department of chemistry - eiu bs ay14.15 and ay15.16-total report.pdfets major field test (mft) in...

Department of Chemistry AY14‐15 and AY15‐16 Assessment Report (with additional data also covering AY13‐14) Undergraduate Programs BS Chemistry (Chemistry Concentration) BS Chemistry (Biochemistry Concentration) BS Chemistry (Management Concentration)

BS Science Teaching (Chemistry Specialization) BA Chemistry

Report prepared and submitted by Dr. Mark E. McGuire (department chair 7/1/13 – 6/30/16). Report Outline: Student Learning Assessment Program Summary Form (pp. 8‐10) Covers AY14‐15 and AY15‐16 (just the two years since this form last submitted); data and information collected for all undergraduate

programs combined. Observations:

Students continued to be exposed to a consistent and rigorous set of classroom and lab experiences. For example, for Learning Objective #3, 100% of students completed target assignments in CHM 2845 lab (IR spectroscopy), CHM 3915 lab (NMR spectroscopy), and CHM 4915 lab (inert atmosphere techniques). For Learning Objective #4, 100% of students in CHM 2845 completed assignments in NMR data handling, and 100% of students in CHM 3915 completed a modeling experiment. For Learning Objective #5, 100% of students completed an electronic database search in CHM 3500.

A significant majority of graduating seniors (72%) had been involved in undergraduate research (Learning Objectives #3 and #6). Within this group, 100% of BS‐degree students (excluding BS Sci. Teaching) were involved in research projects. This continues (and slightly improves on) student participation in research noted in a previous “Student Learning Assessment Program Summary Form” from AY12‐13; AY13‐14.

An overwhelming majority of students met expectations for use of chemical information sources and oral presentations of primary research literature topics to the department faculty and students in junior and senior chemistry seminars classes (CHM 3001, 4001 for Learning Objectives #5 and #7).

For students taking the Major Field Test in the past two years (period covered in the “Student Learning Assessment Program Summary Form”, performances did not meet stated expectations in neither the subject subtests nor in the critical thinking component. (A more comprehensive and revealing view of student performance on the MFT over the past four years can be found in the section below on the “ETS Major Field Test (MFT) in Chemistry”.

As in a previous “Student Learning Assessment Program Summary Form” report (AY12‐13; AY13‐14), graduating chemistry major performance in CHM 2730 remained significantly below expectation.

Exit surveys of graduating seniors and 3‐year and 8‐year alumni surveys from this time period (AY14‐15 and AY 15‐16) were incomplete and/or not available.

ETS Major Field Test (MFT) in Chemistry (pp. 11‐28) Graduating seniors take this exam (voluntarily) every spring semester. We now have a cohort of 41 undergraduate majors over 4 years of the same test form (Spring 2013‐Spring 2016). Comparative data available from 208 institutions using this exam. This comparative data is not only for the total overall score on the exam,

but also performance in four separate traditional areas of chemistry: Physical, Organic, Inorganic, and Analytical. In addition, a test item analysis is presented on the entire cohort showing performance on individual questions covering specific topics under each area (example: What % of EIU students answered questions correctly on reaction mechanisms in Organic Chemistry compared to national data.)

EIU Chemistry major performance is tabulated, organized, and compared by degree program. A critical thinking score is assigned to the total cohort of 41 students and compared to performance of students in the 208 institutions using

the Chemistry MFT. This also provides a critical thinking analysis that can be compared to the EIU Chemistry student performance on the Watson‐Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal.

A Biochemistry score is assigned from the total cohort of 41 students and compared to national data. Observations:

41 students from all chemistry degrees and concentrations took the same form of the Chemistry MFT exam from Spring 2013 through Spring 2016. The breakdown of the number of students in each concentration and/or degree program was as follows: BS Chemistry (Chemistry Concentration) = 12 students; BS Chemistry (Biochemistry Concentration) = 9 students; BS Chemistry (Management Concentration) = 3 students; BS Science Teaching (Chemistry Specialization) = 6 students; BA Chemistry = 11 students.

Taken as one group, mean scores of the 41‐student cohort, when compared to the 2011‐2015 national means for the 208 participating institutions, placed the EIU cohort in the following percentiles: Total Score = 43rd; Physical = 45th; Organic = 54th; Inorganic = 39th; Analytical = 46th.

