Department Annual Report & Discipline Review 2012-2013 Physical Sciences Disciplines: Astronomy, Chemistry, Engineering, Geology, Physics, Physical Science Program: Chemical Technology, AAAS Document Prepared By: Jennifer Batten 1
Department Information Documentation Current year goals Bernard Liburd and Tom Neils are working toward increasing instrumentation use in the General Chemistry and Honors General Chemistry labs. Tom Neils incorporated the new Vernier Spectrophotometers into Honors General Chemistry and Gas Chromatography into CHM 280. As part of the recent NSF Grant, Bernard Liburd will begin incorporating GC-MS experiments into the General Chemistry I and II Labs. Jennifer Batten will work toward incorporating GC-MS into the Organic Chemistry I and II lab courses and into the Instrumental Analysis Lab. Elaine Kampmueller will continue to organize the Geology storage area. Elaine recently purchased new storage bins for her samples. Tari Mattox, adjunct faculty member, and Elaine will continue sorting and organizing the material this summer. Elaine Kampmueller (GL 101) and Bernard Liburd (CHM 140) will develop hybrid/online versions of the listed courses. This work is ongoing. The Department will continue to work toward the promotion and expansion of the Chemical Technology Program. The Physical Sciences web page has information on the program, there are fliers posted around campus, and Tom Neils has been assigned as the advisor to the Chemical Technology Program students. The Department will continue to support science in the community by offering activities to area students and supporting other community groups with similar goals. The Department recently co-hosted two events that brought 500 area children to campus. Bernard Liburd and Jennifer Batten will develop 2 summer camps as part of the Department s NSF Grant. Physical Sciences will continue to improve our Department website so that the community knows the high quality education that is offered at GRCC. The website was updated and reviewed in December 2012. Through the Assessment Projects, the Department members will continue to evaluate our course content and quality so that we are always enhancing the courses that we deliver. This work is ongoing and will continue. Each project is described in more detail later in this report. Storage space in the Department s area is getting full. We have begun disposing items that are no longer used to free up space. This is a very large task as there is a lot of very old and out dated equipment in storage. The Department has worked toward the clean-up and repurposing of the workshop area. The area has now been converted to a Research Lab, which has a portable hood, rotovap, balances and other equipment used in independent study projects. The Department will evaluate the current lab fee structure to ensure that the burden of the costs associated with lab courses is shared equitably. The project has been completed and submitted to Deb DeWent. The Department reviewed scholarship applications and made recommendations for the award of nine different STEM based GRCC scholarships, including the first Physical Sciences Faculty Scholarship. Bernard Liburd heads this effort. Goals for next year The demonstration kits used by faculty in their lecture classrooms need to be updated, repaired and renovated. 2
The Grand Rapids Public Museum has reached out to Physical Sciences to develop a partnership that takes science to area school children. We will work on this project with the GRPM and Godwin Heights middle school. Elaine Kampmueller will work toward the development of a pre-major program in Geology that will lead to an AS degree. If this process in adopted, other pre-major program programs may be proposed. Tom Neils and Jennifer Batten will work toward the development of CHM 290 in hybrid format. The Department will continue to work on the previous year s goals, infrastructure improvements and taking on challenges and opportunities as they arise. The Department will develop a Physical Sciences Student of the Year Award. Internal collaborations and partnerships The Physical Sciences Department collaborates with internal departments in the following ways: with Biological Sciences and Mathematics on Science and Math Advising days with the Dean s office on scheduling, hiring, and student issues with Facilities on building maintenance and special improvement projects with IT on maintaining and upgrading the department laptops and other department owned equipment with Job Placement to hire student workers with Purchasing to secure equipment, reconcile purchases and maintain department credit cards with Print Services to maintain copiers and handle printing with the College Bookstore to secure books and classroom supplies with the Grants Office to prepare grant applications with the Institutional Research and Planning office to obtain data for grant and report writing with the Foundation to develop and award scholarships External collaborations and partnerships The STEM for Girls Event is a partnership between the Catholic Secondary School Foundation, 5 th /3 rd Bank, Kettering University and GRCC. The SAS Dean s office and Physical Sciences are actively involved in organizing this annual event. MAS4 S-STEM Scholarship is a NSF Funded partnership between GRCC and GVSU that provides substantial scholarships to five STEM transfer students. Physical Sciences promotes this program and recruits student scholars. The Hope College REU and S-STEM programs are partnerships between GRCC and Hope College. The REU allows students to carry out Independent Study Projects at GRCC and then work at Hope College during the summer. The S-STEM program provides substantial scholarships to GRCC transfer students. Physical Sciences faculty supervise the independent studies at GRCC and promote the scholarship program. The Physical Sciences Department has an ongoing partnership with the Grand Rapids Public Museum that has allowed our students to participate in STEM based outreach events. GRCC students presented at the STEM career day at the GRPM and GRCC hosted 300 middle school students through a partnership with the GRPM. Tom Neils has been working in partnership with several science faculty from GVSU to create and operate a Science Club at City Middle school. The after school club meets weekly at the middle school to work on projects based in biology, geology, chemistry and physics. About 30 middle school students participate. Tom Neils worked with Mark Muyskens at Calvin College to put on Glow Camp, July 9 th -12 th, 2012. The camp content emphasized all things light such as fluorescence, phosphorescence, and chemiluminescence. On July 16 th -19 th, Tom worked with students at the MLK Academy on chemical reactions and identification. Pam Scott and Tom Neils worked with UM s Center for Engineering Diversity Outreach to carry out a two week science and engineering camp (SEP) at GRCC. Pam and Tom taught sessions on topics like chemical 3
reactions and energy conversion. Interim Associate Dean Bill Faber worked with UM to coordinate the camp activities and to ensure that they had classroom space and the other facilities that they needed. Jennifer Batten traveled to Michigan Tech as part of the MICUP Program. This program is in part a GRCC- Michigan Tech Partnership that allows GRCC students to conduct research at Michigan Tech during the summer. The faculty that attended the event met with student participants, other community college partners and Michigan Tech faculty and staff and attended the student poster presentations. Jennifer Batten and Bernard Liburd will offer science based summer camps as part of the Department s NSF TUES proposal. The project will involve working with area high school students and teachers (as well as GRCC students) on instrumentation based forensic science projects. Randy Creswell taught "forces and motion" to 3rd graders at Knapp Charter Academy. Randy explained how to observe and do measurements related to Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion, and perform measurements and calculations related to distance, speed, and time. The 3 rd graders had a great time integrating math and science objectives. Tom Neils served as a State wide judge for the Odyssey of the Mind Competition that was held at Northwest Michigan Community College (Traverse City) on April 13 th. Tom judged the projects and tasks performed by middle and high school students who moved up from local competitions. Because of his background in online learning and STEM education, adjunct faculty member Andrew Vanden Heuvel applied for and was accepted to be a Google Glass Explorer. As part of this program Andrew was given the truly exceptional opportunity to visit the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and share the experience with physics students back home using his new Google Glass device. Departmental needs for support from other departments within the college NA Program accreditation updates NA Description of departmental advising plan and outcomes The Physical Sciences has four avenues for student academic advising. These avenues are: Science Advising Days- In collaboration with the Mathematics and Biological Sciences, we hold two science advising events, one in the Fall and one in the Winter. These events are advertised and students are encouraged to attend. The success of the events has been modest as most often only between 15 and 20 students participate per department. Full-time faculty participation is high and most assist with event. Several faculty members are participating in the pilot program that assigns students with a specific course code to a faculty member. The success has been less than what was hoped as few students have responded to offers of assistance. The Department webpage has an advising tab that links to the Physical Sciences faculty and the areas in which they advise. Students can find information about faculty advising here. Students often just drop in during office hours or send emails to faculty regarding questions that they may have about careers and coursework. Students may be using the webpage to get faculty information on advising. Departmental professional development activities Tom Neils facilitated our Department professional development activities for fall 2012. Tom provided an excellent overview of the applications and operation of the new Vernier spectrophotometers. There are many uses for this technology in our classrooms. The event was very well attended in that most of the Physical Sciences full- time faculty were able to attend as well as several adjunct faculty members. In addition, five faculty members from Biological Sciences attended. 4
During winter 2013, a representative from Agilent Technologies was in the Physical Sciences Department to install and provide training on the Department s new GC/MS. Many of the full-time faculty spent time getting one-on-one training with the representative. Bernard Liburd is now in the process of developing a training video on GC-MS operation and applications. This video will be placed on the Physical Sciences webpage so that all full-time and adjunct faculty can learn how to use this instrument. This training is important because this instrument will soon be incorporated into most of the chemistry lab sections and faculty need to be able to effectively instruct their students on data interpretation and instrument operation. Other department updates NA Evaluation Questions 1. Were the department goals for this year successfully met? Please explain. The details and progress of each goal are embedded with the list of goals. 2. Is the Advising Plan working well? What have the outcomes been for student advising? Physical Sciences advising has been successful in that there is a high level of faculty participation in student advising and we have created opportunities by which faculty reach out to students (Advising Pilot, Advising Days) and for students to reach out to faculty (using information on the website). While some may feel that there is still a low level of advising going on, our new model of advising does attract more students. For example, during the Fall semester advising day, 16 students spoke with Physical Sciences Faculty about coursework and career goals, far more than attended previous events. Further, while we often don t keep accurate records, many faculty advise students during office hours and via email. In the end, it is most important that we are here for students if we are needed and we believe that accessibility has been accomplished. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: External Collaborations & Partnerships Yes No Internal Collaborations & Partnerships Yes No Accreditation Yes No Departmental Advising Yes No Faculty & Staff Documentation Faculty Credentials & Certifications- See Appendix A Professional Development Activities Pam Scott earned 3 credits at GVSU taking Social and Cultural Implications of Education 5
Jennifer Batten traveled to Washington DC to review proposals for the National Science Foundation. Tom Neils traveled to a BCCE planning session at Penn State University. Matt Wang completed online teaching certification. Jennifer Batten attended the Great Teachers Event during the summer of 2012. Several department faculty have completed My Degree Path training. Tom Neils and Jennifer Batten are enrolled in the OHCC. Sandy Andrews attended the Michigan Academy for Nutrition and Dietetics 2013 Annual Conference in Grand Rapids. EOL/Release Time Work NA Faculty & Staff Accomplishments/Awards The Grand Rapids Community College Foundation was awarded a $200,000 grant from the Wege Foundation to support the Wege Teachers of Tomorrow Scholarship program. Andy Bowne and Joe Hesse wrote the initial proposal, while Lisa Dopke, assisted in developing program outcomes and editing the proposal and Kathy Mullins shepherded the proposal through the final approval process. The NSF TUES Proposal entitled The Integration of Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry into a Twoyear Chemistry Curriculum and Independent Research Experiences that Bernard Liburd and Jennifer Batten submitted in May 2011 was funded. The $166K grant will purchase a GC-MS for the department, support faculty training on the instrument, supplies, travel and summer camps. Adjunct faculty member Giselle Mahoro has been accepted to the College of Human Medicine at MSU. Giselle will start her studies in the Fall of 2013. Pam Scott published From Verification to Guided-Inquiry: What Happens When a Chemistry Laboratory Curriculum Changes? in the January/February 2013 Journal of College Science Teaching. This paper is a collaboration with Thomas Pentecost, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Grand Valley State University and is part of Pam s Master s degree work. In addition, Pam has had another paper accepted for publication in Chemosphere. Will Millar was awarded his Ph.D. from James Cook University. Andrew Vanden Heuvel was named the Excellence in Teaching with Technology Award winner for 2013. Andrew received this honor for developing AS 103 and PH 115 in an all online format. Tom Neils was nominated for the Jerry Benham Faculty Staff Award for all of his extra work with students. As we know, Tom has been actively involved for many years with independent study students, service learning, and helping students find summer internships and research positions. Tom received his certificate of nomination at the GRCC Student Leadership Awards Banquet on April 5 th. Faculty Development for Upcoming Year NA Evaluation Questions 1. Can course assignments be made and scheduled based on the availability of credentialed faculty? Yes, for the most part. There is often difficulty in finding qualified instructors for physics courses. 6
2. Is the number of departmental faculty that are certified to teach online and through Academic Service Learning sufficient to achieve the curricular and delivery needs of the department? Yes 3. Do the number and ratio of Full-time/Adjunct faculty support the goals of the department? The department is managing, but more full time faculty would allow for increased community outreach, increased student-faculty interactions (advising, mentorship, independent studies etc.), better equipment maintenance and more time for professional development. Further, the potential for numerous retirements in the next few years may leave Physical Sciences scrambling to cover courses. 4. Is the professional development faculty and staff are receiving sufficient for them to maintain currency in their field and area(s) of expertise? The faculty remain current in their field because of their own effort and activities. Staying current in the sciences is not often supported by activities provided on the GRCC campus. 5. Are additional faculty or faculty development resources needed to support the goals of the department over the next four years? It is likely that some of the current full-time faculty will retire in the next four years and they will need to be replaced with full-time faculty or the College s reputation and ability to deliver a quality science education will be compromised. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Faculty credentialing Yes No Faculty online certification Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Ratio Fulltime/Adjunct faculty Yes No Faculty professional development Yes No Resources Yes No The Mission Statement of the Physical Sciences Department The mission of the Physical Sciences Department is to develop scientific literacy for general and continuing education students, prepare students for upper level health, science and engineering courses at transfer institutions, train students for employment in the chemical industry and support other departments at GRCC. It is the ultimate goal of the Physical Sciences Department to prepare students to work in their chosen careers and to achieve success upon transfer to baccalaureate granting institutions and beyond. 7
