Academic Audit for the Department of Chemistry

Academic Audit for the Department of Chemistry

RoaneStateCommunity College

Introduction:

The chemistry department is mostly in support of other programs such as engineering and health sciences. Typically only about two to three students per year indicate that they are interested in being chemistry majors when they transfer four year university. Since majors are not declared at the 2-year Tennessee regents schools, it is not possible to confirm the numbers. Typically, approximately 200 students enrol in General Chemistry I (CHEM 1120), 100 enrol in Introduction to Chemistry (CHEM 1010), 50 enrol in Foundations of Chemistry (CHEM 1000) and 25 enrol in Organic Chemistry (CHEM 2010).

The chemistry faculty at RoaneStateCommunity College presently consists of three full-time instructors and between two to six adjuncts. The full-time faculty has considerable experience other than teaching chemistry. One faculty member has been head of a department which supported computer learning in addition to teaching in high school. Another member has had 10 years of experience in clinical chemistry, 8 years in defence contracting and 10 years as a quality assurance consultant to a variety of industries. The third member has had 20 years in industrial research and development, 8 years as a physicist at a national laboratory and experience in private business. Similar experiences are characteristic of the adjunct faculty. (See the appendix for complete resumes.) These backgrounds are quite different from the purely academic background for faculty at a typical university and provide insight into what is required of chemistry and engineering students in real life situations.

An audit of the needs and the objectives of the chemistry department had been traditional. Formal meetings twice a year, at the beginning of each semester were normal. Additional communication throughout the academic year was more on an informal basis. These latter communications usually dealt with specifics of the progression of a particular course. Coordination is especially critical for courses such as CHEM 1110 and 1010 where the labs and lectures are not necessarily taught by the same instructor. The formal meetings in two previous years (fall 2004 to spring 2006), however, were either not held or resembled a monolog. This was due to turnover in the department in these three years (essentially a 4 person turnover) with only one faculty member remaining. At the beginning of the fall 2006 semester, one new faculty member and a returning faculty member arrived and formal meetings were again initiated. However, with such a new faculty arrangement, only the minimal review could be accomplished. During the 2006-2007 academic year this audit was begun with several meeting being held during the spring 2007 semester. The meetings always included the three full-time faculty members. Adjuncts were invited, and one adjunct routinely attended, providing some valuable input. These meetings not only provided input for this audit but also updated and coordinated the learning objectives as was the prior tradition.

Learning Objectives:

The learning objective for each of the chemistry courses are normally reviewed annually. These courses include:

Foundations of Chemistry, CHEM 1000 (high school deficiency)

General Chemistry I and II, CHEM 1110 and 1120 (Engineering and Science)

Introduction to Chemistry, CHEM 1010 and 1020 (Health Science)

Organic Chemistry, CHEM 2010 and 2020

The learning objectives (competencies) for these courses are listed and available on the internet. (See and the appendix) The syllabi and competencies, present and past, are also held officially in the Math-Science department. The courses are reviewed by the entire full-time faculty and any ofthe adjunct faculty that are willing to participate. This is usually accomplished before the beginning of the fall semester with a mid-year review at the beginning of the spring semester. These are convenient times, since all the instructors attend the in-service and are thus available at the same place and at the same time. At least one additional formal yearly meeting has been requested from the administration. The time and place for this has not been determined but it would be most useful during mid-term of the fall semester or possibly earlier. It is at this time that some coordination problems might arise.

For each course, there is a lead person responsible for up-dating the objective listings even though the up-dates are agreed upon by the entire faculty. The present lead persons are:

CHEM 1000 – Dr. Roger Derby

CHEM 1010 & 1020 – Dr. Ron Sternfels

CHEM 1110 & 1120 – Dr. James Condon

CHEM 2010 & 2020 – Mr. Steve Ward

The lead person is responsible for entering the updates after the chemistry department agrees upon any changes. The lead person has access to the chemistry department web page and is able to make alterations.

The process of determining the learning objectives includes consultation mainly with the 4-year institutions, since a 2-year technical degree in chemistry does not exist atRoaneState. (This is the precedency of PellissippiState.) Even so, some employers in Oak Ridge and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are consulted in order to determine specific concerns regarding BS or BA candidates. The 4-year schools consulted include University of Tennessee (UTK), Tennessee Technological University (TTU) and East Tennessee State University (ETSU). In addition, since many of the students that take organic chemistry apply to medical or pharmacy school, the MCAT and PCAT requirements are considered. However, there has not been any effort to specifically address the MCATs and PCATs. Special tutoring services for these would be of great service to the students but would require special funding. This activity is on hold due to lack of funding.