Mean scores for the 12‐student cohort of BS Chemistry (Chemistry Concentration) were significantly higher than the other concentrations and the BA degree students, and percentile rankings for this particular cohort (compared to the national cohort) were subsequently substantially higher: Total Score = 75th; Physical = 78th; Organic = 79th; Inorganic = 75th; Analytical = 81st.

An Item Information Report was purchased from ETS reported how the 41‐student cohort performed on each question of the MFT compared to the national performance of the 208 participating institutions. Each question is defined under a particular Domain (Physical, Organic, Inorganic, Analytical) and then Content Areas are defined within each domain. At the time of this assessment report, the EIU Chemistry Department could not afford the extra few hundred dollars to allow us to get an Item Information Report for each separate concentration and the BA degree program. (This would have been very helpful and is a recommended purchase in the future.) Therefore, results are reflective of the entire 41‐student cohort. Content Areas with 2 or few questions are omitted in this present report. The following table indicates whether or not the 41‐student cohort matched or exceeded the national means in the individual Content Areas.

Domain Content Area National Mean? Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics No Quantum Chemistry Yes Thermodynamics Yes Organic Chemistry Biochemistry Yes Functional Groups Yes Molecular Structure Yes

Reaction Mechanisms No Inorganic Chemistry General Chemistry No Chemistry of Main Groups Yes Chemistry of Transition

Elements No

Structure and Bonding No Analytical Chemistry Homogenous/Heterogeneous

Equilibria No

Instrumental Methods Yes

Complete question‐by‐question analyses, including further division of Content Areas into SubContent Areas, are included with this assessment report. The MFT provides Assessment Indicators, and this gives a way to assign comparative data on the 41‐student EIU cohort (mix of concentrations and the BA degree) in

the area of Biochemistry (based on more than just the Biochemistry Content Area under the Organic Domain) and in Critical Thinking and Reasoning. When compared to national MFT results the 41‐student EIU cohort ranked in the 54th percentile in Biochemistry and the 39th percentile in Critical Thinking and Reasoning.

Watson‐Glaser (WG) Critical Thinking Appraisal (p. 29) Most of the Spring 2013‐Spring 2016 cohort of 41 students took the WG exam at EIU. Performance of these 41 chemistry majors is compared to overall university WG performance. WG data on the cohort of 41 chemistry majors is separated and compared by undergraduate program. WG data on the cohort of 41 chemistry majors is compared to results from the MFT. Observations:

31 out of the 41‐student cohort taking the MFT also were administered the WG appraisal from Spring 2013 ‐ Spring 2106. Taken as a single 31‐student cohort (all concentrations and BA degree students), chemistry majors consistently scored noticeably higher on the WG appraisal than the

total EIU student group. The only exception was the Test 5 (Evaluation of Arguments), where chemistry students scored evenly with the total EIU group.

WG Category EIU Student Group – Ranges of Mean Scores from Spring 2013 – Spring 2016.

Chemistry majors (all concentrations and BA degree) – Mean Scores of 31 students Spring 2013 – Spring 2016.

Test 1 – Inference 3.46 – 3.76 4.58 Test 2 – Recognizing Assumption 4.61 – 5.02 5.58 Test 3 – Deduction 5.60 – 6.03 6.81 Test 4 – Interpretation 3.88 – 4.07 5.06 Test 5 – Evaluation of Arguments 6.32 – 6.57 6.32 Composite Score 24.10 – 24.90 28.58

The mean WG composite score for BS Chemistry (Chemistry Concentration) majors was the highest of all concentrations and degree programs in chemistry. (The mean WG composite score of the BS Chemistry (Management Concentration) was based on only one score and so it not considered in these comparisons.) This is consistent with the results from MFT discussed previously.

Exit Interview Summaries (pp. 30‐44) Exit interviews for graduating seniors are not mandatory; fortunately, a majority of graduating seniors do take the opportunity. This report

contains exit interview summaries of 25 students from AY13‐14 through AY15‐16. Interviews are conducted with two faculty members. These faculty members are chosen in a way that intends to minimize bias and maximize

student comfort. (For example, a student’s academic advisor would not be the first choice to interview a student, and neither would be a faculty member that has had the student in multiple classes.)

The department maintains records of exit interviews noting the date, the student name, and the interviewer names. However, due to privacy concerns, only interview summaries (with names removed) are submitted with this report.