The learning outcomes for the disciplines within the Physical Sciences Department are: Demonstrate the ability to write for scientific purposes Describe the basic principles of science and apply them to problem solving Demonstrate competency in appropriate lab skills Apply mathematical concepts to find solutions to scientific problems Evaluate the merit and validity of current news/lay publications and commercial claims Astronomy Documentation Mission & Purpose Target Audiences Target Audience Courses Students seeking a lab science to meet general education requirements AS 103, AS 106, AS 108 Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? Yes, each discipline contributes to the overall goals of the Physical Sciences Department. 2. What are the various audiences for the courses within this discipline? Are the various being served appropriately through the existing variety of course offerings? Please see the table above and yes, the AS courses are meeting student needs to complete a lab science. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No Target Audience Yes No Data Documentation Course Enrollment by Semester- See Appendix B All sections of astronomy are at capacity. 8
Course Success Rates- See Appendix C Based on the small pool of data provided, the pass rates in AS sections are good as normally 80% or more students pass the course. Course Grade Distributions- See Appendix D Pass rates in the AS courses vary from 67% to 81% of students receiving grades in the A-C range. Evaluation Questions 1. Are all courses within the discipline viable based on the enrollment data (# of students who take the course in the academic year)? Yes. All sections of astronomy are at capacity. 2. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? Yes, the overall pass rates are appropriate in that about 4 out of 5 students enrolled in AS courses pass. A proper evaluation of sub-groups cannot be made based on the limited data provided. 3. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? Yes, the pass rates are acceptable. The Physical Sciences faculty believe that a 60% pass rate is acceptable and these courses exceed that rate. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Course enrollment Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Documentation Curriculum Department/Discipline Curriculum History (last eight years) 2008/2009- Two new courses, AS 106, The Solar System and Extra-Solar Planets, and AS 108, Stars, Galaxies and Cosmology were developed by Will Millar. These laboratory courses were offered beginning 2009/2010. 9
2011/ 2012- During the Fall of 2011, Interim Associate Dean Bill Faber proposed developing an on-line laboratory course in the Physical Sciences Department because GRCC would like to offer an all on-line degree that included a lab science in the near future (Associate in Arts Degree). The target date for the first offering was Fall 2012. The Physical Sciences faculty felt that AS 103 and PH 115 would be the best choices for initial offerings. Adjunct faculty member Andrew Vanden Heuvel expressed an interest in developing and teaching these courses. Andrew has extensive online teaching experience and has been approved as a certified faculty member for online/hybrid courses. AS 103 was developed as an all online course and was approved by the Associate Dean of ISIS, the Course Development Review Committee, and has met the course development rubric standards for quality at GRCC. AS 103 was offer in the fall of 2012 and the summer of 2013 and was filled to capacity. 2012/2013- Will Millar requested and was granted Departmental support for developing AS 106 and AS 108 for online delivery. Advisory Board Contributions NA Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendix E AS 103 Honors Courses- See Appendix E None Study Away Courses- See Appendix E None Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Equivalency Spreadsheet AS courses often transfer to area colleges and universities as lab science credit. Evaluation Questions 1. To what extent is the program curriculum aligned with external professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing external standards? Please explain. The AS courses meet external standards and transfer to other colleges and universities as lab science credit. 2. To what extent is the curriculum (course offerings) aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? [Transfer Institution Curriculum Comparison] Astronomy is not a service discipline like chemistry or physics and thus fewer colleges and universities will offer astronomy courses as they are less able to dual purpose these courses. Offering the astronomy courses at GRCC allows our students a somewhat unique opportunity to learn more about our world and beyond. 3. Do the program (discipline) outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes expected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? 10
Yes, the Department developed a measurable set of outcomes that apply to students who take one course or a sequence of courses in the Physical Sciences Department. These outcomes (listed earlier in this document) are appropriate goals for students taking AS courses. 4. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? Yes, the AS courses meet the needs of students seeking a laboratory science course(s). Students seeking breadth can opt for AS 103, while those seeking depth can take the AS 106 and AS 108 sequence. 5. Are the honors and study away offerings sufficient for the program? 6. Yes. There is no current request to add another general education science course to the Honors Program offerings. 7. Is experiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current experiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please explain. Students enrolled in AS courses routinely participate in class field trips. These trips include visits to the Chaffee Planetarium at the GRPM and the Veen Observatory in Lowell. Through these experiences, AS students gain a better understanding of how astronomy is part of their lives. 8. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to expect and manage change? AS courses are not workforce development courses. Students should not expect to gain employment based on taking a general education science course. 9. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with their subsequent coursework? Please explain. Yes, the AS courses are approved lab science courses and when they are take in conjunction with many other GRCC courses, and AA or AS degree can be obtained. 10. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student needs? Yes. While some in the Department remains skeptical about the effectiveness of online laboratory courses, these courses will continue to be offered to meet the needs of an all online Associate degree program. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: 11
Curriculum alignment with external professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Program Outcomes (not a program) Yes No Program Learning Outcomes (not a program) Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Course Offerings Yes No Documentation Trends in the Field Preparing for the future It is anticipated that the demand for employees trained in scientific fields will continue to increase and thus, the demand for science courses will also increase. Plans for Course Development/Revision/Elimination Over the Next Four Years There are no plans to develop, revise or eliminate any AS courses. Evaluation Questions 1. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the next four years? Please explain. Yes. There is a full time instructor who leads these courses by selecting a textbook, developing the labs, working with lab support and assisting adjunct faculty. There is a dedicated laboratory space for the AS courses. 2. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please explain. Yes, the Department has purchased the necessary equipment for this laboratory course. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: 12
Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No Chemistry Documentation Mission & Purpose Target Audiences Target Audience Course Students seeking a lab science to meet CHM 110 general education requirements Students majoring in engineering or sciences CHM 130, CHM 131, CHM 140, CHM 141, CHM 150, CHM 151, CHM 160, CHM 161, CHM 260, CHM 261, CHM 270, CHM 271, CHM 280, CHM 290 Students majoring in pre-professional CHM 130, CHM 131, CHM 140, CHM 141, CHM 150, programs such as pre-med, pharmacy, pre-vet CHM 151, CHM 160, CHM 161, CHM 250, CHM 251, etc. CHM 260, CHM 261, CHM 270, CHM 271 Students majoring in baccalaureate degree health professions such as nursing, physical therapy etc. Students majoring in Associate degree health programs CHM 120, CHM 230, CHM 231, CHM 240, CHM 250, CHM 251 CHM 101, CHM 210 Students majoring in Chemical Technology CHM 102, CHM 120, CHM 240, CHM 250, CHM 251, CHM 260, CHM 261, CHM 270, CHM 271, CHM 280, CHM 290 Students needing remedial work CHM 100, CHM 110 Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? Yes, Mission Statement reflects the purpose of the Department. 2. What are the various audiences for the courses within this discipline? Are the various being served appropriately through the existing variety of course offerings? Please see the table above. Yes, many students with different needs are appropriately served by the variety of CHM courses. Action Needed 13
Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No Target Audience Yes No Data Documentation (Curriculum Office will provide all data) Course Enrollment by Semester- See Appendix B It is clear that there is a demand for chemistry courses and that demand should only increase as the emphasis on STEM careers increases. The enrollment in chemistry is steady to increasing. The Physical Sciences Department was one of very few departments that saw an increase in enrollment. Overall credit was down 3.2% for Fall 2012 but Physical Sciences was actually up 9.2%. (source: 2012 Fall Enrollment Report) Course Success Rates- See Appendix C It is impossible to gain a good understanding or make a fair assessment of course success rates with the limited data (one semester) that was supplied for analysis. The data provides only a small set of data (students) in particularly the 200 level courses. However, course success in Chemistry varies based on level of course difficulty and motivation of the students taking a course. Overall, if a 2/3 pass rate is deemed to be acceptable, then students are passing at acceptable rates. Some of the courses with less challenging material (i.e. CHM 110) or highly motivated students (i.e.chm 120) see higher pass rates, while courses that are more challenging (i.e. CHM 260) have lower pass rates. Course Grade Distributions- See Appendix D The Department has determined that acceptable pass rates are 60% A-C grades and most CHM courses meet or exceed this threshold. Evaluation Questions 1. Are all courses within the discipline viable based on the enrollment data (# of students who take the course in the academic year)? Yes. Enrollment in all Physical Sciences courses is monitored regularly so that sections can be managed. 14
2. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? Yes. Students are passing at appropriate rates. The sample sets for the sub-group data are too small to draw meaningful conclusions. 3. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? The course grade distribution data shows an acceptable pass rate in most chemistry during most Fall semesters. In some cases, the pass rates are lower, but this is often due to the rigorous nature of the courses and lack of prerequisite enforcement when the prerequisite was taken the semester just prior. It is hoped that pass rates will improve in once this loophole in enforcement is closed. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Course enrollment Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Documentation Curriculum Department/Discipline Curriculum History (last eight years) 2009/2010 Introductory Organic and Biochemistry (CM 229/230) lab and lecture courses were developed by Sandy Andrews to meet the needs of students transferring to the BSN program at GVSU. Battery Technology Course (CM 170) was developed by Tom Neils based on Work Force Development /Training Solutions request to serve the incoming battery technology industry. General Chemistry Labs (CM 103/104/113) were revised by Bill Faber, Tom Neils and Bernard Liburd to add inquiry based labs and to add instrumental methods. 2010/2011 The new course developed by Tom Neils, CHM 170, for the Energy Storage Technology Program was approved on 9/24/2010 with very minor changes. Amy Kudrna worked on the development of the course. She completed this project during the summer semester of 2011. The CM to CHM process was complete. All of the chemistry courses were renumbered, recoded and CARPed. In order to better serve the students, CM 103, CM 104, CM 113, CM 114 and CM 241 were split into separate lecture and lab course components (and given new codes and 15
numbers). The students may now take the lecture without taking the laboratory portion of the course and vice versa. Perrigo Corp. informed Tom Neils that they would no longer accept the 1-year Chem Tech certificate for employment as a Chemical Technician and it was proposed that we discontinue this program. This process was complete in late spring of 2011. The Associate degree program is still very much active. Linda Bramble revamped the CM 210 Lab to reduce the scale of the experiments and to improve critical thinking skills. 2011/2012 CHM 170 (Battery Technology) was discontinued in 2012. The SWD was given ownership of the Battery Technology Program and it was determined that CHM 140 (General Chemistry II), which was part of the original proposed program and a corequisite to CHM 170, was too difficult for the students targeted for this program. The Deans Council Sub-Committee has approved the development of an online version of CHM 140. Bernard Liburd will work toward the development of this course. 2012/2013 Gas chromatography- mass spectrometry will be brought into the chemistry curriculum. Jennifer Batten and Tom Neils have enrolled in OHCC in order to develop CHM 290 in hybrid format. Advisory Board Contributions NA Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendix E CM 103 Honors Courses- See Appendix E There are no Chemistry courses listed in this section; however, this omission is an error. The Department currently offers Honors General Chemistry I and II lecture and lab (CHM 150,151,160, and 161). These courses are often omitted from the Honors Program because enrollment of Honors Program students is allowed. As CM 113 and 114, these courses predate the Honors Program at GRCC. Study Away Courses- See Appendix E NA Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Equivalency Spreadsheet The CHM courses are broadly transferable to a variety of colleges and universities. Evaluation Questions 1. To what extent is the program curriculum aligned with external professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing external standards? Please explain The chemistry courses at GRCC are aligned with transfer institutions. Our courses support science majors, the health professions and general education. The content (both depth and breadth) in the chemistry courses at GRCC meets and often exceeds that which taught in most chemistry curriculums. Physical Sciences courses have small student to teacher ratios and the laboratory courses are not taught by students but by professors and local chemistry professionals. The students have access to and use high end scientific equipment that is not often made available to freshman and sophomore level students. As evidence, many of our former students are very successful earning awards at transfer institutions and 16
earning advanced degrees in the sciences and medical professions. Our industry partners (Amway, Perrigo, Corium, MSU Bioeconomy Institute and Gentex), often seek out students educated at GRCC when looking for employees and interns as they are pleased with the depth and breadth of their preparation. 2. To what extent is the curriculum (course offerings) aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? The alignment with transfer institutions is excellent and Physical Sciences Department chemistry courses support a variety of programs at transfer institutions. The CHM courses offered support many degree paths as listed in the table at the beginning of this section. GRCC courses also transfer to out of state colleges, but in these cases Department members work with the transfer institutions to provide syllabi and course materials. 3. Do the program (discipline) outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes expected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? Yes, the Department developed a measurable set of outcomes that apply to students who take one course or a sequence of courses in Physical Sciences. These outcomes are listed earlier in this document and reflect the goal of the CHM courses. The Department has several assessment projects of CHM courses based on these outcomes. In the future, the Department may split these outcomes into lecture versus lab courses. 4. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? Yes, as there are chemistry courses for students seeking breath such as Chemistry in the Modern World and for those seeking depth such as the General Chemistry to Organic Chemistry to Quantitative Analysis sequence of nine courses. At this time, no courses should be added or eliminated. 5. Are the honors and study away offerings sufficient for the program? While omitted from the honors courses at the end of this document, General Chemistry I and II are offered in an honors format. There are no plans to create specific Honors Program sections. The reasons for this are: 1. There is not a significant population of honors students to fill specific sections of 200 level courses. 2. There is currently an honors sections of low level lab course in another department and there has been no demand to add more. Further, several faculty in the Physical Sciences Department feel that it is not appropriate to treat low level courses as honors courses and that these students should actually simply take more challenging coursework, such as the courses for science majors. 17
