Willow International Community College Center
Program Review Goals & SLO Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Program
Year
Contacts
Chemistry
FA 2014
Shawn Fleming
 Program Review report submitted previous Fall, no Annual Progress report needed.
Goal
(as appropriate, identify
the campus where the
recommendation applies)
Proposed
Timeline
Activities/Facilities/
Curriculum/Equipment
Necessary to Accomplish
Goal
Resources
Needed, Include
Estimate Costs
Status
Outcome
Increase study session
time for the students
taking chemistry.
F16
Chemistry lab room
Instructor
Currently we have two instructors
offering 3 hours of study session every
Friday.
If another instructor could also
be available for study session
we could increase the time
available from 3 hours to 6
hours.
Offer demonstrations
for the instructors.
F16
Equipment for
demonstrations
Equipment and
supplies. $500700
We always start a semester with the
intention of providing demonstrations
but once the semester gets started we
all get too busy to implement.
Still in the planning phase.
Additional help
to prepare
demonstrations
Offer additional classes
F16
More available
instructors. Facilities
are available.
Increase in the
adjunct
instructors
available or
hire an
additional full
time instructor.
Currently all classes are at capacity and
there is a waitlist every semester.
Approval on hiring a new full
time instructor. We can’t
control the number of adjunct
instructors available.
Offer free lab manuals.
F16
Time for an instructor
Time for
Currently we have written the CHEM
We are working on so many
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
Page 1 of 10
to oversee this project.
instructors to
work on
project.
3A lab manual. We would like to get
started on the CHEM 1A then CHEM
1B.
other reports and teaching our
classes we are limited on time.
1.
Provide any additional changes made to the Program that were not a part of your Program Review report.
a. We hired a new full time instructor FA 2014.
b. We have added new CHEM 1A classes to the schedule.
2. List in detail any new Program needs and a brief rational for this need.
a. We need additional help. The chemistry classes are always at capacity. I have received complaints that it takes students over a year to have
access to chemistry classes. I have a very difficult time finding adjunct instructors therefore an additional full time instructor is needed.
3. Summarize the progress your Program has made this year on SLO assessment.
a. We are now assessing chemistry 1A and 3A every semester. Both classes have updated SLO’s approved through curriculum. We have
accessed the organic chemistry classes and will have the first report.
4. Provide any additional information that your Program would like to share.
a. Organizing SLO, running the labs, finding adjunct instructors, taking care of the new equipment, helping on committee’s, and advising clubs
has become overwhelming for only one full time instructor. We have the demand to increase chemistry classes and will now start offering
the chemistry 28 and 29 series. Although we have hired an additional full time instructor we still have a high demand for additional classes.
This semester we were forced to move the CHEM 1A class that filled first then hire a temporary full time instructor to cover the classes.
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
Page 2 of 10
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES & ASSESSMENT
COURSE SLO REPORT
COURSE ASSESSED
Chemistry 1A
COURSE SLOS ASSESSED
1.
2.
3.
Collect and analyze data in the laboratory and have reasonable conclusions.
Utilize the periodic table in calculations and analyses involving molecules and compounds.
Apply math skills to solve chemical problems.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT(S)
For the Lecture portion of the class: At the end of the semester a second ACS exam was administered and the
percent correct and percentile were calculated. The scores where evaluated and compared to the national
standard.
For the Lab portion of the class: A lab practical was completed individually by all students. They were graded
on time, accuracy, precision, safety, lab technique, and lab report.
EXPECTED LEVEL(S) OF ACHIEVEMENT
Lecture: The students were expected to achieve the national average percentile determined by ACS.
Lab: The students perform a lab practical and the class average should be either equal to or above 70%.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS
Lecture: The average number correct on the ACS final for the years assessed was 39.36 which translates to a
75.00% and 50 percentile.
Lab: The average on the lab practical was 87.11%.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
(WERE EXPECTED LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT
GENERALLY EXCEEDED, MET, OR NOT MET, AND WHY?)
Lecture: The national average number correct on the ACS final is 40.45 correct. The classes assessed had a
standard deviation of 6.75 and the national deviation is 12.26. We were slightly below the national average by
1.09. This equivalents to 1 question so expected levels or achievement were met.
Lab: The average lab practical grade exceeds the expected level of achievement. It also exceeded the last SLO
report. This was due to the instructors being more familiar with the lab manual.
WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED TO INCREASE
STUDENT SUCCESS?
Lecture: The classes that brought the average down to slightly below expected levels of achievement were LGI.