Exit interview summaries are included with this report without comment or “analysis”. Speaking Data (p. 45) Where available, speaking evaluations in the freshman‐level CMN 1310G speech class and in the senior‐level EIU seminar class are compared

for the 41 chemistry majors in the Spring 2013‐Spring 2016 cohort. Observations: From the data available, chemistry students showed improvement in speaking evaluation scores, as measured by the increase in the mean of their total overall score (defined as the sum of scores of all categories added to their total overall score as assigned by instructors in CMN 1310G and EIU Seminar 4xxx). However, it seems doubtful that this difference is significant based on the scatter of data from CMN 1310G and the lack of two scores to compare in 28 out of the 41 cases. Responses to Feedback from Dr. Karla Sanders from Previous Assessment Report (2014) Below is the Response to Summary Form received from Dr. Karla Sanders on7/7/14 regarding the 2014 Undergraduate Program Assessment.

Student Learning Assessment Program Response to Summary Form

Undergraduate Program 2014

Department: Chemistry

Category

Comments

Learning Objectives

Level 3, B.S. Chemistry

Good objectives—clear and measurable. The following undergraduate goals have been adopted by the program: writing, speaking, and critical thinking. I suspect that quantitative reasoning is also embedded in objectives 2 and 3. CAA/CASL has the goal of all undergraduate programs adopting all of the undergraduate goals by 2016, so you may want to look at the new goals passed by CAA in SP14 and see how they fit with your program. Responsible citizenship subgoals have changed, and the ethics goal may dovetail nicely with the scientific method, for example. RESPONSE: The Chemistry Department has not yet moved to completely harmonize the department learning objectives used in the assessment summary with the University Learning Goals. It is recommended that the department begin making these adjustments in AY16-17.

How, Where, and When Assessed

Level 2-3, B.S. Chemistry

You have a good mix of direct and indirect measures here, and your measures are multiple for each objective, so that is excellent. As you continue to refine your plan, you may want to look at ways to make your assessment plan span your curriculum; currently, you are collecting only summative data for some of your objectives. RESPONSE: If defined in the strictest manner, summative data would be defined as exclusively reporting results of standardized exams measured against national comparative or normative data. We have been expanding this (see MFT information below) and individual instructors have used American Chemical Society standardized exams in General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, and Analytical Chemistry. The use of these could perhaps be expanded, but there is a cost factor that could be prohibitive. Summative data can also include numerical information about percentages of students that mean certain grading criteria and/or have specific educational experiences. This type of summative data, we believe, is present for every Learning Goal in the current assessment plan.

Expectations

Most expectations here are specific and relate well to the objectives. You indicate in Part Two that the expectation for CHM 2730 may be too high. Do students show mastery of objective two in the other measures and CHM 3460? You may want to think about collecting artifacts from CHM 2730 (lab reports, tests) in order to determine student achievement of Objective 2. It seems to be a gateway course for your majors and looking at why it is so difficult may help you understand student learning in more depth. RESPONSE: Student performance in CHM 2730 (specifically the performance of students who were chemistry majors at the time they were enrolled in CHM 2730 and who remained chemistry majors until graduation) has remained below target expectations. The Chemistry Department has, to date, still not addressed this directly although it is a worthy topic of discussion.

Results Level 2-3, B.S. Chemistry

Results are being collected and used in light of the changes to the curriculum planned for the upcoming year. What do the MFT results tell you about how your graduates compare to those students who took the test at other institutions? More analysis would be useful as you analyze your data and what it indicates about student attainment of your objectives. RESPONSE: For the assessment reported submitted in July 2016, the department had available 4 years of MFT results from the same form of the exam. We have also now been able to compare the overall performance of a 41-student undergraduate cohort at EIU to national performances from 208 institutions. This also included comparative

data on performances in four Content Areas (Physical, Organic, Inorganic, Analytical) and, separately, on Biochemistry and Critical Thinking and Reasoning. In addition, the department spent $300 (in July 2015) for a one-year subscription to ETS to allow us to receive a question-by-question analysis of our student’s performances and comparison to national means. It should be noted that budgetary constraints will, at least for the foreseeable future, not allow us to continue receiving item analyses and will also prohibit us from doing item analyses on particular chemistry concentrations and also from comparing the performance of our students with particular peer institutions (Costs could exceed $800/year.) However, the data we now have is quite useful and much more informative than used in the last assessment report. Moreover, we have introduced a compilation of chemistry student performance on the locally administered Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking exam and compared our students to the entire EIU student cohort over the past three years. Speaking data from CMN 1310G and EIU 4xxx is also included in this report.