6. Is experiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current experiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please explain. Yes, several of the chemistry faculty have engaged students in Academic Service Learning projects. The projects are incorporated as opportunities arise. Including ASL in coursework is a significant undertaking by the faculty and Lab Coordinator s staff (both in workload and cost) and thus it cannot be embedded into courses. Each proposed project is evaluated for impact and increased workload before it is added to an individual section. The support of the Dean s office has been greatly appreciated. The chemistry faculty do use connections to local industry to assist students who have potential to be successful in scientific careers in finding employment and internships. This work is not required by or embedded in the coursework, but carried out based on case-by-case need. 7. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to expect and manage change? Please explain. Science is not static, it changes as theories and models improve and understanding grows. As new data is acquired, we must accept change and modify our beliefs. Upon completion of science courses, ideally students would apply what they have learned about scientific theory (observation, explanation, modification, and repeat) in all aspects of their lives so that they can anticipate and manage change. 8. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with their subsequent coursework? Please explain. Regardless of subsequent coursework, at GRCC or elsewhere, the Physical Sciences courses prepare students to be successful. Some courses are content driven and prepare students for further scientific coursework while others focus on exposing student to science, the scientific method and the application of science in future coursework and professions. Several courses introduce students to the rigors of college level science classes and serve to direct and redirect student toward future academic goals. 9. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student needs? Currently, there are no chemistry courses offered on-line. In the past, CM 103 was offered in a hybrid format and CHM 140 has been approved for online development. There have no requests from students to the Department Head for online chemistry courses. We have requested support for the development of CHM 290 in hybrid format. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Curriculum alignment with external professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Program Outcomes Yes No 18
Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Course Offerings Yes No Documentation Assessment of Student Learning Assessment of Student Writing in the Organic Chemistry I and II Labs (CHM 261 and CHM 271) Jennifer Batten and Thomas Neils Program Learning Outcome(s) assessed this year The Program Learning Outcome assessed in this project was Demonstrate the ability to write for scientific purposes. Measures of Student Learning In CHM 261, the writing quality in the Conclusions section of 57 student papers (over 2 semesters-fall 2011 and Fall 2012) on Lab 8: Fischer Esterification Reaction was evaluated. In CHM 271, the writing quality in the Conclusions section of 16 student papers on Lab 2: The Reduction of Methyl Oleate was evaluated. These 16 students had previously taken CHM 261. The measurement tool used in this evaluation was an adapted (for scientific writing) version of the College s Writing Rubric-Fall 2010. Initial Data and Findings In CHM 261, the average score was 6.5 out of 12 points, which was below what would be considered proficient at scientific writing. If an acceptable level of writing is determined to be an 8 (average proficient in all 4 areas), it was determined that only 20 of the 57 students evaluated could write an appropriate scientific conclusion for Organic Chemistry I lab. Overall, the problems in most of the cases of weak conclusion writing result from the: Failure to clearly and concisely state the goal of the experiment Excessive use of summarizing or simply rewriting procedures, rather than focusing on discussing the data and the meaning Failure to sum up and end the story, the Conclusion just seems to stop without closure Poor use of paragraphing in that either the Conclusion section is one or two very large paragraphs or a paragraph consists of one or two sentences 19
Use of I or we when all reference to people should be avoided Use of flowery phrases that sound intellectual, but merely take up space In the Winter 2012 section of CHM 271, the average score was 8.8 out of 12 points, which would be considered proficient at scientific writing. If an acceptable level of writing is determined to be an 8 (average proficient in all 4 areas), it was determined that 10 of the 16, or nearly 2/3, students evaluated can write an appropriate scientific conclusion for Organic Chemistry II lab. This result shows an overall improvement from Organic Chemistry I, where the average score was 6.5/12 and only 1/3 of the class wrote at an acceptable level. One may ask if the students who wrote poorly were less likely to take Organic Chemistry II. Based on observations, it is apparent that writing ability has little to do with success in the lecture portions of this course and it is the success in the lecture portions that determines if students continue into CHM 271. Further, some high end programs (veterinary and some medical schools) do not require 2 semesters of lab and therefore, it is many of the stronger students who do not take the second lab. The results do show improvement (most likely due to rigorous grading and corrections), from CHM 261 to CHM 271, but it is believed that more improvements can be made. Curricular or Pedagogical Changes Implemented The two main changes to the teaching approach were changes to the wording of the CHM 271 syllabus and the addition of a new assignment that was given before the students attempted any writing in the Winter semester of 2013. The changes to the syllabus included adding questions that the students could reflect on as they were writing the elements reports. The assignment that was added provided the students with two student reportsone of very good quality and the other of poor quality. The students were required to grade the reports based on information given in the syllabus and to then answer questions about the reports. It was hoped that providing the students with sample reports, that they will better see what good and bad writing looks like and will make an effort to achieve excellence. Data and Findings (post improvement/change) During the Winter semester of 2013, 30 students who were enrolled in CHM 271 were evaluated for the ability to write conclusions in Lab 2: The Reduction of Methyl Oleate. These students were evaluated post pedagogical changes. Of the 30 students, only 6 or 20% failed to write at a level considered proficient (8/12 points on the rubric). This data is an improvement over the 33% who were not proficient prior to the changes. The average score was 9.5 out of 12, which was an improvement over 8.8 that was measured before implementing the changes. The goal of this project has been achieved in that student writing was improved. Documentation Basic Chemistry (CHM100) Assessment Project Submitted by Linda Bramble Program Learning Outcome(s) assessed this year The goal of this project was to assess the PLO: Apply mathematical concepts to find solutions to scientific problems in Basic Chemistry (CHM 100). Basic Chemistry is designed for students that do not have the H.S. chemistry perquisite necessary for success in a college level general chemistry course. After a discussion with other general chemistry instructors, it was agreed 20
that mathematical skill is a main predictor for success. Thus, a decision was made to teach the course differently focusing on problem solving with mathematics. Measures of Student Learning In order to assess success, a 6 question math test was written to give as both a pre- and a post-test. The pre-test was necessary to determine the level of mathematical skill before the class so an assessment could be made from comparison with the post-test. This project ran from winter 2012 through winter 2013; which covered four semesters. The data was considered at the end of the first semester (winter 2012 shown below) and changes were made in teaching this course based on the results. At the end of the winter 2013 semester the data was analyzed to compare against the first semester, winter 2013 in conclude if the changes made were impacting student learning. Initial Data and Findings Results from winter 2012: Of the 20 students who turned in both a pre-test and a post- test: 20% showed improvement in mathematical skills 5% showed a decline in mathematical skills 75% showed no change in mathematical skills Conclusion: There was no shown improvement in mathematics and problem solving skills. Comments on the interpretation of results: The students that showed no change received a score of 5/6 on the pre-test. The one question that all but one student got wrong had additional information that was not necessary for solving the problem. This required them to be able to decide what information was needed. There were more attempts at the problem-solving using the skills covered in the course on the post-test than on the pre-test. Everyone knew how to do the first problem before the course. Not everyone turned in both a pre-test and a posttest. Curricular or Pedagogical Changes Implemented Reflections and suggested procedures for improvement: 1. The post-exam was given with (but separate from) the final exam which took 1.5 to 2 hours to complete for most of the students. If they worked the post-test at all it was done quickly and without much effort. There was no credit given or points granted for doing the post-test. As a result assessment questions were incorporated into the final exam and credit was given. 2. Too much work was done on the board by the instructor. More work needs to be done by the students in class. The students need to discover some of the problem-solving on their own and held accountable by grades for their work. As a result, topics were still introduced, and group work for the students in class continues, but it was followed by individual work done in class that was turned in that day and graded. Less work will be done on the board to explain what they have not tried. 3. All students that turned in a pre-test already knew how to do the first problem. Thus, Problem #1 was removed from the test. 4. Only one student was able to solve the problem with the extra information in the story. So, the class now includes more problems with information given that is not required for solving the question asked. 5. Not every-one turned in a pre-test. Effort was made to receive a pre-test from everyone to aid in the assessment. This pretest became a graded assignment and a required part of the course. Data and Findings (post improvement/change) Results from the next three semesters of this course using the suggested procedures for improvement: 58% showed improvement in mathematical skills 21
4% showed a decline in mathematical skills 38% showed no change in mathematical skills Conclusion: This result shows a marked increase in mathematical performance. Comments on the interpretation of results: The students that showed no change had more of a variation in their mathematical skills in the pre-test than seen from the first analysis. The one question that most students got wrong had additional information that was not necessary for solving the problem. This required them to be able to decide what information was needed. There were more attempts at problem-solving using the skills covered in the course on the post-test than on the pre-test. Reflections and suggested procedures for future improvement: 1. The post-exam was given with the pre-test questions disbursed among the other test questions on their final exam. This resulted in more attempts to answer the questions since they were part of their final exam grade. 2. Accountability was incorporated more regularly into the course. Topics were introduced with discussion and board work. Understanding of concepts was often checked by pairs working on a true or false question and explaining their answers to the class. After the material was covered and problem solving was demonstrated group work was done on worksheets that they could keep. These problems were reviewed and questions encouraged after the time limit was up. They were then given a new worksheet covering the same material but they had to work it out on their own in class and turn in it for grading. It was then solved for them on the board and questions were allowed. 3. Problem #1 was removed from the pre-test and was not included in these results since it was observed to be prior knowledge for everyone. 4. Many more students were able to solve the problem with the extra information in the story. More work still needs to be done on reading a question and pulling out of the problem the information that is needed to answer the question posed. 5. Points were given for completing the pre-test. As a result only a few were missing from students who registered late and never made arrangements to complete the pre-test. This resulted in more complete data for the assessment. Overall Comment: Accountability seemed to be the most significant factor in students demonstrated increase in problem solving. A clear, well-defined goal was also important as well as reinforcing required skills by presenting them with repeated attempts. Concept work was necessary. They often thought they understood until they were challenged, this encouraged questions and further reinforcement of the material. This method requires that overall less material is covered in the course. Feedback from students taking the next chemistry course has been supportive of having completed this course before taking regular general chemistry. Documentation CHM 120 Significant Digits Study Submitted by Britt Price Program Learning Outcome(s) assessed this year The PLO assessed in this project was: Demonstrate competency in appropriate lab skills in CHM 120. Specifically, students must be able to properly make measurements and perform calculations in the laboratory. The measurements and results must be reported with the correct level of uncertainty. Measures of Student Learning 22
For each lab, the total number of measurements and calculated results was determined. Then for each student, the number of incorrectly reported significant digits was recorded. A percentage of incorrect significant digit usage was calculated. Initial Data and Findings Immediately after instruction, most students had the lowest percentage of incorrect usage. As the semester progressed, the percentage of incorrect usage tended to increase. Curricular or Pedagogical Changes Implemented Short reminder lessons should be implemented with every quantitative laboratory experiment. This change was implemented during the second semester of the course. Additionally, reminders regarding significant digits, units, and sample calculations should be included in future versions of experiment instructions. Data and Findings (post improvement/change) When periodic refresher lectures were delivered, slight improvements in correct significant digit use were noted. The students that perform the experiment more carefully, record observations and measurements, and write thorough discussions are the same students that record measurements and report results with the proper number of significant digits. Reports with incomplete discussions also tend to have missing observations and more errors in use of units and significant figures. The periodic refresher lectures did not impact the correct use of significant digits for either the best or worst students. However, the improvements were noticed primarily with students who tended to have 10 to 15% incorrect usage in significant digits. 23
