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 DisruptingChemicals” (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 academicyear:

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, YihuaLiu

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 J-Aggregates in the Nanoparticle Assembly”, J. Phys. Chem., B. 2006, 110, 6673-6682.
  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 Dicarboxylate-Silver 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 NeeshaD. 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(4-vinylpyridine) 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 health-related 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, YaleUniversity, 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 were19 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, withthe 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), althoughmore 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, fiveresponses were received; two frompeople 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,whilethe UPC andother interested faculty members primarily focused on an evaluation of the posterpresentation. The four main levels considered are the same as those adopted for evaluating General Educationcourses at BinghamtonUniversityand are as follows:

1.Exceeding - demonstration of the learning desired that surpasses expectations.
2.Meeting - adequate demonstration of the learning desired.
3.Approaching - incomplete demonstration of the learning desired.
4.Notmeeting - failure to demonstrate the learning desired.
Thefour key learning outcomes area.Basic knowledge of the four main sub-disciplines inchemistry(physical, analytical, organic, and inorganic);b.Familiarity with the basic techniques employed in Chemistry and the application of these techniques to problemsolving;c.An understanding of the scientific method (i.e., the collection, analysis, and interpretation of scientificdata and studies);andd.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 toexcellent 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-Studyreevaluates 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 thiswe 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