The classes that were not LGI had an average of 10 more questions correct. The LGI classes were 64 students
whereas the other classes had the maximum capacity of the classes are 32 students. We have now split the LGI
classes therefore I expect the averages to be more similar. It is possible that a capacity of 28 would allow more
space for the students and allow the instructor to give more individual attention to each student therefore
increasing the averages.
Lab: The average lab practical score significantly increased for last SLO report. Either the instructors are more
familiar with the facilities and lab assignments or we need to have a standard grading rubric. A meeting with
the adjunct faculty on flex day will address this.
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, HOW AND WHY DO YOU EXPECT
THEM TO INCREASE STUDENT SUCCESS?
I would expect the instructors to be able to give more individual attention to students if we decreased the
capacity of the classes.
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, WHEN WILL THEY BE
IMPLEMENTED?
When administration agrees to smaller class capacities.
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
Page 3 of 10
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES & ASSESSMENT
COURSE SLO REPORT
COURSE ASSESSED
Chemistry 3A
COURSE SLOS ASSESSED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Use dimensional analysis to solve for an unknown parameter of density, volume, mass, pressure,
temperature, molar mass, concentration, or an empirical formula.
Construct and balance a chemical reaction and use the reaction to predict stoichiometric quantities.
Explain concepts from the periodic table and the use the periodic table to solve chemical problems.
Describe acid-base reactions and how to calculate pH.
Name and draw Lewis diagrams of inorganic and molecular compounds from the formula and vice versa.
Safely conduct laboratory experiments implementing concepts and principles learned in lecture.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT(S)
Lecture: An ACS diagnostic exam was administered for the final. The percent and percentile were calculated
for each and then we took an average of all classes.
Lab: The labs are graded separately from the lecture and a percent is calculated. The lab grade includes all labs
and a lab exam.
EXPECTED LEVEL(S) OF ACHIEVEMENT
Lecture: The average from the quiz and percent on the final improves. On the final the students average
percentile is either equal or higher than the national average.
Lab: The average percent is at 70% or higher.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS
Lecture: The average for the classes assessed was 69.82%, 26 correct answers. The national ACS average is
30.6 correct.
Lab: Students had an average of 84.81% in lab.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
(WERE EXPECTED LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT
GENERALLY EXCEEDED, MET, OR NOT MET, AND WHY?)
Lecture: Both full time and adjunct instructors has similar ACS final scores. The average of 26 correct answers
was below the national ACS average, which is 30.6 correct. The last time the CHEM 3A class was able to
match and/or exceed the expected levels of achievement was when the class was not LGI but instead had a
capacity of 32 students. The goal was 70% average and 30.6 correct answers on the ACS exam so we did not
meet expected levels.
Lab: The expected levels of achievement were exceeded.
WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED TO INCREASE
STUDENT SUCCESS?
Currently all CHEM 3A classes are offered as LGI. These students need a more intimate setting in order to get
questions answered. In the past few years it has been brought to my attention that labs are being dismissed early
and the instructors report that they are rushing though lecture in order to cover all the curriculum. Currently the
instructors are teaching two topics in the laboratory portion of the LGI classes. We will look over the topics
covered and see if we can move more topics into the laboratory section.
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, HOW AND WHY DO YOU EXPECT
THEM TO INCREASE STUDENT SUCCESS?
I would hope the instructors could give more individual attention to the students.
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, WHEN WILL THEY BE
When we are able to split the LGI classes. When I have time to look over the curriculum and pull topics into the
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
Page 4 of 10
IMPLEMENTED?
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
laboratory section of class.
Page 5 of 10
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES & ASSESSMENT
COURSE SLO REPORT
COURSE ASSESSED
Chemistry 1B
COURSE SLOS ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT(S)
EXPECTED LEVEL(S) OF ACHIEVEMENT
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
(WERE EXPECTED LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT
GENERALLY EXCEEDED, MET, OR NOT MET, AND WHY?)
WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED TO INCREASE
STUDENT SUCCESS?
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, HOW AND WHY DO YOU EXPECT
THEM TO INCREASE STUDENT SUCCESS?
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, WHEN WILL THEY BE
IMPLEMENTED?
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
Page 6 of 10
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES & ASSESSMENT
COURSE SLO REPORT
COURSE ASSESSED
Chemistry 8
COURSE SLOS ASSESSED
1. Draw a structural formula of an organic compound given the systematical name.
2. Analyze the structural formula of an organic compound, recognize its functional groups and name it
properly.
3. Identify S and R stereoisomers.
4. Complete the reactions of simple aliphatic and aromatic molecules, showing the reaction mechanisms.
5. Analyze simple IR and NMR spectra to determine the structure of an unknown compound.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT(S)
Lecture: An ACS diagnostic exam was administered for the final. The percent and percentile were calculated
for each and then we took an average of all classes.