Evaluation 1. What are your greatest needs for support in order to continue to move forward with your assessment work? Data collection and assessment are naturally a part of science and therefore, assessment work is a natural fit in the Physical Sciences Department and we are able to carry out this work without assistance. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Identifying Measures for each Program Learning Outcome Yes No Reporting out longitudinal data in a meaningful format Yes No Creating meaningful improvement projects Yes No Documentation Trends in the Field Preparing for the future It is anticipated that the demand for employees trained in scientific fields will continue to increase and thus, the demands for science courses will also increase. Plans for Course Development/Revision/Elimination Over the Next Four Years There are no plans for new course development or significant revisions in the next four years as the current courses are meeting student needs. Currently, all courses are appropriately filled with students and/or serving a populations of students with specific coursework needs; therefore, no courses will be eliminated. Evaluation Questions 1. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the next four years? Please explain. Yes, as there are no anticipated changes, no additional resources are needed. 2. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please explain. In the next four years, the Department anticipates a significant need to upgrade laboratory equipment. Much of the equipment was purchased with the construction of the Calkins Science Center and is reaching the end of its lifespan and / or is simply no longer compatible with new technology. In order to continue 24
offering a high quality education to our students, plans to replace aging and expensive equipment should be made. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No 25
Engineering Documentation Mission & Purpose Target Audiences Target Audience Course Students majoring in engineering EG 208, EG 212, EG 215 Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? Yes, the Mission Statement reflects the purpose of the Physical Sciences Department. 2. What are the various audiences for the courses within this discipline? Are the various student populations being served appropriately through the existing variety of course offerings? See the table above for the target audience. The enrollment in the EG courses assigned to Physical Sciences has dwindled over the years as more transfer institutions have uniquely customized their engineering programs such that these courses no longer transfer. Further, several disciplines within Engineering Colleges no longer require these courses, meaning that fewer students who transfer to schools that still accept these courses need to enroll. These courses have been offered in recent years but rarely attract enough students to justify running the courses. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No Target Audience Yes No Data Documentation (Curriculum Office will provide all data) Course Enrollment by Semester- See Appendix B 26
No data was provided in Appendix B for the EG courses, but we know from experience that the courses have very low enrollment for the reasons explained above. Course Success Rates- See Appendix C NA Course Grade Distributions- See Appendix D NA Evaluation Questions 1. Are all courses within the discipline viable based on the enrollment data (# of students who take the course in the academic year)? The enrollment in the EG courses assigned to Physical Sciences has dwindled over the years as more transfer institutions have uniquely customized their Engineering programs such that these courses no longer transfer. Further, several disciplines within Engineering Colleges no longer require these courses, meaning that fewer students who transfer to schools that still accept these courses need to enroll. These courses have been offered in recent years but rarely attract enough students to justify offering the courses. 2. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? These courses have not been offered in recent years and it is not possible to evaluate pass rates. 3. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? These courses have not been offered in recent years and it is not possible to evaluate grade distributions. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Course enrollment Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Documentation Curriculum Department/Discipline Curriculum History (last eight years) 27
No changes to the curriculum to note. Advisory Board Contributions NA Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendix E NA Honors Courses- See Appendix E NA Study Away Courses- See Appendix E NA Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Equivalency Spreadsheet Due to changing trends at transfer institution Engineering Programs, the EG courses at GRCC have seen a significant drop in enrollment. It is unlikely that this trend will reverse as each institution has unique requirements and it is not possible to revise the courses to meet all of the specific demands made by outside groups. Evaluation Questions 1. To what extent is the program curriculum aligned with external professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing external standards? Please explain. The Engineering courses do teach skills that are important to engineering professionals. However, it is virtually impossible to align these courses with all engineering programs. One example is that Statics (EG 208 at GRCC) is taught with strength of materials at the University of Michigan and Grand Valley State University, but at Western, Michigan Tech and Michigan State University the course is taught without this topic. 2. To what extent is the curriculum (course offerings) aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? Due to changing trends at transfer institution Engineering Programs, the EG courses at GRCC have seen a significant drop in enrollment. It is unlikely that this trend will reverse as each institution has unique requirements and it is not possible to revise the courses to meet all of the specific demands. 3. Do the program (discipline) outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes expected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? Yes, the Physical Sciences Department developed a measurable set of outcomes that apply to students who take one course or a sequence of courses in Physical Sciences. These outcomes (listed earlier in this document) include the goals of EG courses. 4. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? 28
Engineering courses most often delve into a very specific topic and are not meant to offer breadth. The EG courses at GRCC specifically and appropriately delve into the topics of statics and dynamics. 5. Are the honors and study away offerings sufficient for the program? The student population taking EG courses is not sufficient to offer honors sections or to travel abroad. 6. Is experiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current experiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please explain. No, experiential learning is not included in the engineering courses and is better addressed in other courses. 7. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to expect and manage change? Please explain. As in all science based courses theories and models improve and understanding grows. As new data is acquired, change must be accepted and beliefs modified. Upon completion of science courses, ideally students would apply what they have learned about scientific theory (observation, explanation, modification, and repeat) in all aspects of their lives so that they can anticipate and manage change. Regardless of subsequent coursework, at GRCC or elsewhere, the engineering courses prepare students to be successful. 8. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with their subsequent coursework? Please explain. Due to changing trends at transfer institution Engineering Programs, the EG courses at GRCC have seen a significant drop in enrollment. It is unlikely that this trend will reverse as each institution has unique requirements and it is not possible to revise the courses to meet all of the specific demands. Therefore many students transfer before taking the EG courses at GRCC. 9. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student needs? There is currently no student demand for online EG courses. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Curriculum alignment with external professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Program Outcomes Yes No Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No 29
Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Course Offerings Yes No Documentation Trends in the Field Preparing for the future While STEM fields are emphasized and it is hoped that more students will select engineering as a career, it is difficult to determine the future of the EG courses at GRCC. If all state schools were required to better align their curriculum, EG courses could be developed that would align with our main transfer institutions and would serve students. Plans for Course Development/Revision/Elimination Over the Next Four Years The Physical Sciences Department has no plans to revise or eliminate the EG courses over the next four years. The Department will take a wait and see stance before determining the fate of these courses. Evaluation Questions 1. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the next four years? Please explain. Yes. The only resource needed at this time to offer this course is a qualified instructor. 2. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please explain. The facilities are adequate to teach this course. The course has no lab component and only requires a lecture space. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No 30
Geology Documentation Mission & Purpose Mission/Purpose Statement Students completing a Geology course will be able to: Describe plate tectonic boundaries and the features created by plate motions. Relate landforms or rock properties to the processes that formed the features. Discuss the ways running water can alter the surface of the earth. Target Audiences Target Audience Course Students seeking a lab science to meet general education GL 101, GL 104, GL 105 requirements Students majoring in science GL 101, GL 104 Students majoring in Elementary Education GL 104, GL 111 Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? Yes, in addition to achieving the Departmental Learning outcomes, GL students meet the outcomes described above. 2. What are the various audiences for the courses within this discipline? Are the various audiences being served appropriately through the existing variety of course offerings? Please see the table above. GL courses serve a variety of students with goals outlined in the above table. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No Target Audience Yes No Data Documentation (Curriculum Office will provide all data) 31
Course Enrollment by Semester- See Appendix B Based on practice and evidence from the Online Center, it is clear that there is a demand for GL courses and that demand should only increase as the emphasis on STEM careers increases. The enrollment in GL courses is steady to slightly increasing. The Physical Sciences Department was one of very few departments that saw an increase in enrollment. Overall credit was down 3.2% for Fall 2012, but Physical Sciences as a whole was actually up 9.2%. (source: 2012 Fall Enrollment Report) Course Success Rates- See Appendix C Based on the small pool of data provided, the pass rates in GL sections are good as normally 66% or more students pass the course. Course Grade Distributions- See Appendix D The Department has determined that acceptable pass rates are 60% A-C grades and most GL courses meet or exceed this threshold each semester. During some semesters GL 111 has fallen below this threshold, but on average the pass rate is 64.5%, which exceeds expectations. Evaluation Questions 1. Are all courses within the discipline viable based on the enrollment data (# of students who take the course in the academic year)? Yes, all GL courses are viable based on enrollment data from the Online Center. All sections of GL courses are normally filled to capacity. 2. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? Yes, the overall pass rates are appropriate if an acceptable pass rate is two out of three students passing a given course. In most cases, the GL courses meet or exceed this goal. In the data set provided, only 55 % of students attempting GL 111 successfully completed the course, but one course section of data does not make a trend and this could be an anomaly. Analysis of the sub-groups data is meaningless as the data sets are very small. 3. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? The pass rates for the GL courses are appropriate. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Course enrollment Yes No 32
Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Documentation Curriculum Department/Discipline Curriculum History (last eight years) 2008/2009-Teaching science courses that are part of the FSU Elementary Education Science Minor began. Curricular changes were made to mesh with FSU and the Department of Education requirements. This work was done by Joe Hesse, Elaine Kampmueller and Sandy Andrews. The Geology courses included in program are GL 111 and GL 104. Advisory Board Contributions NA Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendix E None at this time, but the development of a hybrid GL 101 is in progress. Honors Courses- See Appendix E None Study Away Courses- See Appendix E None Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Equivalency Spreadsheet According to the Michigan Transfer Network, the GL courses at GRCC transfer appropriately. Evaluation Questions 1. To what extent is the program curriculum aligned with external professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing external standards? Please explain. GL 111 is aligned with state and national professional standards for pre-service teachers as determined by the NGSS curriculum crosswalk. The next generation of science standards will be available for review during the spring of 2013, which may lead to curriculum adjustments in GL 111, GL 104 and GL105. 2. To what extent is the curriculum (course offerings) aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? According to the Michigan Transfer Network, the GL courses at GRCC transfer appropriately. Course offerings cover the most commonly taught first year Geology courses for those pursuing geology or related science majors, including elementary education. 33
3. Do the program (discipline) outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes expected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? Yes, the Department developed a measurable set of outcomes that apply to students who take one course or a sequence of courses in Physical Sciences. These outcomes are listed earlier in this document. All of these outcomes are clearly stated, embedded in and evaluated in the GL courses. 4. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? GL 101 is a survey course that introduces students to a broad array of topics in Geology, while GL 104 and GL 105 offer a more in depth look at specific topics. Together, these courses meet the need of a wide range of students. Further, when PC 101 and PC 111 are taken with GL 111 the student is prepared to pass the Michigan Test for Teacher Competency. 5. Are the honors and study away offerings sufficient for the program? There has been no request to add another general education science course to the Honors Program. Further, Geology doesn t have enough pre-major students to offer specific honors sections or develop inhouse Study Away opportunities, though honors contracts would be considered. 6. Is experiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current experiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please explain. Students enrolled in GL courses routinely participate in class field trips. These trips include visits to the Chaffee Planetarium at the GRPM and walking tours of Grand Rapids. Adjunct faculty member Tari Mattox has taken her students on fossil hunting trips at the Falls of Ohio State Park in Indiana. Through these experiences, GL students gain a better understanding of how geology is part of their lives. 7. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to expect and manage change? Please explain. Science is not static, it changes as theories and models improve and understanding grows. As new data is acquired, we must accept change and modify our beliefs. Upon completion of science courses, ideally students would apply what they have learned about scientific theory (observation, explanation, modification, and repeat) in all aspects of their lives so that they can anticipate and manage change. Further, the critical thinking skills gained in science courses prepare student to manage change and become lifelong learners. 8. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with their subsequent coursework? Please explain. Regardless of subsequent coursework, at GRCC or elsewhere, the Physical Sciences courses prepare students to be successful. Some courses are content driven and prepare students for further scientific coursework while others focus on exposing student to science, the scientific method and the application of science in future coursework and professions. For example, GL 104 and GL 111 not only prepare students to succeed in 400-level teaching methods courses, but are also part of completing a four-year 34
degree to become certified teachers. The Geology courses offered serve as the prerequisite courses for most 300-level Geology courses. They contain the basic concepts required for related subjects. 9. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student needs? GL 101 will be developed as a hybrid course within the next year. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Curriculum alignment with external professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Program Outcomes Yes No Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Course Offerings Yes No Trends in the Field Preparing for the future It is anticipated that the demand for employees trained in scientific fields will continue to increase and thus, the demands for science courses will also increase. Plans for Course Development/Revision/Elimination Over the Next Four Years There are no current plans to make significant changes to any geology courses in the next four years. Evaluation Questions 1. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the next four years? Please explain. Yes, as there are no anticipated changes, no additional resources are needed. 35
2. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please explain. The Geology Lab is in need of additional and different storage spaces to properly store the large collection of specimens. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No 36
Physics Target Audiences Mission & Purpose Target Audience Course Students seeking a lab science to meet PH 115 general education requirements Students majoring in engineering or PH 245, PH 246 sciences Students majoring in pre-professional PH 125, PH 126 programs such as pre-med, pharmacy, pre-vet etc. Students majoring in baccalaureate PH 125, PH 126 degree health professions such as nursing, physical therapy etc. Students majoring in Chemical PH 115, PH 125, PH 126 Technology or other technical programs Students needing remedial work PH 115 Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? Yes, Mission Statement reflects the purpose of the Physical Sciences Department and thus physics. 2. What are the various audiences for the courses within this discipline? Are the various being served appropriately through the existing variety of course offerings? Please see the table above. A variety of student populations are served by the physics course offerings. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No Target Audience Yes No Data Documentation (Curriculum Office will provide all data) 37
Course Enrollment by Semester- See Appendix B It is clear that there is a demand for physics courses and that demand should only increase as the emphasis on STEM careers increases. The enrollment in physics is steady to increasing. The Physical Sciences Department was one of very few departments that saw an increase in enrollment. Overall credit was down 3.2% for Fall 2012 but Physical Sciences was actually up 9.2%. (source: 2012 Fall Enrollment Report) Course Success Rates- See Appendix C It is impossible to gain a good understanding or make a fair assessment of course success rates with the limited data (one semester) that was supplied for analysis. The data provides only a small set of data (students), particularly in the 200 level courses. However, course success in physics courses varies based on level of course difficulty and motivation of the students taking a course. Overall, if a 2/3 pass rate is deemed to be acceptable, then students are passing at acceptable rates. Some of the courses with better prepared students (i.e. PH 245) or highly motivated students (i.e. PH 125) see higher pass rates, while courses that have students with less math and science skills (i.e. PH 115) have lower pass rates. Course Grade Distributions- See Appendix D The Department has determined that acceptable pass rates are 60% A-C grades and most PH courses meet or exceed this threshold. Evaluation Questions 1. Are all courses within the discipline viable based on the enrollment data (# of students who take the course in the academic year)? Based on practice only, it is clear that there is a demand for physics courses and that demand should only increase as the emphasis on STEM careers increases. The enrollment in physics is steady to increasing. The Physical Sciences Department was one of very few departments that saw an increase in enrollment. Overall credit was down 3.2% for Fall 2012 but Physical Sciences was actually up 9.2%. (source: 2012 Fall Enrollment Report) 2. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? Yes, Students are passing physics courses at appropriate rates. The question concerning sub-group pass rates cannot be answered based on the small sample of data provided. 3. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? The course grade distributions are appropriate for each course. Students are passing physics at a rate that exceeds the Department s acceptable success rate of 60% of students receiving A-C grades. In some cases the success rates are at or near 100%, which is due to the fact that most students in these courses have successfully completed prerequisite material and are well prepared for the course. 38
Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Course enrollment Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Documentation Curriculum Department/Discipline Curriculum History (last eight years) 2008/2009 Matt Wang rewrote and updated the curriculum in PH 115 with the help of Jared Johnson, and Will Millar to better meet the need of the Electronic Technology Program. 2011/2012 During the Fall of 2011, Interim Associate Dean Bill Faber proposed developing an online laboratory course in the Physical Sciences Department because GRCC would like to offer an all on-line degree that included a lab science in the near future (Associate in Arts Degree). The target date for the first offering was Fall 2012. The Physical Sciences faculty felt that AS 103 and PH 115 would be the best choices for initial offerings. Adjunct faculty member Andrew Vanden Heuvel expressed an interest in developing and teaching these courses. Andrew has extensive online teaching experience and has been approved as a certified faculty member for online/hybrid courses. PH 115 and AS 103 were developed as all online courses and have been approved by the Associate Dean of ISIS, the Course Development Review Committee, and have met the course development rubric standards for quality at GRCC. AS 103 was offered in the fall of 2012 and PH 115 was first offered the winter of 2013. The enrollment in this course was strong. Advisory Board Contributions NA Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendix E PH 115 Honors Courses- See Appendix E None Study Away Courses- See Appendix E None Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Equivalency Spreadsheet The Physics courses are aligned with the offerings of most transfer institutions. The three levels of physics offered at GRCC (technical, college and calculus based) are long standing and traditional courses offered by all higher learning institutions. 39
Evaluation Questions 1. To what extent is the program curriculum aligned with external professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing external standards? Please explain. The main external alignment that is required for the Physics courses at GRCC is that the courses continue to be transferable to other colleges and universities. The Physics courses are accepted by our partners. 2. To what extent is the curriculum (course offerings) aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? The Physics courses are aligned with the offerings of most transfer institutions. The three levels of physics offered at GRCC (technical, college and calculus based) are long standing and traditional courses offered by nearly all higher learning institutions. 3. Do the program (discipline) outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes expected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? Yes, the Department developed a measurable set of outcomes that apply to students who take one course or a sequence of courses in Physical Sciences. These outcomes are listed earlier in this document and reflect the goal of physics courses. The Department has several assessment projects based on these outcomes, including one physics project. 4. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? There are three levels of physics offered at GRCC that meet both the breadth and depth requirements of different populations of students. PH 115 offers breadth for technical program majors, while PH 125/126 offers more depth for students majoring in health professions, and PH 245/246 offers a calculus based experience for science and engineering majors. 5. Are the honors and study away offerings sufficient for the program? Students seeking a true honors experience should enroll in the PH 245 /246 sequence of courses. These courses, while not included in the Honors Program, offer an in depth and challenging course in physics. 6. Is experiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current experiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please explain. Experiential learning is not included in the physics courses because the extensive course content does not allow time for additional activities. 40
7. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to expect and manage change? Please explain. Science is not static, it changes as theories and models improve and understanding grows. As new data is acquired, we must accept change and modify our beliefs. Upon completion of science courses, ideally students would apply what they have learned about scientific theory (observation, explanation, modification, and repeat) in all aspects of their lives so that they can anticipate and manage change. The Physics faculty are committed to updating the course material in order to keep pace with scientific discoveries and a changing job market. 8. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with their subsequent coursework? Please explain. Regardless of subsequent coursework, at GRCC or elsewhere, the Physical Sciences courses prepare students to be successful. Some courses are content driven and prepare students for further scientific coursework while others focus on exposing student to science, the scientific method and the application of science in future coursework and professions. Several courses introduce students to the rigors of college level science classes and serve to direct and redirect student toward future academic goals. 9. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student needs? PH 115 is offered for the first time during the Winter 2013 semester. The demand for the course was strong and it was one of the first courses to fill with students. However, the Department is taking a wait and see stance on the effectiveness of online laboratory courses. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Curriculum alignment with external professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Program Outcomes Yes No Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Course Offerings Yes No 41
Assessment of Student Learning Physics 125 Lab Assessment Project Submitted by Robert Cebelak Documentation-see Appendix Z for more information. Program Learning Outcome(s) assessed this year The PLO measured in this assessment project was: Demonstrate competency in appropriate lab skills in the Physics 125 Lab. Measures of Student Learning At the end of the semester in Physics 125 students have a lab quiz covering the main skills used and practiced in the lab over the course of the semester. This lab quiz is one of few times in the semester that students do not work in groups of 2 or more, so provides a chance to check individual student learning in a way that week to week lab work does not. Initial Data and Findings Year one baseline data indicated that a significant number of students had weaknesses in areas that were assumed prerequisite to the course including understanding the relative sizes of decimal numbers, placing numbers on number lines or graph scales, and reading graph scales and analog instruments. Data from year one included in the appendix. Curricular or Pedagogical Changes Implemented Introductory labs had sections added to practice on these prerequisite skills. In addition, lecture discussions pointed directly at the graphing concerns when instantaneous velocity calculations from graphs were covered in lecture. A lecture quiz including slope calculations was modified to make it more likely that students with weaknesses would make mistakes. On quizzes and tests point deductions for these mistakes were increased compared to past practice in an attempt to get students to assess their mistakes. Data and Findings (post improvement/change) There was a small but possibly real improvement in students final quiz performance in both areas emphasized. In Fall 2011 only about 50% of students correctly recorded measurements with the analog Vernier calipers and thermometers, in Fall 2012 that increased to about 60%. The graph point placement mistake rate went from 65% of students in Fall 2011 to about 50% of students in Fall 2012. Still, considering the mistakes made primarily relate to prerequisite skills, the number is still frighteningly high. A quirk in the way data was recorded in Fall 2012 also brought out what likely should have been an expected trend. Students that scored highest in Physics 125 overall also had the lowest error rate when assessing the prerequisite number skills. For example, 37% of students ranking in the top third of Physics 125 grade points at the end of the course had graph point placement weaknesses, compared to 65% of the students in the bottom third, and 90% of the students with C- or below grades. A common hope is that a semester of practicing numerical problems in class and homework will help students become more numerically literate. It is clear from the lab quiz data that this is not a skill that automatically improves in the course of one semester. 42
There is related data from a Physics 125 algebra review sheet students turn in during the first few days of the semester. There is a strong correlation between student ability to correctly perform 8 th and 9 th grade algebra and the final grade in the Physics 125 course. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of students smooth out their rusty algebra skills during the course of the semester, but numerical evidence suggests otherwise. Evaluation 1. What are your greatest needs for support in order to continue to move forward with your assessment work? Data collection and assessment are naturally a part of science and therefore, assessment work is a natural fit in the Physical Sciences Department and we are able to carry out this work without assistance. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Identifying Measures for each Program Learning Outcome Yes No Reporting out longitudinal data in a meaningful format Yes No Creating meaningful improvement projects Yes No Documentation Trends in the Field Preparing for the future It is anticipated that the demand for employees trained in scientific fields will continue to increase and thus, the demands for science courses will also increase. Plans for Course Development/Revision/Elimination Over the Next Four Years There are no current plans to make significant changes to any physics courses in the next four years. Evaluation Questions 2. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the next four years? Please explain. Yes, as there are no anticipated changes, no additional resources are needed. 2. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please explain. In the next four years, the Department anticipates a significant need to upgrade laboratory equipment. Much of the equipment was purchased with the construction of the Calkins Science 43
Center and is reaching the end of its lifespan and / or is simply no longer compatible with new technology. In order to continue offering a high quality education to our students plans to replace aging and expensive equipment should be made. In addition, physics course offerings have grown significantly in the past ten years requiring more equipment for the students to use in laboratory courses. The Department has done its best to purchase equipment and stay within its budget. Further, there are only two physics lab spaces at GRCC. The lack of lab space has limited the Department s ability to add more sections of physics, particularly in the evening. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No Physical Science Documentation Mission & Purpose Target Audiences Target Audience Students seeking a lab science to meet general education requirements Students majoring in Elementary Education Courses PC 101, PC 111, PC 141, PC 151 PC 101, PC 111 Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? The Physical Sciences faculty have developed a mission statement that reflects the purpose of the disciplines in the Department and this statement is current and relevant. 2. What are the various audiences for the courses within this discipline? Are the various student populations being served appropriately through the existing variety of course offerings? Please see the table above and yes, the PC courses are meeting student needs. 44
Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No Target Audience Yes No Data Documentation (Curriculum Office will provide all data) Course Enrollment by Semester- See Appendix B The PC 101 is most often taken by students as a general education course that meets the lab science requirement. This course is offered every semester and fills to capacity. PC 111, PC 141 and PC 151 meet the need of students enrolled in specialized programs such as elementary education, music programs and photography. These courses are offered annually and usually fill to near capacity. Course Success Rates- See Appendix C The PC course pass rates seem adequate but the sample sizes are quite small. If an acceptable pass rate is two out of three students passing a given course, then the PC courses meet or exceed this goal. Students are generally more successful in PC 101 than PC 141 and no data was provided for PC 151. Course Grade Distributions- See Appendix D Based on the data provided, PC courses on average meet the Department s expectation that 60% or more of the students achieve a grade in the A-C range. Evaluation Questions 1. Are all courses within the discipline viable based on the enrollment data (# of students who take the course in the academic year)? Yes, all of the PC courses are viable and serve specific populations of students. 2. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? Yes, the overall pass rates are appropriate if an acceptable pass rate is two out of three students passing a given course. The PC courses meet or exceed this goal. Analysis of the sub-groups data is meaningless as the data sets are very small. 3. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? 45