How Results Will be Used

Feedback loop is in place with departmental committees. Do you ever discuss the results as a whole faculty? I assume these discussions will take place as part of the upcoming curriculum revision. RESPONSE: The department could do a better job at discussing assessment data and assessment reports as a whole faculty. The department did have discussions (as a whole faculty) on more than one occasion with regards to the evaluation standards and practices in the chemistry seminar courses (CHM 3001, 4001). The need for this was stated in Part Three of the Student Learning Assessment Program Summary Form submitted in June 2014 and we followed through on these discussions. These were challenging and detailed discussions. Although new course proposals for these seminar courses were not generated, there were some attempts at improving the evaluation process. For example, one semester the instructor assigned to seminar introduced an on-line form for students to write peer evaluations. This prevented them from having to fill out extensive written forms during the seminar presentations of their peers.

Further Comments/Observations/Recommendations regarding this 2016 Assessment Report

1. Continued use of the MFT, and, if at all possible, finding a way to purchase more detailed report information from ETS, would be beneficial to more thoroughly diagnosing and benchmarking the performance of EIU chemistry undergraduates, and ultimately strengthening their career preparation.

2. The department should continue to monitor and discuss the apparent disparity in performance on the MFT between BS Chemistry

(Chemistry Concentration) majors and the other concentrations and the BA degree.

3. It is notable that EIU Chemistry students consistently score noticeably higher than EIU students as whole on the WG Critical Thinking Analysis yet rank only in the 39th percentile nationally on an independent measure of Critical Thinking and Reasoning on the MFT exam. It would be helpful to have national comparative data for the WG analysis.

4. EIU Chemistry undergraduates continue to be involved in undergraduate research in significant numbers. It is recommended that future

assessment reports include a history of presentations given by undergraduates at local, regional, and national meetings, and any peer‐

reviewed publications with undergraduate co‐authors. Moreover, tracking and reporting both internal and external research grants and awards received by undergraduates would be beneficial.

5. It is recommended that the department consider new methods of systematizing collection and archiving of evaluation data from both

graduating seniors and alumni.

6. It is recommended that future assessment reports include current and historical career information on recent graduates and alumni.

7. It is recommended that the department examine the Learning Goals used in the current assessment summaries in light of the recent development of University Learning Goals.

8. It is recommended that the department, on an annual basis, devote at least one faculty meeting to discussing exit interview summaries and identify actionable items.

Submitted 7/18/16 Dr. Mark E. McGuire Professor of Chemistry

STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY FORM AY 2014-2015; AY 2015-2016 Degree and Program Name: Submitted By: PART ONE What are the learning objectives?

How, where, and when are they assessed?

What are the expectations? What are the results? Committee/ person responsible? How are results shared?

1. Students will learn fundamental principles and applications in each of the major sub-disciplines in chemistry.

a) ETS Major Field Test administered to graduating seniors; b) item on exit survey for graduating seniors; c) item on alumni survey sent each year to 3-year and 8-year alumni

a) For each subtest, most examinees scoring at or > 50th percentile; b),c) average response ≥ 3 on 5-point scale where 5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree

a) percent meeting expectation:* Physical – 36.8%, Organic – 42.1%, Inorganic – 21.1%, Analytical – 36.8%; b) See Note 1 below c) See Note 1 below . * A total of 19 students took MFT in this 2-yr time period.

Assessment Committee administers exam and surveys. Results examined by department chair and assessment committee and then communicated to appropriate (e.g. curriculum) departmental committees.

2. Students will be able to critically analyze a breadth of chemical problems & experimental results.

a) Critical thinking component of Major Field Test; b) grades in CHM 2730; c) CHM 3460, presentation; d) item on exit survey for graduating seniors; e) item on alumni survey sent each year to 3-year and 8-year alumni

a) Mean % correct for each year ≥ national mean; b) 75% of majors receive grade of A or B in CHM 2730; c) 100% of students with summary score of 40/50 on evaluation rubric; d), e) average response ≥ 3 on 5-point scale where 5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree

a) MFT National Mean 2011-2015 = 45.1%; Chem. Dept.*mean percent correct: 44% (42nd percentile); b) 39.3% (11 of 28) – counting only those students still listed as chemistry majors in March 2016. Students who repeated course are counted twice. c) S15100% of students met expectation; S16 See Note 1 below. d) See Note 1 below; e) See Note 1 below.

Assessment Committee administers exam and surveys. Results examined by department chair and assessment committee and then communicated to appropriate (e.g. curriculum) departmental committees.