The guidelines for 2-year chemistry degree from the American Chemical Society (ACS) and for the chemistry certification from the ACS are also considered, although these tend to be too vague to be useful. Never-the-less,the sections of these Guidelineshave been checked. Recommendations from 7 of the 76 sections were judge inadequate[1]. None of these, however, apply directly to learning objectives. Better indications can be obtained by examining the standardized tests from ACS. The tests themselves, however, appear to not be useful due to the large national curve employed since the 1981 edition[2]. The latest trial at RSCC was the 1995 edition. Re-examination of these tests requires an expenditure of money for an uncertain outcome. Never-the-less, one of the recommendations of this audit is to re-evaluate this instrument.

There are some logical internal considerations in determining some of the learning objective. Internally, the stakeholders for CHEM 1000 are CHEM 1110 and CHEM 1010; whereas the stakeholder of CHEM 1120 is CHEM 2010. Internal communication is all that is required to satisfy these requirements. CHEM 1010 and 1020 also have internal RSCC stakeholders in the health science programs. Faculty in the area are routinely consulted by those teaching these subjects.

Another source is “The Science Objectives for General Education for the State of Tennessee.” This source is relatively new and the objectives are also quite general. These objectives have been checked against the learning objective for the year2006-2007 and apply also to the 2007-2008 academic year. All the objectives are met multiple times and are indexed in the listings.

The learning objectives are freelyand routinely given to the students. Some instructors hand these out at the beginning of the semester; whereas others hand them out in sections to avoid overload. In any case, the up-dated objectives are always available on the internet. Each objective is covered at least once by an evaluation method. (These methods are also index in the listings.) Only these listed objectives are required of the non-honours student.

Feed-back for the 4-year institutions has been favourable although informal. Acceptances into Pharmacy and Medical schools have been high. A few declared chemistry students continue each year, usually at TTU but some also at UTK and University of Tennessee Chattanooga. These students are usually successful at these institutions. Sample size for statistics from the RSCC institutional office is too small to draw any conclusion about graduate success.

In almost all the standard objectives, such as the ACS, TN objectives, etc., there are statements requesting relevance to current issues. There is no list of such items required of the instructors at RSCC. However, these types of objectives are routinely talked about by all the instructors, which is one of the advantages presented by the varied backgrounds of the faculty members. A list of examples includes:

How oil refineries function – their requirements, thermodynamics, output and waste.

Techniques relevant to global warming debate: CO2 cycle, spectroscopy, etc.

Confined spaces dangers – CO and Ar poisoning

Environmental spills in the East Tennesseearea

Sewage treatment– chemistry and pH

Problems associated with industrial processes such as electroplating, diamond manufacture and many others.

However, there is little agreement within the committee concerning standardization of knowledge and abilities for the students to be responsible citizens as suggested in the guidelines for the academic audit.

Curriculum and Co-curriculum

What is taught is determined by the specified learning objectives. Each instructor agrees to follow the learning objectives listed in approximately the same order. Other than uniformity, there is a practical reason for this, that is, the students do not necessarily have the same instructor for the laboratory sessions as they do for lecture sessions; indeed it is unlikely. The curriculum is presented to the student through the release of the learning objectives and the class schedules.

The textbook selection and the laboratory experiments and exercises are selected to fit in with the overall design of the course as designated by the department. Textbook selection is therefore somewhat limited in order to fit this requirement and for the department to inspect the editions in a timely fashion. The timely fashion criterion is especially difficult for chemistry since textbooks are typically on a three year cycle and release of the new editions is usually after our decision date. The laboratory manual is designed specifically for RSCC chemistry with several criteria (discussed in the next section).

The only co-curricula for chemistry are the student ACS meetings at RSCC and recommended East Tennessee ACS sectional meeting. These latter meeting are usually held in Knoxville or Oak Ridge. Some instructors provide credit for attendance, however this is a problem of fairness since many of the RSCC students either have to work or have other obligations that prevent them from attending. Creation of additional co-curricula has been a priority and is considered a deficiency in this audit. Field trips have been suggested with committee agreement to replace some of the laboratories, especially for the CHEM 1000 students. By the standards, this would be appropriate for this course. These would need to be performed within the time limits of the now scheduled laboratories to avoid the problems mentioned above. Another suggestion is some on-line work or “attendance” which does not require a specific time slot. Such resources are unknown to the committee and this is a subject of further research.

