SeattleCentralCommunity College
Program Analysis and Viability Study – Review for 2008-2009
Instructional Programs
Program Information
Program Name: Chemistry
Program Type: Transfer Professional/Technical Basic Skills Continuing Education
Other (specify):
Division Administrator: Rebecca Hartzler
Program Coordinator: Douglas Wick
1. History and Development of the Program
1.a. Has your mission changed since 2006? Yes No
1.b. If yes, what is the current mission of the program?
The faculty and staff of Seattle Central Community College's chemistry department are committed to providing its students with an excellent and rigorous education in chemistry that challenges and engages both science and non-science students, guides career decisions, develops critical thinking skills, motivates students to positively affect their local and global environment, and stimulates lifelong and collaborative learning. We are dedicated to providing a collaborative environment in which faculty and staff can work and develop new tools that enhance teaching and maintain expertise. Given the safety concerns of this laboratory science we also strive to maintain a safe learning and working environment for our students, staff, and faculty.
2. External Demand for the Program
(Answer 2.a.i OR 2.a.ii OR 2.a.iii as noted. All programs should answer 2.b.)
2.a.i. Professional/Technical and Basic Skills Programs: What do the data show to be the economic demand for this program over the next three years? †
N.A.
2.a.ii. Transfer Programs: List any courses offered that do not transfer as equivalencies with the University of Washington, and which do not support Seattle Central’s Professional/Technical programs.
CHEM& 110, CHEM& 139, CHEM& 123, CHEM& 162, CHEM& 163, CHEM 211 do not have equivalents at UW (note: CHEM& 162 and CHEM& 163 taken together transfer as CHEM 152 and 162 at UW)
2.a.iii. Continuing Education Programs: List courses you believe will increase as a result of the current and projected economic situation.
N.A.
2.b. Provide a brief analysis of the three-year enrollment trend for this program.†
The total number of students who took chemistry courses increased from 1053 to 1175, an 11.6% increase from academic years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008. All headcounts categories increased in this time period. The category with the most significant headcount increase was international (+43%) followed by running start (+22%) and state (+4.6%). Clearly the weakening U.S. economy during this time period made education attractive for international students who wanted a U.S. education at lower cost. The smaller increase seen for state funded students may have been due to a trickle down effect of an attractive real estate market prior to its demise in early 2008. This reason has merit given the +0.8% increase for 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 (strong real estate marketeconomics attracts potential students away from education) compared to +3.7% for 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 (weakened real estate market economics attracts potential students toward education).
3. Internal Demand for the Program
3.a. What courses or services does your program provide to other programs, departments or divisions, if applicable?
Department/Division / Course(Number and title)[add rows as required]Nursing / CHEM& 121, 122
Dental Hygiene / CHEM& 121, 122
Biotechnology / CHEM& 121, 122, 123, 161, 162, 163, 211, 241, 242, 243, 251, 252
Department/Division / Service (Specify) [add rows as required]
Biology/Biotechnology / High Performance Liquid Chromatography, Water Crystallization
Please use the table below to answer the following questions:
3.b. What courses from other divisions or departments are required as prerequisites or as part of this program’s degree/certificate requirements?
CHEM& 110 – MATH 084 Eligible, CHEM& 121 – MATH 085, CHEM& 139 – MATH 098, CHEM& 161 – MATH& 141
3.c. Provide a brief overview of how well the courses offered by other divisions or departments are fulfilling the needs of students in your program, including such aspects as curriculum alignment, days/times offered, and number of sections.
Department/Division / Course(Number and title)[add rows as required] / How well does the course fulfill the needs of students in this program?Content (curriculum alignment) / Logistics (days/times offered, number of sections, etc.)
MATH / 084 / sufficient / sufficient
MATH / 085 / Insufficient, changing the prerequisite for CHEM& 121 to MATH 098 would benefit students. / sufficient
MATH / 098 / sufficient / sufficient
MATH / 141 / sufficient / sufficient
Department/Division / Service (Specify) [add rows as required] / How well does this service fulfill the needs of students in this program?
Content/Activity / Logistics
IT / Provides computer hardware (all class-rooms and labs), software (image, applications), projectors (all class-rooms and labs), and associated maintenance. / Very basic service is adequately provided. / Centralized philosophy of IT does not allow for flexibility in accessing new technology at a very local level in a timely manner.