Undergraduate Degrees in Chemistry B.S. Chem. (Chem. Conc.); B.S. Chem (Biochem. Conc.); B.S. Chem. (Manage. Conc.); B.S. Science Treaching (Chem.Specialization); B.A. Chemistry

Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program (major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your department. Worksheets are due to CASA this year by June 30, 2016. Worksheets should be sent electronically to kjsanders@eiu.edu and should also be submitted to your college dean. For information about assessment or help with your assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at 581-6056.

Prepared and submitted on 7/19/16 by Dr. Mark E. McGuire (Chair 7/1/13 – 6/30/16)

* For combined S15 & S16 cohorts = 19 students.

3. Students will be able to execute chemical experiments utilizing modern methods & equipment

a) Assignments in CHM 2845 (IR spectrometer), 3455 (UV/-VIS spectrophotometer), 3780 (chromatography), 3915 (NMR spectrometer), 4915 (inert atmosphere techniques); b) student research participation; c) item on exit survey for graduating seniors; d) item on alumni survey sent each year to 3-year and 8-year alumni

a) 100% of students successfully use specific equipment to acquire data and interpret the same with respect to its chemical significance (e.g. structure determination) or perform a specialized method in chemical synthesis essential to obtaining a desired product; b) 50% or more of graduating seniors complete a research project; c), d) average response ≥ 3 on a 5-point scale where 5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree

a) 100% of students successfully completed assignments in CHM 2845, CHM 3915, and CHM 4915; CHM 3455 not taught either S15 or S16 due to enrollment and staffing issues; CHM 3780 not reported; b) 18/25 (72%) of graduating students (Summer 2014 through Spring 2016) did a research project; 100% of BS-degree chemistry majors (15 students), excluding SCIC majors, did research; c) See Note 1 below; e) See Note 1 below.

Department chair collects course information and assessment committee administers surveys. Information is shared with assessment committee and then communicated to appropriate (e.g. curriculum) departmental committees.

4. Students will be familiar with computer applications in chemistry.

a) Assignments in CHM 2845, (NMR data handling), 3915 (modeling exp.); b) item on exit survey for graduating seniors; c) item on alumni survey sent each year to 3-year and 8-year alumni

a) 100% of students successfully complete specified assignment; b), c) average response ≥ 3 on 5-point scale where 5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree

a) 100% of students in CHM 2845 and 100% in CHM 3915 met expectations; b) See Note 1 below; c) See Note 1 below.

5. Students will be able to properly utilize chemical information sources

a) Assignment in CHM 3500 (use of electronic databases to find relevant chemical information); b) CHM 3001 & 4001: seminar evaluation; c) item on exit survey for graduating seniors; d) item on alumni survey sent each year to 3-year and 8-year alumni

a) 100% of students successfully complete assignment; b) CHM 3001: 100% of students with scores ≥ 2 on literature item; CHM 4001: same as for CHM 3001; c), d) average response ≥ 3 on 5-point scale where 5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree

a) 100% of students completing course met expectation; b) CHM 3001: 75% (15/20) met expectation CHM 4001: 100% (7/7) met expectation; c) See Note 1 below; d) See Note 1 below.

Department chair collects course information and assessment committee administers surveys. Information is shared with assessment committee and then communicated to appropriate (e.g. curriculum) departmental

committees. 6. Students will be able to apply the scientific method of investigation.

a) Student research activity; b) ACS review of sample research reports submitted as part of 5-year review of major. Reports selected from those submitted by majors enrolled in undergraduate research; c) item on exit survey for graduating seniors; d) item on alumni survey sent each year to 3-year and 8-year alumni

a) 50% or more of graduating majors complete a research project; b) positive review of reports by ACS; c), d) average response ≥ 3 on 5-point scale where 5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree

a) 18/25 (72%) of graduating students (Summer 2014 through Spring 2016) did a research project; 100% of BS-degree chemistry majors (15 students), excluding SCIC majors, did research;; b) Submitted 5-year review in Summer 2015; no report back from ACS as of 7/16; c) See Note 1 below; d) See Note 1 below.