EXPECTED LEVEL(S) OF ACHIEVEMENT
Lecture: On the final the students average percentile is either equal or higher than the national average.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS
Lecture: The average for the classes assessed was 39.38 percentile, 27 correct answers. The national ACS
average is 30.6 percentile, 23 correct.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
(WERE EXPECTED LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT
GENERALLY EXCEEDED, MET, OR NOT MET, AND WHY?)
Lecture: The analysis of results exceed expected levels of achievement.
WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED TO INCREASE
STUDENT SUCCESS?
Traditionally the CHEM 8 class does not fill to the 32 student capacity. I believe the success of the students is
directly correlated to smaller class sizes. As CCCC grows we should decrease the capacity of this class to
below 32.
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, HOW AND WHY DO YOU EXPECT
THEM TO INCREASE STUDENT SUCCESS?
I would hope the instructors could give more individual attention to the students.
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, WHEN WILL THEY BE
IMPLEMENTED?
When administration agrees to lower the capacity of the class sizes.
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
Page 7 of 10
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES & ASSESSMENT
COURSE SLO REPORT
COURSE ASSESSED
Chemistry 28A
COURSE SLOS ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT(S)
EXPECTED LEVEL(S) OF ACHIEVEMENT
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
(WERE EXPECTED LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT
GENERALLY EXCEEDED, MET, OR NOT MET, AND WHY?)
WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED TO INCREASE
STUDENT SUCCESS?
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, HOW AND WHY DO YOU EXPECT
THEM TO INCREASE STUDENT SUCCESS?
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, WHEN WILL THEY BE
IMPLEMENTED?
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
Page 8 of 10
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES & ASSESSMENT
COURSE SLO REPORT
COURSE ASSESSED
Chemistry 29A
COURSE SLOS ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT(S)
EXPECTED LEVEL(S) OF ACHIEVEMENT
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
(WERE EXPECTED LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT
GENERALLY EXCEEDED, MET, OR NOT MET, AND WHY?)
WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED TO INCREASE
STUDENT SUCCESS?
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, HOW AND WHY DO YOU EXPECT
THEM TO INCREASE STUDENT SUCCESS?
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, WHEN WILL THEY BE
IMPLEMENTED?
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
Page 9 of 10
PROGRAM SLO REPORT
PROGRAM ASSESSED
PROGRAM SLOS ASSESSED
Chemistry
1. Develop laboratory skills to be successful in subsequent courses and/or on the job.
2. Master concept and content to be successful in subsequent courses and/or on the job.
3. Master computational skills to be successful in subsequent courses.
4. Communicate the results of chemistry laboratory investigations.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT(S)
Looked at the scores from the ACS final exams and the laboratory grades. We also looked at the size of the
classes and retention.
EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT
Average grades should equal or be higher than national average on ACS exams. All students need to pass the
laboratory section with 60% or they receive an F in the class.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS
The non-science major chemistry class, Chemistry 3A, had a difficult time meeting the expected results in the
lecture section. Chemistry for science majors, Chemistry 1A, exceeded the expected results.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
(WERE EXPECTED LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT
GENERALLY EXCEEDED, MET, OR NOT MET, AND WHY?)
Chemistry 3A: Did not meet the expected results in lecture and exceeded the expected results in lab. The class is
currently being taught as a LGI and the students tend to do better in a smaller class size. The students who
attended the three hour study session each week did better in the class.
Chemistry 1A: Exceeded both the lecture and laboratory portion of the class. Most Chemistry 1A classes were
taught with a smaller capacity, 32 students, therefore exceeded the goals for the class. There was one LGI that
had about 10% lower grades than the smaller class sizes.
WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED TO INCREASE
STUDENT SUCCESS?
Currently I offer a study session to all chemistry students. I would like to encourage more students to take
advantage of this time.
Offer more open labs so students have time extra time to catch up on laboratory work if necessary.
More demonstrations.
Offer smaller class sizes.
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, HOW AND WHY DO YOU EXPECT
THEM TO INCREASE STUDENT SUCCESS?
Study sessions will give the students the opportunity to work in smaller groups and ask an instructor questions.
Open labs will give students extra time if they need it.
Demonstrations will help students relate topics to real world examples.
IF CHANGES ARE MADE, WHEN WILL THEY BE
IMPLEMENTED?
Currently we have three hours a week of study session and open lab. Another full time instructor could double
this time. We will not be able to hire someone new until budget improves.
Demonstrations take time to prepare. We should look into hiring a lab technician for chemistry only.
Program Review/SLO Annual Progress Report – approved 08/23/2012
Page 10 of 10