A few students each year pursue an honours program in chemistry. The topic selected is normally outside the realm of the learning objectives. More topics and equipment availability for honours programs are needed since in the past this has been limited. Acquiring additional equipment and determining new topics need to be investigated. It is recommended that the department jointly “brain-storm” for ideas and enablements. Some equipment for the honours students has been requested under some special programs, but the possibility of obtaining such equipment appears to be slight. It is recommended that grants be pursued (one is presently being attempted) for special projects and equipment.

Teaching and Learning Methods

Each instructor decides upon the resources and methods to use in the lecture sessions. The laboratory sessions, however, are uniform as far a possible. In common among the instructors are the use of the internet for student resources, a common agreed-upon textbook and the sequence and timing of the learning objectives.

For lecture sessions all the instructors use computer sources and the internet in some form. Some of the instructors have utilized D2L (previously WebCT) and others have used their own web site methods. Most of the classrooms are equipped with stations and internet connections. However, the laboratories are not so equipped and some of the lab exercises require these setups. This is especially true for some of the adjuncts. Since it is RSCC policy not to permit a sign-up for both a lab and a classroom at the same time, this occasionally presents problems[3]. Every textbook comes with some resources and are used in various degrees by all the instructors. In addition to normal lecture, some of the variations in the classroom include utilization of group quizzes, use of a “critical item[4]” list, and demonstrations which include sample problem solving.

The laboratory sessions have anunconventional approach. In the lab sessions, group consultation is encouraged. The lab sessions are about equally divided between hands-on lab experiments and calculation exercises. The methodologies were introduced in the CHEM 1110 and 1120 lab manual which was developed at RoaneState in cooperation with the chemistry department of Southern Connecticut University. The emphasis is on the students determining how to perform the experiment, writing out an experimental plan and blank data sheet, and then with the instructor’s approval performing the experiment on their own. For the problem exercise sessions, the students may work in groups on the problem sets. After completion of the exercises, each student is given an individual quiz that is handed in for credit. This approach has been adapted to the other courses with the appropriate modifications.

The RoaneStatelab manual is in its 10th edition since 1994. The frequent revisions depending upon what has been learned, how the programs have changed and what improvements are found. Presently, the faculty is investigating how best to incorporate internet resources, such as D2L, into this process and the possibility of making available more time for hands-on lab experiments.

In an effort to find new methods of teaching, two of the instructors attended a workshop on the NSF POGIL project. The techniques used in this process are very similar to that used now in our labs with some differences. This is presently being evaluated but the primary problems appear to be student exposure time and resources, including instruction time. The workshop suggestion to solve these problems was to teach less material. It is our opinion that this approach isinconsistent with our teaching objective listings.

Student Learning Assessment

The assessment techniques for each learning objective are indexed in the lists. For some of the courses, standardized finals were developed to replace the ACS standardized finals. This was done in order to prevent students from passing by guessing which is very easy to do with the ACS tests. The standardized finals have also been used to cross-check faculty performance. However, for this function these instruments have failed miserably[5]. The faculty is presently determining an alternative quality control mechanism which will basically distribute the “finals” questions throughout the regular semester examinations.

The regular semester examinations are presented between three and five times during the semester by all the instructors. In addition, each instructor presents lecture quizzes in some form on a regular basis. Some, for example, are group quizzes. In addition, some instructors use the critical items approach in order to avoid the educational “black-hole” effect (see footnote 4).

In the laboratory, there are individual quizzes for the exercise sessions and write-ups for the hands-on labs. Certain items, such as significant figures, are constantly checked. For the write-ups, the students are encouraged to use the RSCCWritingCenter. For the full write-up the proper scientific writing format is required and checked. This format is explained in detail and in outline form in the lab manual, on the internet[6] and in handouts. A typical grading sheet for the write-ups is also provide to the students.

A three year trial of pre- and post-testing was performed and was found to not be useful. Not surprisingly, the scores for the pre-tests were statistically no better than total guessing. (The tests were 5 choice multiple choice with a normal average score of slightly over 20%.) The post-test were slightly better than the pre-test, however, when compared to a mandatory final the scores were considerably different. This is inspite of the fact that the best students did poorly on the standardized final in contrast to the B and below students who did better. For the post-tests, none of the students had anything at stake and finish the tests very rapidly, missing questions that the instructor had prior evidence that the student knew very well, that is, the critical items mentioned in footnote 4. It is obvious that the students do not take such pre- and post-tests seriously; that is, some simply check off answers to get finished, and the statistics seem to prove this. It was therefore concluded that the pre- and post-test criterion is totally useless.