), see Summary of the Data).
They were also asked to indicate “what is the best part of their undergraduate education
in chemistry.” Again 19 responses were received to this question. Typical responses
include participation in independent research (6), good and accessible instructors (6)
receiving a good, stimulating, enjoyable, or thorough education (4), other laboratory and
instrumentation experiences (3) and liking specific sub-discipline areas within Chemistry
(3). We continue to be strong in teaching, independent research and interaction with
students either though advising, research mentoring or laboratory experiences. The
relatively high percentage of students undertaking independent study projects or
completing an honors thesis is an indication of good mentoring and an excellent learning
environment, with the added benefit of good interactions of our seniors with the faculty
and graduate students in their research groups.
In Part II, “the part of the undergraduate program in need of greatest improvement”
received 17 responses. These are mainly with wanting exposure to better equipment or
laboratory techniques (6) and more time given to understanding basic concepts or
developing critical thinking in the subject (5), scheduling difficulties (2), although more
exposure to the literature (1), better TA’s (1) and attention to career development (1)
were also mentioned. Again in Part II, 17 responses were received for “how would they
change the undergraduate program in Chemistry.” The most common answers centered
around there should be more courses available, scheduling problems, or more options in
research (7), with some comment on improvement of advising, with attention paid to the
career options open to chemists (3), and changing prerequisite requirements (3), smaller
classes (1), laboratory improvements (1) and better organization by professors (1).
Part (c). Responses were obtained from questionnaires mailed to undergraduate
majors who graduated two years ago so as to obtain feedback on how well the
department prepared them for their chosen careers.
33 questionnaires were mailed to students who graduated in the 2003-04 academic year.
An example of the questionnaire is attached as Appendix 1 and a summary of the data is
at the end of this report. In this category, five responses were received; two from people
enrolled in a graduate chemistry program, two in industry, and one teaching high school
chemistry. These former students were asked to indicate how best the Chemistry
Department has prepared them for what they are currently doing, with respect to basic
concepts, laboratory techniques, analytical relationships, critical thinking, modern
instrumentation, computer use and ability to write and speak on the subject (including
mastery of the chemical literature). Here, the responses indicated that they feel they had
been well prepared (the summary scores for the aforementioned eight questions are in the
range 5.8– 7.8, on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 high), see Summary of the Data), broadly in
agreement with our current majors, although the instrumentation attracted the lowest
score (5.8). They were also asked to indicate “what is the best part of their undergraduate
education in chemistry.” Four responses were received to this question, indicating
excellent faculty (3) and participation in independent research (1). Only two alumni gave
an answer to “the part of the undergraduate program in need of greatest improvement”
and indicated a need for more laboratories (1) and more understanding of the chemical
literature (1). Only three responded to “how would they change the undergraduate
program in Chemistry,” by indicating we should stress the basics (1), add more real-life
examples (1) and that we already have a very good program (1). Overall, the individual
responses mirror graduating seniors' responses closely, despite minor changes in the
statistical data.
Part (d). The undergraduate program directors and programs that require at least
introductory chemistry were surveyed in order to obtain feedback on how well the
department is meeting the needs of cognate majors.
Survey forms were sent to the Biochemistry, Biological Sciences, Geological Sciences,
Psychobiology, Physics, and Environmental Studies programs, the Decker School of
Nursing and the Department of Mechanical Engineering. An example of the
questionnaire is attached in Appendix 1. Responses were received from four programs.
The respondents expressed general satisfaction with our general chemistry program. The
Environmental Studies program reiterated their suggestion from previous years that we
should consider offering off semester CHEM 107/111 sections and that courses in
environmental chemistry are needed. The Biochemistry program noted that curriculum
changes in upper level physical chemistry have helped their majors but that the
scheduling of the new course, Chem 462, at the same time as Biochem 302 has resulted
in a reduced enrollment of the former course.
Part (e). Evaluation of the chemistry majors taking Senior Seminar, Chem 496.