Biology / Provides incubators for cell culturing to access biomolecules. / sufficient / sufficient
Library / Provides DVD access, and reserve texts. / sufficient / sufficient
Counseling / Provides personal and academic counseling for success in higher education and planning for transfer to a 4- year university or new employment. / Better communication between faculty and counselors over the past 3 years has improved proper placement of students in the various chemistry tracks. / sufficient
Testing / Administers chemistry placement exam. / Chemistry faculty are working to update the placement exam and preparation material. / sufficient
Disability Support Services / Provides documentation and support for students with disabilities. / sufficient / sufficient
Student Leadership Association / Funds SAM tutoring program with an hourly wage grant for tutors. / Sufficient but more funding is always appreciated. / sufficient
SAM Tutoring Center / Provides free tutoring for students taking science and math classes. / Chemistry faculty need to identify more tutors with chemistry experience through organic chemistry. / insufficient
4. Size and Scope of the Program
4.a. What changes, if any, have occurred in the pattern of courses offered by the program over the last three years?
Because of growth in the general chemistry program, an additional section of CHEM 162 (formerly CHE 150) was offered in spring 2008. If this demand continues, the chemistry department will continue to offer two sections of CHEM 162 every spring quarter. Also, additional demand for CHEM 163 during winter quarter has resulted in the course being offered in winter 2007 and winter 2009.
The reduced demand for the CHEM 123 (formerly CHE 103) course has resulted in its being cancelled for 2 of the last 3 spring quarters. The department is considering the development of a course that the combines many of the organic and biochemistry topics covered in CHEM 122 (formerly CHE 102) and CHEM 123 to better serve allied health students required to only take two quarters of chemistry. North Seattle CC has already done this with the creation of CHEM& 131.
In the last year the department has transitioned all lab courses to closed labs (faculty supervised)from open labs (staff supervised). This has increased the contact hours between faculty and students.
Finally, the decreasedenrollment in and the eventual sunset of the biotechnology program has reduced demand for the CHEM 211 course. Consequently, the course will no longer be offered after winter 2009 unless enrollment trends change again.
4.b. For programs that offer degrees and/or certificates only: When considering the patterns of retention from quarter to quarter, and of degrees and/or certificates awarded by the program, what changes, if any, have occurred over the last three years?†
N.A.
4.c. For all programs: What is the pattern for the student populations being served this year?
The percentage of students from historically underrepresented groups takingchemistry courses has increased from 2005 to 2007. The percentage of female students has increased dramatically from 48.1% to 60.4% (+12.2% difference), and the percentage of students of color has increased from 46.5% to 51.5% (+5.1% difference). In addition, the number of first-generation college students—those whose parents did not complete a 4-year degree—has increased from 41.9% to 46.3% (+4.4% difference).
As indicated in section 2.b. the number of international students and Running Start students taking chemistry courses has also increased between academic years 2005-2006 and 2007-2008. The number of international students has increased from 165 to 236 (+43.0% difference), and the number of Running Start students has increased from 54 to 66 (+22% difference). International and Running Start students composed 25.7% of students enrolled in chemistry classes in the 2007-2008 academic year, an increase of +4.9% from the 2005-2006 academic year.
4.d. How many faculty and instructional support staff were assigned to the program last year?
2007-2008 / Headcount / Annual FTEF / Annual FTES / S/FTotal / FT / PT / Total / FT / PT
Faculty / 11 / 2 / 9 / 4.62 / 1.77 / 2.85 / 139.4 (TOTAL)
103.3 (state) / 30.2 (TOTAL)
22.4 (state)
Instructional Support / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1.92 / 1 / 0.92 / 139.4 (TOTAL)
103.3 (state) / 72.6 (TOTAL)
53.8 (state)
Note (1) FT/PT = 0.62. This is a 47% decrease since PAVS 2005 and is completely out of line with a
FT/PT = 3 in the American Chemical Society “Guidelines for Chemistry Programs in Two-Year Colleges.” The low
ratio was due in part to a FT faculty member on medical leave, yet this demonstrates that any leave due to
sabbatical,medical, or release time reasons is detrimental to the SCCC’s commitment to an active, innovative,
and rigorous chemistry program. There have been 37 PT faculty hired since 1999. Of those only 33% have
continued to teach, and only 14% have garnered FT positions at local CCs.
Note (2) S/F = 28.7 (total), 21.3 (state) when FTEF = 4.85 (FT = 2, PT = 2.85). In the table above FT FTEFis 1.77
and not 2 because FTES arereduced due to small enrollment in a class servicing the Biotechnology program.
4.e. How does the size and scope of the program compare to peer institutions in Washington?