The grade distributions for the PC courses are appropriate in that the A-C grade range in the courses exceeds the Departmental expectation of a 60%. In some courses, the pass rate may fall below this threshold, but on average the pass rate is above 60%. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Course enrollment Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Documentation Curriculum Department/Discipline Curriculum History (last eight years) 2008/2009-Teaching science courses that are part of the FSU Elementary Education Science Minor began. Curricular changes were made to mesh with FSU and the Department of Education requirements. This work was done by Joe Hesse, Elaine Kampmueller and Sandy Andrews. The Physical Science discipline courses included in program are PC 101 and PC 111. Advisory Board Contributions NA Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendix E PC 101 is offered in hybrid format. Honors Courses- See Appendix E None Study Away Courses- See Appendix E None Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Equivalency Spreadsheet According to the Michigan Transfer Network, the PC courses at GRCC transfer appropriately. Evaluation Questions 1. To what extent is the program curriculum aligned with external professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing external standards? Please explain. 46
PC 101 and PC 111 are aligned with state and national professional standards for pre-service teachers as determined by the NGSS curriculum crosswalk. 2. To what extent is the curriculum (course offerings) aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? According to the Michigan Transfer Network, the PC courses at GRCC transfer appropriately. 3. Do the program (discipline) outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes expected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? Yes, the Department developed a measurable set of outcomes that apply to students who take one course or a sequence of courses in Physical Sciences. These outcomes are listed earlier in this document. All of these outcomes are clearly stated, embedded in and assessed in the PC courses. 4. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? PC 101 is a survey course that introduces students to a broad array of topics, while PC 111, PC 141 and PC 151 offer a more in depth look at specific topics. Together, these courses meet the need of a wide range of students. Further, when PC 101 and PC 111 are taken with GL 111 the student is prepared to pass the Michigan Test for Teacher Competency. 5. Are the honors and study away offerings sufficient for the program? There is no current request to add another general education science course to the Honors Program. 6. Is experiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current experiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please explain. Students enrolled in PC courses routinely participate in class field trips. These trips include visits to the Grand Rapids Waste Water treatment plant and the recycling center. Through these experiences, PC students gain a better understanding of how science is part of their lives. 7. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to expect and manage change? Please explain. Science is not static, it changes as theories and models improve and understanding grows. As new data is acquired, we must accept change and modify our beliefs. Upon completion of science courses, ideally students would apply what they have learned about scientific theory (observation, explanation, modification, and repeat) in all aspects of their lives so that they can anticipate and manage change. Further, the critical thinking skills gained in science courses prepare student to manage change and become lifelong learners. 8. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with their subsequent coursework? Please explain. Regardless of subsequent coursework, at GRCC or elsewhere, the Physical Sciences courses prepare students to be successful. Some courses are content driven and prepare students for further scientific 47
coursework while others focus on exposing student to science, the scientific method and the application of science in future coursework and professions. For example, PC 101 and PC 111 not only prepare students to succeed in 400-level teaching methods courses, but are also part of completing a four-year degree to become certified teachers. 9. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student needs? Yes, PC 101 is offered in both in person and in hybrid formats. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Curriculum alignment with external professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Program Outcomes Yes No Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Course Offerings Yes No Assessment of Student Learning Documentation- The PC 101 Lab Skill Assessment project was completed in Winter 2012 semester. Please see the 2011/2012 Department Report for the details and outcomes of this project. Documentation Trends in the Field Preparing for the future It is anticipated that the demand for employees trained in scientific fields will continue to increase and thus, the demands for science courses will also increase. 48
Plans for Course Development/Revision/Elimination Over the Next Four Years There are no current plans to make significant changes to any physics courses in the next four years. Evaluation Questions 1. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the next four years? Please explain. Yes, as there are no anticipated changes, no additional resources are needed. 2. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please explain. In the next four years, the Department anticipates a significant need to upgrade laboratory equipment. Much of the equipment was purchased with the construction of the Calkin s Science Center and is reaching the end of its lifespan and / or is simply no longer compatible with new technology. In order to continue offering a high quality education to our students plans to replace aging and expensive equipment should be made. The Department has done its best to purchase equipment and stay within its budget. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No 49
Departmental Additional Tasks/Work 1. Develop the Course Review schedule for the next four years (beginning with next year) Academic Year CARP Documents to be Revised/Faculty Assigned 2012/2013 AS 103, AS 106, AS 108, PC 141 / Millar (Incomplete) GL 101, GL 104, GL 105, GL 111 / Kampmueller (Incomplete) PC 101 / Hesse (Completed) PC 151, PC 111, PH 125 and PH 126/ Cebelak(Incomplete) 2013/2014 PH 115 / Wang PH 245, PH 246 / Johnson EG 208, EG 212, EG 215 /Johnson 2014/2015 CHM 102, CHM 280, CHM 290 / Neils CHM 230, CHM 231, CHM 250, CHM 251/ Andrews CHM 130, CHM 131, CHM 140, CHM 141 / Liburd CHM 100, CHM 210 / Bramble CHM 260, CHM 261, CHM 270, CHM 271 / Batten CHM 120 / Price 2015/2016 CHM 150, CHM 151, CHM 160, CHM 161 / Neils/ Liburd CHM 110 / Price CHM 240/ Bramble 2016/2017 AS 103, AS 106, AS 108, PC 141 / Millar GL 101, GL 104, GL 105, GL 111 / Kampmuellar PC 101 / Hesse PC 151, PC 111, PH 125 and PH 126/ Cebelak 2. Identify which courses from the department will be developed in online or hybrid format over the next four years. Indicate the highest priorities for online and hybrid development and the academic year in which the course will be developed. See Goals- GL 104, CHM 140 and CHM 290. 3. Review all publications, website, and catalog to ensure consistency of information. The review of these materials is ongoing. Completed annually. Chemical Technology, AAAS Documentation Mission & Purpose Mission/Purpose Statement 50
The mission of the Chemical Technology Program is to prepare students to work in the chemical industry and to achieve success upon transfer to baccalaureate granting institutions. Upon completion of the Chemical Technology Program students should be able to: Demonstrate the ability to write for scientific purposes Describe the basic principles of science and apply them to problem solving Demonstrate competency in appropriate lab skills Apply mathematical concepts to find solutions to scientific problems Target Audiences The target audience for this program is those students wishing to enter the workforce in two years who have an interest in chemistry, appropriate math skills, and a desire to better understand the technology and skills used in chemical analysis. Program Admissions Requirements The only admissions requirement for this program is to have an interest in chemistry, appropriate math skills, and desire to better understand the technology and skills used in chemical analysis. Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? Yes. 2. Has the target audience for the program been identified? Who is the target audience for this program? Is the program attracting and appropriately serving the target audience? The target audience for this program is those students wishing to enter the workforce in two years who have an interest in chemistry, appropriate math skills, and a desire to better understand the technology and skills used in chemical analysis. The program attracts students who are enrolled in chemistry courses and who find lab work interesting, but may not have the high level math skills necessary to complete a B.S. in Chemistry. The program also attracts students who need to enter the workforce for financial or family reasons after 2 years of college. The program serves these students by providing skills required to gain well-paid and rewarding employment. 3. If there are admissions criteria for the program, are they appropriate and do they facilitate program and student success? The only admissions requirement for this program is to have an interest in chemistry, basic math skills, and desire to better understand the technology and skills used in chemical analysis. Students who meet these criteria can be successful in the program. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No 51
Target Audience Yes No Program Admissions Yes No Program Data Documentation (Curriculum Office will provide all data) New Student Enrollment The data for New Student Enrollment can be found in Appendix [F]. While the data reflect steady enrollment in the program, it is unclear how these data were tabulated. If the data represent the number of students whose program code is Chemical Technology, then the data are misleading. A better indicator would be those students enrolled in CHM 102, CHM 280, or CHM 290 as these are courses that enroll mainly Chemical Technology Program students. Enrollment in CHM 280 has been steady with 11-16 students enrolled during the Winter semesters. We have put a great deal of effort into advertising the program, and with the help of the Communications Department, we created high quality posters, flyers, and a banner on the GRCC homepage. Student Enrollment The data for Student Enrollment can be found in Appendix [F]. There are not specific data provided for total student enrollment. It is difficult to pin down the number of students enrolled in the program because only a small number of students actually fulfill the entire program requirements at GRCC. At any given time we may have students who take their first few classes at GRCC and then transfer to other institutions, and we also may have students who are taking only CHM 290 to finish off a degree using courses they have taken elsewhere. Student Progress The data for Student Progress can be found in Appendix [G]. It is not possible to analyze the trend(s), if any, in these data as there is no description as to how the information was collected. We have anecdotal evidence that most of the students who pass CHM 280 and CHM 290 have obtained jobs in the chemical industry or have gone on to a 4-year institution. Core Indicator: Student Participation in Nontraditional Fields The data for Student Progress can be found in Appendix [H]. It is not possible to analyze the trend(s), if any, in these data as there is no description as to how the information was collected. Core Indicator: Credential, Certificate, or Degree Attainment The data for Credential, Certificate, or Degree Attainment can be found in Appendix [H]. 52
It is not possible to analyze the trend(s), if any, in these data as there is no description as to how the information was collected. We do not offer a credential or a certificate in chemical technology. Many students who do finish the program do not bother to get their degree from GRCC because they have obtained a job or gone on to a 4-year school. If the College follows through on the plan to grant degrees to all students who have earned one, the number of degrees will likely increase. Core Indicator: Student Completion in Nontraditional Fields The data for Student Completion in Nontraditional Fields can be found in Appendix [H]. It is not possible to analyze the trend(s), if any, in this data as there is no description as to how the information was collected. Core Indicator: Student Placement The data for Student Placement can be found in Appendix [H]. It is not possible to analyze the trend(s), if any, in this data as there is no description as to how the information was collected. We have anecdotal evidence that many of our students are employed by local chemical companies. These companies contact us to see how many potential graduates we have. Core Indicator: Student Retention and Transfer The data for Student Retention and Transfer can be found in Appendix [H]. Core Indicator: It is not possible to analyze the trend(s), if any, in this data as there is no description as to how the information was collected. We have anecdotal evidence that most of the students who pass CHM 280 and CHM 290 have obtained jobs in chemistry or have gone on to a 4-year institution. Technical Skills Attainment The data for Technical Skills Attainment can be found in Appendix [H]. NA Course enrollment by semester The data for Course Enrollment by Semester can be found in Appendix [B]. The data in Appendix B is a summary of all courses offered by the Physical Sciences Department. CHM 102 is the only course that is specific to the Chemical Technology Program and this course shows increasing enrollment. The other key courses CHM 280 and CHM 290 were omitted from this list. Course Success Rates (broken down by race/ethnicity, gender, age) The data for Course Success Rates can be found in Appendix [C]. The data provided is the data for the Physical Sciences Department as a whole. The data is not specific to the Chemical Technology Program and thus no conclusions can be drawn. 53
Course grade distributions The data for Course Grade Distributions can be found in Appendix [D[ The data provided is the data for the Physical Sciences Department as a whole. The data is not specific to the Chemical Technology Program and thus no conclusions can be drawn. Evaluation Questions 1. Is the program consistently attracting new students? Yes, student often select this program after completing a laboratory course. 2. Is the enrollment trend meeting established targets, ensuring program viability? If targets for enrollment have not been established, what should they be? This program is small, but does not need to sustain itself as do other workforce development programs. There is only one one-credit course that is specific to the Chemical Technology Program. The students enrolled in chemical technology courses take chemistry courses that are filled by a variety students in other programs. Therefore, it is cost efficient. There is no need to establish enrollment targets as the program was developed to serve a small group of students who find that they want to work in a laboratory environment, but possibly cannot complete a B.S. in Chemistry. 3. Do students appear to be progressing through the program well? Yes, students who seriously pursue this path are most often successful in that they find employment (before or after graduation) or continue their education at transfer institutions. 4. To what extent are the targets for core program indicators (Student Participation in Nontraditional fields, Student Retention & Transfer, Credential, Certificate, Degree Attainment, Student Completion in traditional fields, Student Placement, Technical Skills Attainment) being met? Are the various sub-populations meeting the targets at the same rate? The students who attain the skills taught in the Chemical Technology Program are successful in that they have the skills sought out by local employers. Local employers (Perrigo, Amway, Corium etc.) offer seminars to our students via CHM 102, seek out our students for employment and hire our students. 5. Is the yearly ratio of the number of students enrolled to the number of graduates appropriate given program goals? This question is difficult to answer based on the lack of accurate data. Students seek the skills offered by the program without ever declaring the major and are often hired without graduating. The capstone courses for this program (CHM 280 and CHM 290) are often near capacity and may be the best indicator of number of students completing the program or merely gaining marketable skills. 6. Are students obtaining employment upon graduation at satisfactory rates? Yes. The graduates of this program are sought out by local employers. 54