In Senior Seminar, the instructor, the UPC members, and any other interested faculty
members were asked to provide an evaluation of the students' performance on each of the
four key learning outcomes. In accordance with our assessment guidelines, the instructor
did this for the poster, oral, and written presentations, while the UPC and other interested
faculty members primarily focused on an evaluation of the poster presentation. The four
main levels considered are the same as those adopted for evaluating General Education
courses at Binghamton University and are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Exceeding - demonstration of the learning desired that surpasses expectations.
Meeting
adequate
demonstration
of
the
learning
desired.
Approaching - incomplete demonstration of the learning desired.
Not
meeting
failure
to
demonstrate
the
learning
desired.
The four key learning outcomes are a. Basic knowledge of the four main sub-disciplines
in chemistry (physical, analytical, organic, and inorganic); b. Familiarity with the basic
techniques employed in Chemistry and the application of these techniques to problem
solving; c. An understanding of the scientific method (i.e., the collection, analysis, and
interpretation of scientific data and studies); and d. The ability to use the scientific
literature both for the design of a scientific study or to communicate the results of a
scientific study. The results of the instructor and faculty evaluations on the four key
learning outcomes are shown in a summary at the end of this report. The mean values for
each category are: a. 1.62, b. 1.70, c. 1.76, and d. 1.85, revealing a high degree of
accomplishment by the students in the Senior Seminar course. All but three students, met
or exceeded our expectations on at least three of the four key learning outcomes.
OVERALL SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the 2005-2006 undergraduate program assessment clearly indicate that the
mission of the department is being met. We continue to be strong in teaching,
independent research and interaction with students either through advising, research
mentoring or laboratory experiences. Undergraduate chemistry majors have demonstrated
superior performance in the areas of high quality publications, presentations and honors
theses. Many of our majors participate actively in undergraduate research with faculty.
The relatively high percentage of students undertaking independent study project or a
senior thesis is an indication of continuous mentoring and learning beyond the classroom,
exposure to advanced techniques and interactions with professors and or graduate
students. In the past year, graduating students reflected positively on the opportunities to
do research, the quality of student-faculty interactions and the overall quality of their
chemistry education. Our graduates this year are either going on to excellent graduate
schools in chemistry, pursuing graduate programs in other areas, going to health-related
professional schools or going directly to the workforce. The combination of good
teaching and a commitment to matching classroom work with laboratory exercises as
well as the independent research/honors program has generated positive student reaction
to chemistry even beyond the graduation years.
The result of this assessment is similar to last year in many respects. For instance, our
students continue to feel that they are well prepared in the foundations of chemical
principles, laboratory techniques, critical thinking and quantitative skills. Further, the
departments that use core chemistry courses as requirements for their major are satisfied
with improvements that have been made in our program. Our main focus for the coming
year is to continue to incorporate more modern instrumentation and methods into the
program. The current Self-Study reevaluates many aspects of our undergraduate program,
taking into consideration these and previous assessments.
Specific Recommendations
Based on the close similarities observed between this report and previous years, many of
the specific recommendations listed below are reiterated. Some specific examples are
included:
 Computer Training should be emphasized in all courses - Computers have
become an indispensable part of modern chemistry laboratory. Computer interactions
with chemistry are of two types, passive and active. In passive applications,
computers are used only for data handling, processing, storing, file searching, or
display. In active interaction, the output from the computer controls the sequence of
steps required for the operation of modern instrumentation. Similar to last year, the
results of this survey indicate that we need to better emphasize the importance of
computers in chemistry courses and seek new ways to provide students with computer
access as part of their chemistry training.
 Modern Instrumentation - With the support of NSF-CCLI grants and the Dean’s
office, several advanced pieces of equipment have been purchased in recent years.
This must continue in order to ensure that our students receive training on the latest
technologies before entering the work force.
 Chemistry 107/111 - Staffing problems have challenged the department’s ability to
offer off-semester versions of general chemistry, which other departments and
programs have indicated would be useful. This should be re-examined as resources
become available.
 Scheduling of Chem 462 – Should not be at the same time as Biochem 302.