Size:Number of students served (Annual State FTES):
Bellevue1179.31, state1380.49, TOTAL
Student/Faculty ratio:19.16, state22.43, TOTAL
Size:Number of students served (Annual State FTES):
NSCC 564.51 650.29
Student/Faculty ratio:18.22 20.99
Size:Number of students served (Annual State FTES):
SCCC492.26 617.26
Student/Faculty ratio:17.38 21.79
Size:Number of students served (Annual State FTES):
Green River443.55 653.34
Student/Faculty ratio:13.13 19.33
SeattleCentralCommunity College’s chemistry department has a
S/F ratio 34.6% (TOTAL) and 16.9% (state) higher than that for Bellevue
Community College’s science program at large.
5. Program Support
5.a. Please provide the list of names and qualifications of the program faculty and staff, and indicate what has changed since 2005:
Name / Job Title / Terminal Degree, Granting Institution / Years Experience / Changed since 2005?FT Faculty / Esmaeel Naeemi (hired 1998) / Instructor
Tenured / Ph. D. in organic chemistry,
New MexicoStateUniversity (1992) / 17 / No
Douglas Wick (hired 2001) / Instructor
Tenured / Ph. D. in organometallic chemistry, University of Rochester (1997) / 14 / No
Marie Villarba (hired 2007) / Instructor
Tenure Track / Ph. D. in physical chemistry,
University of Washington (1995) / 13 / Yes
PT Faculty / Christine Loftus (hired W 2001) / Instructor, PH (2007) / M.S. in biophysical chemistry, University of Washington (2000) / 7 / No
Heather Clary (hired W 2005) / Instructor, PH (2008) / Ph. D. in physical organic chemistry, University of Washington (2003) / 6 / No
Thomas Schultz (hired Su 2005) / Instructor, PH (2008) / Ph.D. in organic chemistry
University of Nevada at Reno (1979) / 23 / No
Colleen Craig (hired Sp 2008) / Instructor / Ph. D. in physical chemistry,
University of Washington (2005) / 2 / Yes
Guzel Khakimova (hired W 2009) / Instructor / Ph. D. chemistry,
Scientific Institute of Chemistry & Technology, Tashkent, Uzbekistan (1984) / 5 / Yes
Paul Mason (hired W 2009) / Instructor / Ph. D. in plant biology,
CornellUniversity (2005) / 2 / Yes
Instructional
Staff / Tess Cabasco-Cebrian
(hired 1980) / ICST #3 / B.S.University of Washington
(1975 & 1978) / 28 / No
James Schulz (hired 2005) / ICST #2 / B.S.WashingtonStateUniversity (1991) / 14 / No
5.b. Is the instructional equipment that the program has adequate to train/educate the students? What are the expected equipment needs over the next three years (this question is for information, not for funding allocation)?
Equipment description / Role in curriculum delivery[critical need/ upgrade for competitiveness] / New/ Replace-ment / Expected replacement date / Approximate costLaptop Computers with wireless capability (36) / We envision two primary uses of the laptop: (1) as the command center with Vernier metric interfaces during laboratory experiments and (2) as a tool for visualization and Web-based applications for use during the labs. Thus, we will need wireless network access for printing and for Web-based applications, so the laptops should have built-in wireless network cards. / new / $60,000
Hotplate/Stirplate (16) / Crucial tool for manipulating temperature, solubility, and reactivity during chemical reactions. / replacement / 2009 / $3500
Visible Light Spectrophotometer (10) / Basic tool to probe matter using light in as opposed to mass measurements. Applied across the chemistry curriculum. / replacement / 2009-2013 / $22,000
Heating Mantles (24) / Required for organic chemistry to provide a controllable, consistent, and non-flame heat source for chemical reactions. / replacement / 2009 / $9000
5.c. Does the program have adequate space? Yes No
Are the program’s facilities adequate? Yes No
If no, please use the table below to explain.
Type of room / Number of rooms / Size of rooms / Classroom technology / Classroom condition (lighting, heating, etc.). Please specify building/location.Classroom / SAM 400 / Room is too small with current desks present, lecture area needs to be rotated 90° SE. / Poor projection lighting, blackboards need to be replaced with whiteboards, clock placement is awkward. / Light switches are incomprehensibly wired.
SAM 401 / Adequate / Poor projection lighting, clock placement is awkward. / Light switches are incomprehensibly wired.
Laboratory / SAM 403 / Adequate / Poor projection lighting, no permanent whiteboards are present and must be installed so that this room can function as both lecture and lab. / Light switches are incomprehensibly wired, minimal safe chemical waste storage.
SAM 404A / No room to expand / N.A. / None of the chemical storage cabinets (flammables included) are vented as was expected based on the final architectural plansfor the SAM building. This poses an extreme health hazard.
SAM 404B / Adequate / N.A. / Lighting is poor.
SAM 405, 406 / Adequate / N.A. / Minimal safe chemical waste storage.
