Program: Chemistry (BA, BS)
Date: Wed Oct 09, 2013 - 11:28:02 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
see curriculum map
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://www.manoa.hawaii.edu/chem/index.php?id=28
3) Select one option:
- File (03/16/2020)
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
5) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)
No (skip to question 14)
6) For the period June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
Last year the department assessed student progress through our course sequences to identify bottlenecks and determine whether common problems could be addressed through mandatory advising or restructuring of our upper division sequence.
7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.
Time to graduation reports, our internal advising records, and instructors comments were gathered and evaluated.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.
Evidence indicates scheduling our upper division Inorganic courses in the spring and fall of a student's third and fourth year, respectively, coupled with current set of prerequisites adds an extra year of studies for students who struggle or delay Math 243 and/or Physics 272.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The department realigned the curriculum to allow students more flexibility in planning their coursework in the 3rd and 4th years. Several of the 300- and 400-level course sequences may now be taken in either the 3rd or 4th year, upon completion of the appropriate prerequisites. The previous prerequisites dictated a much more rigid order or sequence of courses, often imposing longer time-to-degree
13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.
This process suggested the need for a formal Exit Survey to be completed by our students when they submit their Goldenrod.
14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.
The Department engaged in limited assessment activities, as described above.
An important feature of one of the degrees should also be noted, as it provides some of the rationale for some of the changes, while it also explains why there are such limits to the assessment activities.
The B.S. in Chemistry is certified by the American Chemical Society (ACS), the largest professional society for chemists worldwide. As such, our degree requirements must be consistent with the ACS standards and requirements for this important certification. In 2012, we submitted our Periodic Review documents to the ACS for renewal of our certification. Its outcome is still pending. In addition, the ACS is presently revising its accreditation standards. Thus, we are awaiting the outcome of these two processes, before making plans for additional assessment activities.