 Basic Concepts and Critical Thinking – A number of students commented on the
need to emphasize the basic concepts and critical thinking in their chemistry classes.
 Have Periodic Meetings with other Departments - In doing this we will continue to
monitor how useful our undergraduate curriculum is to students majoring in other
sciences, as well as the appropriateness of our lower-level service offerings.
Alistair J. Lees
May 15, 2006
Senior Seminar Assessment (Spring 06)
Composite Assess
Student
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
Basic
Basic
Scientific Use of
Knowledge Techniques Method
Sci. Lit.
1.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.7
2.0
2.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.0
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.7
2.3
2.0
2.3
2.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
2.0
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.7
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
2.0
U
Mean Values
1.62
Exceeding
Meeting
Approaching
Not Meeting
2.0
2.0
1.71
1
2
3
4
2.0
1.76
2.3
1.85
UPC 2005-06 Assessment Form.
Graduating Majors (19 responses)
SUMMARY DATA
Applied to Chemistry Graduate program: 8 yes, 11 no
Name of programs/universities accepted: Binghamton University, Rutgers, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Colorado State University, University of Colorado, University of California
at Santa Barbara, University of California at San Diego, Pennsylvania State University,
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, William and Mary’s School of
Marine Science, University of Maryland, University of Buffalo, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Yale University, University of Connecticut, SUNY Stony Brook, Boston
University, University of Michigan, Washington University, Columbia University,
Manhattan, Albany College of Pharmacy
Programs selected: Binghamton University, Rutgers, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Colorado State University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yale University,
SUNY Stony Brook, Washington University
Health Field: 8 yes, 11 no
Name of schools/universities accepted: University of Maryland, University of Buffalo, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of South Carolina, St. George’s University,
SUNY Stony Brook, SUNY Optometry, New England College of Optometry, SUNY Upstate
Medical College-Syracuse
Name of schools/universities selected: St. George’s University, New England College of
Optometry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Other: 2 yes, 15 no, 1 no response
Accepted: Albany School of Pharmacy
Industrial: 3 yes, 14 no, 2 no response
Positions: Laboratory Assistant at SUNY Stony Brook, Reliability and Operations Engineer at
Raytheon, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
Preparation for what you are about to do: 7.8
Preparation in basic chemical concepts: 8.4
Laboratory techniques: 8.1
Analytical relationships: 8.6
Critical thinking: 7.4
Modern Instrumentation: 7.2
Chemistry-Computer use: 7.3
Writing and Speaking, Chemical Literature: 7.8
Best parts:
Participation in independent research (6)
Good and accessible instructors (6)
Receiving a good, stimulating, enjoyable, or thorough education (4)
Other laboratory and instrumentation experiences (3)
Liking specific sub-discipline areas within Chemistry (3)
Needs Improvement:
Exposure to better equipment or laboratory techniques (6)
More time given to understanding basic concepts or developing critical thinking in the subject (5)
Scheduling difficulties (2)
More exposure to the literature (1)
Better TA’s (1)
Attention to Career Development (1)
Changes:
More courses available, scheduling problems, or more options in research (7)
Improvement of advising, with attention paid to the career options open to chemists (3)
Changing prerequisite requirements (3)
Smaller classes (1)
Laboratory improvements (1)
Better organization by professors (1)
UPC 2005-06 Assessment Form
Former Graduates (5 responses)
SUMMARY DATA
:
Enrolled in a graduate program in chemistry - 2
Employed as a chemist in industry – 2
Employed as a chemistry high school teacher - 1
Preparation for what you are doing now: 7.4
Prepared in basic concepts: 7.8
Laboratory techniques: 7.4
Analytical relationships: 7.2
Critical thinking: 7.4
Modern Instrumentation: 5.8
Chemistry-Computer use: 6.4
Writing and Speaking, Chemical Literature: 6.8
Best parts:
Excellent faculty (3)
Participation in independent research (1)
Needs improvement:
More laboratories (1)
More understanding the chemical literature (1)
Changes:
Stress the basics (1)
More real-life examples (1)
We already have a very good program (1)