7. What does the course enrollment by semester data tell you? The capstone courses for this program (CHM 280 and CHM 290) are often near capacity at 16 and 12 students and may be the best indicator of number of students completing the program or merely gaining marketable skills. 8. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? Once students reach the capstone courses of CHM 280 and CHM 290, the pass rates are very high at nearly 100 %. This statement is based instructor supplied data as no information for either course was supplied for this report. 9. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? Once students reach the capstone courses of CHM 280 and CHM 290, the pass rates are very high at nearly 100 %. This statement is based instructor supplied data as no information for either course was supplied for this report. The grade distribution is generally between A and C, due to highly motivated and well prepared students. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: New Student Enrollment Yes No Student Enrollment Yes No Student Progress Yes No Student Participation in Nontraditional Fields Yes No Credential, Certificate, or Degree Attainment Yes No Student Completion in Nontraditional Fields Yes No Student Placement Yes No Student Retention and Transfer Yes No Technical Skills Attainment Yes No Course enrollment by semester Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Documentation Curriculum 55
Program Curriculum History (last eight years) Perrigo Corp. informed Tom Neils that they would no longer accept the 1-year Chem Tech certificate for employment as a Chemical Technician and it was proposed that we discontinue this program. This process was complete in late spring of 2011. The Associate degree program is still very much active. Advisory Board Contributions NA Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendix E NA Honors Courses- See Appendix E Students may take the Honors General Chemistry courses- CHM 150, CHM 151 CHM 160 and CHM 161- as part of this program. Study Away Courses- See Appendix E NA Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Institution Spreadsheet Please see this section in the Chemistry and Physics Discipline Section of this report. Program/Course Equivalencies with K-12 Institutions NA Evaluation Questions 1. Is the program structured appropriately given the target student population and current student population (traditional, transfer, and/or adult learners)? Please explain. The program is structured to meet the demands of the workforce. Students must have the aptitude to master certain skills to become chemical technicians and subsequently acquire and continue employment. 2. To what extent is the program curriculum aligned with external professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the program or discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing external standards? Please explain. The program was designed based on the best practices as describe by the American Chemical Society (ACS). The ACS describes the skills that chemical technician program graduates should have and the programs developers at GRCC have worked to continually update and improve the program as new requirements emerge. Further, the program coordinator continually works with industry partners to learn of new trends in the field. These trends then become incorporated into the curriculum. 3. Does the program design and structure reflect external standards and best practices? Please explain. 56
The program was designed based on the best practices as describe by the American Chemical Society (ACS). The ACS describes the skills that chemical technician program graduates should have and the programs developers at GRCC have worked to continually update and improve the program as new requirements emerge. 4. To what extent is the curriculum aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? The students can choose to take a more challenging sequence of courses that will still lead to an AAS in Chemical Technology, but will also allow then to transfer as juniors in B.S. Chemistry programs. This alternate sequence of courses aligns with nearly all accredited B.S. Chemistry programs. 5. To what extent is the curriculum aligned with the coursework at K-12 institutions? K-12 students who graduate and successfully complete two years of high school algebra and English, and one year of high school physics and chemistry should be well prepared to enter the Chemical Technology Program without remediation. 6. Do the program outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes expected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? The Physical Sciences Department developed a measurable set of outcomes that apply to students who take one course or a sequence of courses in the Department. These outcomes are listed earlier in this document and reflect the goals of the Chemical Technology Program. There are several assessment projects based on these outcomes of CHM and PH courses that are required for Chemical Technology Program students. 7. Are all four of the ILOs and associated competencies integrated into the program? Do students have the opportunity to build the knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with the ILOs throughout the program? Through the combination of general education and program specific courses, the College s ILO competencies are incorporated into the Chemical Technology Program and as a result students do meet the stated outcomes of the ILOs. 8. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? Students in the Chemical Technology Program gain depth via the sequential chemistry courses and breadth via the general education course requirements. 9. Have general education courses been purposefully integrated into the program? Are the general education courses within the program appropriate and sufficient to support the learning associated with the Institutional and Program Learning Outcomes? The general education requirements have been incorporated in the Chemical Technology Program requirements as to develop the skills needed by chemical technicians and produce graduates who are well rounded and meet the College s ILOs and the Program Learning Outcomes. For example, writing courses and public speaking courses have been thoughtfully added so that students achieve these goals. 57
10. Are the honors and study away offering sufficient for the program? Students may take the Honors General Chemistry courses- CHM 150, CHM 151 CHM 160 and CHM 161- as part of this program. 11. Do the course sequences require increasing application of higher-order thinking skills as students progress through the program? Is the course sequence aligned in such a way that the Program Student Learning outcomes are mastered by the end of the program? The sequence of the courses in the Chemical Technology Program is based on required prerequisites. As the students progress through the program they are required to engage in higher level thinking and apply skills learned in previous courses. The Program Student Learning Outcomes are incorporated in all Physical Sciences courses and are mastered by student in the Chemical Technology Program. 12. Is experiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current experiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please explain. Several of the chemistry faculty have engaged students in Academic Service Learning projects. The projects are incorporated as opportunities arise. Including ASL in coursework is a significant undertaking by the faculty and Lab Coordinator s staff (both in workload and cost) and thus it cannot be embedded into courses. Each proposed project is evaluated for impact and increased workload before it is added to an individual section. The support of the Dean s office has been greatly appreciated. The chemistry faculty do use connections to local industry to assist students who have potential to be successful in scientific careers in finding employment and internships. This work is not required by or embedded in the coursework, but carried out based on case-by-case need. 13. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to expect and manage change? Please explain. Science is not static, it changes as theories and models improve and understanding grows. As new data are acquired, we must accept change and modify our beliefs. Upon completion of science courses, ideally students would apply what they have learned about scientific theory (observation, explanation, modification, and repeat) in all aspects of their lives so that they can anticipate and manage change. Further, the critical thinking skills gained in science courses prepare student to manage change and become lifelong learners. 14. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with this program? Please explain. The students can choose to take a more challenging sequence of courses that will still lead to an AAS in Chemical Technology, but will also allow then to transfer as juniors in B.S. Chemistry programs. 15. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student and programmatic needs? Online courses cannot deliver the hands on lab experience required by this program. CHM 290 is being developed in hybrid format so that students who are working full time can complete the program. 58
Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Program structure Yes No Curriculum alignment with external professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Curriculum Alignment K-12 Yes No Program Outcomes Yes No Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Offerings (courses & programs) Yes No Preparing for the future Documentation Job and Wage forecasts- See Appendix [I] Environmental Scanning/Trends As noted in the Appendix: Chemical Technician positions will grow faster than the National average over the next ten years. Although some aspects of the Chemical Industry are in decline largely due to automation, Chemical Technicians and Chemical Equipment Operators will see job openings in our service area equal to or greater than the current completions at GRCC. It should be noted that the Chemical Technology Program is the only program in the area training for these jobs. Entry level wages for these occupations will be in the 10 th or 25 th percentile as seen on page 5. Currently there are some job postings for this field. (Questions: contact mchampio@grcc.edu.) PROE Student Survey Results (Curriculum Office to provide) No data have been made available to us at this time. Advisory Board Survey Results (Curriculum Office to provide) No data have been made available to us at this time. 59
Program Planning There are no current plans to make significant changes to the Chemical Technology program in the next four years. The Department does, however, maintain close contact with local industry, transfer institutions, and the American Chemical Society s Office of Chemical Technology Education so that we may stay abreast of current practices in the field and any suggested curriculum changes. Evaluation Questions 1. Do the job projections and wages data suggest that this program will be viable over the next four years? Yes, the data in Appendix I do show that there is and will be a demand for students with chemical technology degrees and training. 2. Is the number of graduates aligned with the market need (job forecasts/transfer institutions)? No, as Appendix I shows, job openings in our service area equal to or greater than the current completions at GRCC 3. What did you learn from the PROE Student Survey results? Will you take any actions with the program as a result of what you have learned? No data have been made available to us at this time. 4. What did you learn from the Advisory Board Survey results? Will you take any actions with the program as a result of what you have learned No data have been made available to us at this time. 5. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the next four years? Please explain. Yes, as there are no anticipated changes to the program curriculum, no additional resources are needed. 3. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please explain. In the next four years, the Department anticipates a significant need to upgrade laboratory equipment. Much of the equipment was purchased with the construction of the Calkins Science Center and is reaching the end of its lifespan and / or is simply no longer compatible with new technology. In order to continue offering a high quality education to our students in chemistry courses and the Chemical Technology Program, plans to replace aging and expensive equipment should be made. Action Needed 60
Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Program Planning Yes No Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No 61
Appendix A- Faculty Credentials & Certifications Physical Sciences Department Faculty Credentials Last First Name Employee Group Title Hi Educ Lv Abbas Fawzi Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Doctorate Bunnell Von Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Bachelor's Dockham Patricia Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Doctorate Froot Judith Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Groh Daniel Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Doctorate Kozal Jeffrey Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Bachelor's Krikke James Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Kudrna Amy Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Lawrence Jennifer Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Doctorate Mahoro Giselle Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Bachelor's Mattox Tari Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Mergener Randal Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Bachelor's Mitchell Cynthia Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Bachelor's O'Rourke Mary Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Bachelor's Pilko Eric Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Roberts Kathy Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Bachelor's Schmidt Gregory Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Doctorate Seifert Donald Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Smith Traci Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Vanden Heuvel Andrew Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's VandenBrink Duane Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's VanWoerkom Gordon Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Andrews Sandra Faculty Professor Doctorate Batten Jennifer Faculty Professor Doctorate Bramble Linda Faculty Professor Master's Cebelak Robert Faculty Professor Master's Hesse Joseph Faculty Professor Doctorate Johnson Jared Faculty Professor Doctorate Kampmueller Elaine Faculty Professor Master's Liburd Bernard Faculty Professor Doctorate Millar William Faculty Professor Doctorate Neils Thomas Faculty Professor Doctorate Price Britt Faculty Professor Doctorate Scott Pamela Faculty Lab Coord Bachelor's Wang Ming Faculty Professor Doctorate 62
Physical Sciences Faculty with Academic Service Learning Credential William Faber Thomas Neils Linda Bramble Jennifer Batten Physical Sciences Teachers Certified to Teach Online Joe Hesse Sandy Andrews Linda Bramble William Faber William Millar Britt Price Elaine Kampmueller Amy Kudrna Bernard Liburd Andrew Vanden Heuvel Patricia Dockham 63
Appendix B- Course Enrollment (Fall 2010- Winter 2013) Physical Sciences Course Enrollment Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Course & Component # Sect. # Stud. # Sect. # Stud. # Sect. # Stud. # Sect. # Stud. # Sect. # Stud. # Sect. # Stud. # Sect. # Stud. # Sect. # Stud. AS 103 LAB 2 23.0 2 22.5 2 24.0 2 23.5 3 23.0 3 24.0 AS 103 - LEC 2 23.0 2 22.5 2 24.0 2 23.5 3 23.0 3 24.0 CM 100 - LEC 3 38.3 5 38.2 1 27.0 1 24.0 1 24.0 CM 101 - LAB 11 21.6 10 22.3 2 21.0 1 24.0 1 24.0 CM 101 - LEC 8 29.8 8 27.9 2 21.0 1 25.0 1 24.0 CM 102 - LEC 1 9.0 1 25.0 1 24.0 CM 103 - LAB 11 22.7 9 20.8 3 19.7 1 0.0 3 39.7 4 30.8 CM 103 - LEC 9 27.8 8 23.4 2 29.5 3 37.0 4 39.5 1 18.0 1 13.0 CM 104 - LAB 3 17.3 4 20.5 3 19.7 1 18.0 8 21.4 10 21.3 CM 104 - LEC 2 26.0 3 27.0 2 29.5 8 21.8 10 22.6 2 15.5 6 28.5 8 26.6 CM 109 - LAB 4 18.8 4 18.8 1 21.0 6 29.0 8 28.3 2 15.5 4 19.5 4 18.0 CM 109 - LEC 3 25.0 3 25.0 1 21.0 4 15.0 4 17.8 1 24.0 3 26.0 3 24.0 CM 113 - LAB 2 15.5 3 20.0 3 23.7 1 24.0 7 38.6 6 38.0 CM 113 - LEC 1 31.0 7 37.0 6 37.5 2 38.5 10 22.4 8 23.8 CM 114 - LAB 1 19.0 8 23.9 9 21.4 3 21.0 1 36.0 3 34.7 CM 114 - LEC 1 19.0 1 25.0 3 33.3 2 28.5 1 25.0 4 23.0 CM 210 - LAB 2 18.5 2 17.5 1 9.0 1 23.0 3 24.0 3 20.0 1 30.0 CM 210 - LEC 1 37.0 1 35.0 1 9.0 1 35.0 2 15.0 CM 212 - LAB 1 8.0 2 17.5 1 18.0 CM 212 - LEC 1 8.0 1 29.0 1 17.0 CM 229 - LAB 1 10.0 1 14.0 1 29.0 1 18.0 2 17.5 CM 230 - LEC 1 12.0 1 18.0 1 20.0 2 10.5 1 18.0 1 35.0 CM 231 - LAB 1 24.0 1 23.0 1 20.0 1 21.0 1 18.0 1 16.0 CM 231 - LEC 1 24.0 1 23.0 1 18.0 1 20.0 1 16.0 1 14.0 CM 236 - LEC 1 40.0 1 26.0 1 18.0 1 16.0 1 25.0 1 19.0 64
CM 237 - LL 2 18.0 1 17.0 1 21.0 1 17.0 1 25.0 1 19.0 CM 238 - LEC 1 10.0 1 23.0 1 17.0 1 21.0 1 17.0 1 25.0 1 23.0 CM 239 - LL 1 6.0 1 16.0 1 12.0 1 19.0 1 17.0 1 19.0 CM 241 - LAB 1 19.0 1 10.0 1 9.0 1 15.0 1 43.0 1 26.0 CM 241 - LEC 1 19.0 1 10.0 1 32.0 1 22.0 1 29.0 2 20.0 1 16.0 CM 298 - IND 1 0.0 2 15.0 1 10.0 1 21.0 1 22.0 1 33.0 GL 101 - LL 3 24.0 2 24.0 2 21.0 1 20.0 2 19.0 GL 104 - LL 1 19.0 1 17.0 1 9.0 GL 105 - LL 1 24.0 1 24.0 1 16.0 1 9.0 GL 111 - LL 2 17.0 2 22.5 1 16.0 4 24.3 3 24.0 GL 298 - IND 1 1.0 1 8.0 1 23.0 PC 101 - LL 6 22.3 6 22.3 2 19.0 1 8.0 1 19.0 1 22.0 PC 111 - LAB 1 24.0 3 22.7 3 23.7 2 20.5 1 23.0 1 24.0 PC 111 - LEC 1 24.0 1 24.0 6 21.3 6 23.3 PC 141 - LAB 1 17.0 1 22.0 1 24.0 1 24.0 PC 141 - LEC 1 17.0 2 20.5 1 23.0 1 24.0 PC 151 - LAB 1 21.0 1 23.0 6 22.7 6 21.3 2 15.0 1 15.0 PC 151 - LEC 1 21.0 1 23.0 1 27.0 1 15.0 PH 115 - LAB 2 22.5 2 22.5 2 14.0 1 27.0 1 20.0 PH 115 - LEC 2 22.5 2 22.5 1 28.0 1 24.0 1 20.0 PH 125 - LAB 7 21.7 5 21.2 4 17.8 1 24.0 2 19.5 2 23.0 PH 125 - LEC 5 30.4 4 26.5 2 36.0 1 0.0 2 19.5 2 23.0 PH 126 - LAB 1 13.0 3 22.7 1 24.0 2 22.0 2 23.0 1 19.0 8 21.9 4 20.5 65