5.d. How do you use technology in your teaching? Please indicate which of the following you use:
Technology / Do you use it? / How do you use the technology in your teaching?PowerPoint / Yes (80%) / Lecture delivery, lecture notes
Smart Board / No
Instant Feedback via clicker-response technology / No
Angel / No
In-class use of the Internet (please specify) / Yes (100%) / Laboratory and lecture demonstrations
Online supplemental materials and/or services (please specify) / Yes (100%) / Instructor websites: test keys, homework problems, general communication
Blog / No
Webcasts/Podcasts of your lectures/classes / No
Social Networking (e.g., Facebook, Second Life; please specify) / No
Other (please specify) / Yes / Wiki, ELMO for projecting text during lecture
6. Program Outcomes and Assessment
6.1. Program Review – All programs
6.1.a. Was the program curriculum reviewed in the past three years? If yes, please attach Program Review Report. [See: All Public Folders/Central Campus/Curriculum Review Committee/Program Reviews]
Spring 2006
6.1.b. Have any curriculum changes been made as a result of the report’srecommendations?
No. One of the main recommendations was to increase FT faculty and staff so that curriculum changes could be adequately advanced. Continued requests for expansion positions (3 over the last 10 years) given to the Vice President of Instruction have been denied citing unavailable funding as the reason for denial.
6.2.Program Learning Outcomes and Assessment - Programs are to complete Section 6.2.I OR 6.2.II OR 6.3 only
6.2.I. Program Learning Outcomes and Assessment - Workforce programs that offer AAS or AAS-T degrees and/or certificates.
6.2.I.a. Attach a copy of your 2008 Program Outcomes Assessment Summary Report. [See:
6.2.I.b. Briefly describe any changes in curriculum, assessment methods, or assessment results made since that report was prepared in Winter 2008.
N.A.
6.2.I.c. What role does technology play in the delivery of curriculum?
N.A.
6.2.II. Program Learning Outcomes and Assessment - Transfer programs that are part of the AA or AS degree curricula.
6.2.II.a. Please attach a copy of your PAVS Preliminary Outcomes Assessment Report [Refer to the AA or AS Outcomes Assessment Summary Report to identify degree level outcomes your curriculum addresses. Find these reports at: ]
6.2.II.b. What role does technology play in the delivery of curriculum?
Lecture material and internet based visualization resources are projected from computer terminal during lecture. Solid state computer interfaced metric devices (Vernier interfaces, pH meters, digital thermometers, spectrometers {FTIR, NMR, GCMS, HPLC}) measure physical and chemical data during laboratory investigations. Email is used to address course material problems and arrange for additional meeting time. Software such as Microsoft Word and Excel are used to write lab reports and to prepare graphs for data analysis, respectively.
6.3. Program Learning Outcomes and Assessment - For other programs that do not offer degrees and/or certificates
6.3.a. Please attach a copy of your PAVS Preliminary Outcomes Assessment Report.
6.3.b. What role does technology play in the delivery of curriculum?
N.A.
7. Program Revenues and Costs
7.a. Does the program have any revenue sources beyond your department’s state allocation? Provide estimates for the following:
Program Revenues / 2005-2006 / 2006-2007 / 2007-2008Fees / $26,274 / $27,261 / $31,848
Contracts & Grants / - / $100, 000* / $86,170**
Donations / - / - / -
Other (explain) / - / - / -
Total / $26,274 / $127,261 / $118,018
*Gates Foundation Grant / **remaining Gates monies
7.b. What were the costs of the program (actual expenditures) for the last three years?
Program Expenditures / 2005-2006 / 2006-2007 / 2007-2008Salaries (A) FT / $144,087 / $148,294 / $101,478
Salaries (A’) PT / $127,766* / $109,169* / $142,212**
Benefits (B) FT + PT, @30% / $81,556 / $77,239 / $73,107
Goods & Services (E) / $24,218 / $35,661 / $31,686
Travel (G) / - / - / -
Equipment (J) / $6968*** / $10,099*** / $9487***
Professional
Development (see 7.c.) / - / - / -
Other / - / - / -
Total / $384,595 / $380,462 / $357,970
*estimate / **= $121,842 (FWSp 07-08 accurate) +
$25,370 (Sm 07 estimate) / ***service contracts for balances, FTIR, and GCMS
7.c. What kinds of professional development has your program provided for faculty and/or staff? List and describe any funds the program spent on professional development for faculty/staff.
SAM Division supported staff workshop at Vernier Software & Technology in Oregon.
Funding source unknown.
7.d. Provide an update, if applicable, regarding the relationships, partnerships and collaborations that the program has cultivated over the past two years that benefit the institution and/or assist in fulfilling the college's mission and values?