Appendix C- Course Success Rates (Success = grades A to C-) AS103 Race/ Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 40 2 2 1 2 0 1 48 31 1 2 1 1 0 1 37 78% 50% 100% 100% 50% n/a 100% 77% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 19 19 10 48 16 13 8 37 84% 68% 80% 77% Gender Female Male 16 32 48 14 23 37 88% 72% 77% Pell Pell No Pell 16 32 48 14 23 37 88% 72% 77% 66
AS 106 Race/ Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 22 1 1 0 0 0 0 24 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 20 82% 100% 100% n/a n/a n/a n/a 83% Age Gender Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 9 10 5 24 8 8 4 20 89% 80% 80% 83% Female Male 10 14 24 8 12 20 80% 86% 83% Pell Pell No Pell 10 14 24 9 11 20 90% 79% 83% 67
CHM 100 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 83 10 7 5 1 0 2 108 61 3 3 5 0 0 2 74 73% 30% 43% 100% 0% n/a 100% 69% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 24 43 41 108 17 29 28 74 71% 67% 68% 69% Gender Pell Female Male 54 54 48 31 43 74 57% 80% 154% Pell No Pell 53 55 108 35 39 74 66% 71% 69% 68
CHM 102 Race/ Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 9 5 2 1 1 0 0 18 7 3 1 1 0 0 0 12 78% 60% 50% 100% 0% n/a n/a 67% Age Gender Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 5 7 6 18 4 3 5 12 80% 43% 83% 67% Female Male 8 10 18 4 8 12 50% 80% 67% Pell Pell No Pell 12 6 18 8 4 12 67% 67% 67% 69
CHM 110 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 125 19 14 6 1 0 9 174 103 8 13 5 1 0 5 135 82% 42% 93% 83% 100% n/a 56% 78% Age Gender Pell Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 56 68 50 174 36 54 45 135 64% 79% 90% 78% Female Male 119 55 174 95 40 135 80% 73% 78% Pell No Pell 101 73 174 76 59 135 75% 81% 78% 70
CHM 120 Race/Ethnicity Age Gender Pell White Hispani c Black Hispani c Asian / Pacific Islande r Native America n Nonresident Alien No response or other 48 2 3 2 1 0 3 59 42 2 3 1 0 0 2 50 88% 100% 100% 50% 0% n/a 67% 85% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 18 24 17 59 16 18 16 50 89% 75% 94% 85% Female Male 31 28 59 25 25 50 81% 89% 85% Pell No Pell 19 40 59 16 34 50 84% 85% 85% 71
CHM 130 Race/Ethnicity White Hispani c Black Hispani c Asian / Pacific Islander Native America n Nonresiden t Alien No respons e or other 205 14 17 11 2 2 9 260 138 4 12 8 1 2 7 172 67% 29% 71% 73% 50% 100% 78% 66% Age Gender Pell Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 132 82 46 260 90 49 33 172 68% 60% 72% 66% Female Male 109 151 260 69 103 172 63% 68% 66% Pell No Pell 96 164 260 58 114 172 60% 70% 66% 72
CHM 131 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 151 6 13 11 2 1 6 190 113 3 10 11 2 1 4 144 75% 50% 77% 100% 100% 100% 67% 76% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 93 60 37 190 73 42 29 144 78% 70% 78% 76% Gender Pell Female Male 86 104 190 63 81 144 73% 78% 76% Pell No Pell 65 125 190 46 98 144 71% 78% 76% 73
CHM 140 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 21 0 0 2 0 0 2 25 16 0 0 2 0 0 0 18 76% n/a n/a 100% n/a n/a 0% 72% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 7 9 9 25 5 5 8 18 71% 56% 89% 72% Gender Pell Female Male 10 15 25 7 11 18 70% 73% 72% Pell No Pell 7 18 25 6 12 18 86% 67% 72% 74
CHM 141 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 20 0 0 1 0 0 2 23 17 0 0 1 0 0 1 19 85% n/a n/a 100% n/a n/a 50% 83% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 7 9 7 23 6 6 7 19 86% 67% 100% 83% Gender Pell Female Male 10 13 23 10 9 19 100% 69% 83% Pell No Pell 6 17 23 6 13 19 100% 76% 83% 75
CHM 150 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 28 0 1 4 0 0 2 35 21 0 0 4 0 0 2 27 75% n/a 0% 100% n/a n/a 100% 77% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 18 13 4 35 15 10 2 27 83% 77% 50% 77% Gender Female Male 12 23 35 9 18 27 75% 78% 77% Pell Pell No Pell 13 22 35 8 19 27 62% 86% 77% 76
CHM 151 Race/Ethnicity Age Gender Pell White Hispani c Black Hispani c Asian / Pacific Islande r Native America n Nonresiden t Alien No respons e or other 28 0 1 4 0 0 2 35 20 0 0 3 0 0 2 25 71% n/a 0% 75% n/a n/a 100% 71% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 18 13 4 35 13 10 2 25 72% 77% 50% 71% Female Male 12 23 35 10 15 25 83% 65% 71% Pell No Pell 13 22 35 8 17 25 62% 77% 71% 77
CHM 210 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 17 0 1 0 0 0 2 20 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 88% n/a 0% n/a n/a n/a 100% 85% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 3 14 3 20 2 13 2 17 67% 93% 67% 85% Gender Female Male 18 2 20 16 1 17 89% 50% 85% Pell Pell No Pell 9 11 20 7 10 17 78% 91% 85% 78
CHM 230 Race/ Ethnicity Age White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 14 3 0 1 0 0 0 18 11 3 0 1 0 0 0 15 79% 100% n/a 100% n/a n/a n/a 83% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 2 6 10 18 2 4 9 15 100% 67% 90% 83% Gender Female Male 14 4 18 12 3 15 86% 75% 83% Pell Pell No Pell 7 11 18 5 10 15 71% 91% 83% 79
CHM 231 Race/Ethnicity Age White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 14 3 0 1 0 0 0 18 11 3 0 1 0 0 0 15 79% 100% n/a 100% n/a n/a n/a 83% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 2 6 10 18 2 4 9 15 100% 67% 90% 83% Gender Pell Female Male 14 4 18 12 3 15 86% 75% 83% Pell No Pell 7 11 18 5 10 15 71% 91% 83% 80
CHM 240 Race/Ethnicity Age White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 12 0 2 3 1 0 2 20 9 0 2 1 0 0 1 13 75% n/a 100% 33% 0% n/a 50% 65% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 3 6 11 20 2 4 7 13 67% 67% 64% 65% Gender Female Male 11 9 20 8 5 13 73% 56% 65% Pell Pell No Pell 7 13 20 4 9 13 57% 69% 65% 81
CHM 250 Race/Ethnicity Age Gender Pell White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 73% n/a 100% n/a n/a n/a n/a 75% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 0 5 7 12 0 4 5 9 n/a 80% 71% 75% Female Male 7 5 12 4 5 9 57% 100% 75% Pell No Pell 3 9 12 2 7 9 67% 78% 75% 82
CHM 251 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 63% n/a 100% n/a n/a n/a n/a 67% Age Gender Pell Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 0 4 5 9 0 4 2 6 n/a 100% 40% 67% Female Male 4 5 9 2 4 6 50% 80% 67% Pell No Pell 3 6 9 2 4 6 67% 67% 67% 83
CHM 260 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 26 1 1 2 1 1 0 32 14 1 1 0 1 0 0 17 54% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% n/a 53% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 3 18 11 32 1 9 7 17 n/a 50% 64% 53% Gender Female Male 12 20 32 8 9 17 67% 45% 53% Pell Pell No Pell 10 22 32 6 11 17 60% 50% 53% 84
CHM 261 Race/Ethnicity Age Gender Pell White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 24 1 1 3 1 0 0 30 17 1 1 3 1 0 0 23 71% 100% 100% 100% 100% n/a n/a 77% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 3 17 10 30 1 13 9 23 n/a 76% 90% 77% Female Male 8 22 30 6 17 23 75% 77% 77% Pell No Pell 12 18 30 11 12 23 92% 67% 77% 85
CHM 298 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100% Age Gender Pell Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 n/a 100% 100% 100% Female Male 2 0 2 2 0 2 100% n/a 100% Pell No Pell 2 0 2 2 0 2 100% n/a 100% 86
GL 101 Race/Ethnicity Age White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 51 10 4 1 1 0 1 68 43 3 3 1 0 0 1 51 84% 30% 75% 100% 0% n/a n/a 75% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 22 26 20 68 17 20 14 51 n/a 77% 70% 75% Gender Pell Female Male 28 40 68 19 32 51 68% 80% 75% Pell No Pell 33 35 68 21 30 51 64% 86% 75% 87
GL 105 Race/Ethnicity Age Gender Pell White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 16 2 0 0 0 0 4 22 15 1 0 0 0 0 3 19 94% 50% n/a n/a n/a n/a 75% 86% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 13 4 5 22 11 4 4 19 85% 100% 80% 86% Female Male 8 14 22 5 14 19 63% 100% 86% Pell No Pell 6 16 22 5 14 19 83% 88% 86% 88
GL 111 Race/Ethnicity White Hispani c Black Asian / Pacific Islande r Native America n Nonresident Alien No response or other 31 6 2 1 0 0 1 41 21 1 0 0 0 0 1 23 68% 17% 0% 0% n/a n/a 100% 56% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 9 22 10 41 2 13 8 23 22% 59% 80% 56% Gender Pell Female Male 24 17 41 14 9 23 58% 53% 56% Pell No Pell 22 19 41 8 15 23 36% 79% 56% 89
PC 101 Race/Ethnicity White Hispani c Black Hispani c Asian / Pacific Islande r Native America n Nonresiden t Alien No respons e or other 100 17 7 2 0 0 8 134 84 6 6 2 0 0 4 102 84% 35% 86% 100% n/a n/a 50% 76% Age Gender Pell Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 54 45 35 134 42 34 26 102 n/a 76% 74% 76% Female Male 56 78 134 46 56 102 82% 72% 76% Pell No Pell 60 74 134 44 58 102 73% 78% 76% 90
PC 141 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 22 1 0 0 0 0 1 24 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 68% 0% n/a n/a n/a n/a 0% 63% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 11 11 2 24 5 8 2 15 45% 73% 100% 63% Gender Female Male 2 22 24 0 15 15 0% 68% 63% Pell Pell No Pell 7 17 24 4 11 15 57% 65% 63% 91
PH 115 Race/Ethnicity Age Gender White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 36 2 3 0 1 0 2 44 26 0 1 0 1 0 1 29 72% 0% 33% n/a 100% n/a 50% 66% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 13 16 15 44 9 10 10 29 69% 63% 67% 66% Female Male 13 31 44 7 22 29 54% 71% 66% Pell Pell No Pell 12 32 44 8 21 29 67% 66% 66% 92
PH 125 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 134 7 3 11 1 1 8 165 116 6 3 10 1 1 7 144 87% 86% 100% 91% 100% n/a 88% 87% Age Gender Pell Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 37 72 56 165 31 66 47 144 84% 92% 84% 87% Female Male 72 93 165 67 77 144 93% 83% 87% Pell No Pell 55 110 165 50 94 144 91% 85% 87% 93
PH 126 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 7 0 4 0 0 0 1 12 7 0 4 0 0 0 1 12 100% n/a 100% n/a n/a n/a 100% 100% Age Gender Pell Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 0 7 5 12 0 7 5 12 n/a 100% 100% 100% Female Male 7 5 12 7 5 12 100% 100% 100% Pell No Pell 2 10 12 2 10 12 100% 100% 100% 94
PH 125 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 134 7 3 11 1 1 8 165 116 6 3 10 1 1 7 144 87% 86% 100% 91% 100% n/a 88% 87% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 37 72 56 165 31 66 47 144 84% 92% 84% 87% Gender Female Male 72 93 165 67 77 144 93% 83% 87% Pell Pell No Pell 55 110 165 50 94 144 91% 85% 87% 95
PH 126 Race/Ethnicity White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 7 0 4 0 0 0 1 12 7 0 4 0 0 0 1 12 100% n/a 100% n/a n/a n/a 100% 100% Age Gender Pell Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 0 7 5 12 0 7 5 12 n/a 100% 100% 100% Female Male 7 5 12 7 5 12 100% 100% 100% Pell No Pell 2 10 12 2 10 12 100% 100% 100% 96
PH 245 Race/Ethnicity Age Gender Pell White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 34 2 2 1 0 1 2 42 27 1 1 1 0 1 2 33 79% 50% 50% 100% n/a 100% 100% 79% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 10 24 8 42 10 16 7 33 n/a 67% 88% 79% Female Male 4 38 42 3 30 33 75% 79% 79% Pell No Pell 14 28 42 11 22 33 79% 79% 79% 97
PH 246 Race/ Ethnicity Age Gender Pell White Black Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 100% n/a n/a n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older 1 8 1 10 1 8 1 10 100% 100% 100% 100% Female Male 0 10 10 0 10 10 n/a 100% 100% Pell No Pell 2 8 10 2 8 10 100% 100% 100% 98
Appendix D- Course Grade Distributions Physical Sciences Course Success Rate Trends 2008 2009 2010 2011 Courses A-C %All WD %All A-C %All WD %All A-C %All WD %All A-C %All WD %All AS 102 14 35% 8 20% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A AS 103 37 77% 6 13% 38 81% 2 4% 30 67% 7 16% 35 73% 6 13% AS 106 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 19 79% 3 13% CHM 100 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 68 63% 13 12% CHM 102 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 12 67% 2 11% CHM 110 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 127 73% 14 8% CHM 120 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 46 78% 4 7% CHM 130 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 155 60% 33 13% CHM 131 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 138 73% 17 9% CHM 140 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 18 72% 3 12% CHM 141 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 19 83% 2 9% CHM 150 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 24 69% 3 9% CHM 151 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 23 66% 4 11% CHM 210 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 17 85% 3 15% CHM 230 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 15 83% 1 6% CHM 231 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 15 83% 2 11% CHM 240 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 13 65% 3 15% CHM 250 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 7 58% 2 17% CHM 251 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 6 67% 2 22% CHM 260 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 17 53% 8 25% CHM 261 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 23 77% 6 20% CHM 298 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 100% 0 0% CM 100 66 57% 20 17% 78 68% 18 16% 67 58% 23 20% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 101 135 69% 20 10% 143 65% 21 10% 151 64% 34 14% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 99
CM 102 11 58% 2 11% 16 55% 3 10% 6 75% 1 13% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 103 96 54% 28 16% 138 61% 35 15% 148 60% 36 15% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 104 19 56% 7 21% 31 79% 4 10% 33 65% 4 8% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 109 46 75% 7 11% 50 82% 5 8% 52 70% 11 15% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 113 18 46% 10 26% 20 51% 10 26% 16 52% 8 26% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 210 29 73% 3 8% 27 71% 3 8% 31 84% 4 11% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 229 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 8 80% 1 10% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 230 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 10 83% 1 8% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 231 18 90% 1 5% 17 85% 3 15% 14 58% 8 33% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 236 24 62% 6 15% 15 43% 10 29% 17 43% 14 35% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 237 29 81% 5 14% 20 63% 8 25% 15 42% 14 39% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 238 9 69% 0 0% 7 64% 2 18% 8 80% 1 10% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 239 8 67% 3 25% 8 80% 2 20% 5 83% 1 17% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 241 8 67% 2 17% 13 93% 1 7% 16 84% 2 11% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CM 298 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 100% 0 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A GL 101 33 69% 9 19% 53 76% 3 4% 52 72% 2 3% 47 69% 6 9% GL 105 17 77% 1 5% 19 79% 1 4% 17 71% 4 17% 18 82% 2 9% GL 111 23 51% 8 18% 37 79% 4 9% 27 77% 2 6% 21 51% 10 24% GL 298 1 100% 0 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A PC 101 100 70% 17 12% 92 68% 21 15% 105 78% 18 13% 98 73% 15 11% PC 111 10 45% 8 36% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A PC 141 16 67% 2 8% 14 58% 1 4% 10 63% 5 31% 15 63% 2 8% PC 151 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 16 76% 4 19% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A PC 298 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 100% 0 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A PC 299 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0 0% 0 0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A PH 115 30 65% 6 13% 33 69% 5 10% 38 84% 3 7% 26 59% 7 16% PH 125 76 80% 12 13% 87 73% 19 16% 106 70% 29 19% 134 81% 16 10% PH 126 14 88% 2 13% 13 100% 0 0% 12 92% 1 8% 12 100% 0 0% PH 245 31 63% 10 20% 24 62% 8 21% 35 60% 15 26% 33 79% 4 10% PH 246 6 86% 1 14% 13 100% 0 0% 6 100% 0 0% 10 100% 0 0% 100
101
Physical Sciences Courses developed for online/hybrid delivery AS 103 CM 103 (Now CHM 130) CM 293 (Not a current course) EG 110 (not a Physical Sciences Course) PH 115 PC 101 Appendix E- Course Development Physical Sciences Honors courses offered None Physical Sciences Study Away courses offered AN 285 -AN 285 is not a Physical Science course 102
Appendix F- Enrollment New Student Enrollment- Chemical Technology Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male 9 14 23 7 17 24 5 14 19 7 18 25 Appendix G- Student Progress Student Progress- Chemical Technology Academic Year Number of Students Graduates Graduates/ Transfers Transfers 2008-09 26 12% 0% 12% 2009-10 31 6% 0% 10% 2010-11 31 0% 3% 26% 2011-12 28 0% 0% 4% Appendix H- Core Indicators Chemical Technology Core Indicators 2009 2010 2011 2012 1p1 -Technical Skill Attainment N/A N/A N/A N/A 2p1- Credentials 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3p1 - Retention/Transfer 80.0% 77.0% 83.3% 73.1% 4p1 - Placement 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5p1 - Non-Traditional Placement 25.0% 28.0% 50.0% 30.1% 5p2 - Non Traditional Completion 0.0% 67.0% 100.0% 27.4% 103
Appendix I Physical Sciences Department Discipline and Program Review 143 Bostwick Avenue, NE Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Chemical Technology/Technicians Program Report GRCC Service Area Report prepared by Institutional Research and Planning December 12, 2012 Economic Modeling Specialists International www.economicmodeling.com 1