7. Students will be able to communicate technical material effectively in speaking & writing

a) CHM 3001 & 4001: seminar evaluation; b) presentation in CHM 3460; c) writing assignments in CHM 3780 (final report) and 3915 (binary phase experiment report); d) item on exit survey for graduating seniors; e) item on alumni survey sent each year to 3-year and 8-year alumni

a) CHM 3001: 90% of students receive passing score on first attempt; CHM 4001: same as for CHM 3001; b) 100% of students with summary score of 40/50 on evaluation rubric; c) 90% of students have scores ≥ 70% on first attempt; d),e) average response ≥ 3 on a 5-point scale where 5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree

a) CHM 3001: 100% (20/20) met expectation; CHM 4001: 100% (7/7) met expectation; b) S15 see Note 1 below; S16 – 100% (4/4) of CHM majors in the course met expectation; c) CHM 3780 – no report; CHM 3915 – 100% met expectation; d) See Note 1 below; e) See Note 1 below.

Note 1: Data not available at time of assessment report submission. PART TWO Describe what your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted. Discuss ways in which you have responded to the CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed. See “Comments and Responses” on assessment report cover pages. PART THREE Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment program. How have you used the data? What have you learned? In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and in past years, what are your plans for the future? See “Comments and Responses” on assessment report cover pages.

Comparison of EIU Chemistry majors MFT results with other institutions using the MFT (2013‐2016)7/11/2016

Comparison of Means (Overall)

Total Percentile Phy Percentile Org Percentile Inor Percentile Analy Percentile SampleNational Data 147.9 Rank 48.1 Rank 47.8 Rank 48.5 Rank 48.2 Rank Size*EIU Chemistry 2013‐2016

147.0 43 47.3 45 49.4 54 45.7 39 47.8 46 208

*Number of institutions using the Chemistry MFT exam

Comparison of Means (by Year)

Total Percentile Phy Percentile Org Percentile Inor Percentile Analy Percentile SampleNational Data 147.9 Rank 48.1 Rank 47.8 Rank 48.5 Rank 48.2 Rank Size**Spring 2016 146.9 43 47.4 45 49.7 60 46.7 44 46.1 37 9Spring 2015 146.6 43 48.5 54 49.3 54 45.0 35 45.9 37 10Spring 2014 144.8 36 46.4 42 47.5 49 40.0 16 48.6 52 8Spring 2013 147.7 49 49.2 54 47.7 49 46.6 44 50.1 56 14

**Number of individuals at EIU taking the Chemistry MFT exam

Comparison of means (by Degree and Concentration)

Total Percentile Phy Percentile Org Percentile Inor Percentile Analy Percentile SampleNational Data 147.9 Rank 48.1 Rank 47.8 Rank 48.5 Rank 48.2 Rank Size**BS Chem Conc 156.3 75 56.9 78 55.9 79 54.8 75 57.4 81 12BS Biochem Conc. 144.1 32 45.6 42 48.0 49 40.1 16 45.9 37 9BS Manage. Conc. 145.7 38 41.0 23 50.3 60 40.0 16 49.7 56 3BS Sci Teach 141.0 24 43.5 30 36.8 9 46.8 44 42.3 21 6BA Chem 143.0 29 42.1 24 49.9 60 41.2 19 41.4 18 11

**Number of individuals at EIU taking the Chemistry MFT exam

MFT Results ‐ Comparisons between Undergraduate Programs (S13‐S16)

BS Chem Conc. Results ‐ 2013‐2016Student# Total Phy Org Inor Analy Bin Frequency

1 153 61 44 49 75 130 ‐ 135 02 157 77 44 52 63 136 ‐ 140 03 153 58 57 49 45 141 ‐ 145 14 153 48 44 66 50 146 ‐ 150 15 160 67 68 43 57 151 ‐ 155 46 159 51 63 66 54 156 ‐ 160 37 144 58 47 34 45 161 ‐ 165 18 166 54 71 66 69 166 ‐ 170 29 146 33 52 59 39 171 ‐ 175 010 153 51 60 46 63 176 ‐ 180 011 169 61 66 69 6612 162 64 55 59 63Mean 156.3 56.9 55.9 54.8 57.4

Median 155 58 56 56 60Std. Dev. 7.4 11.0 9.8 11.0 11.0

BS Biochem Conc. Results ‐ 2013‐2016Student# Total Phy Org Inor Analy Bin Frequency

1 146 42 57 46 39 130 ‐ 135 22 148 48 44 46 57 136 ‐ 140 03 145 64 37 37 50 141 ‐ 145 34 161 58 66 56 69 146 ‐ 150 35 133 39 39 22 36 151 ‐ 155 06 145 30 49 52 42 156 ‐ 160 07 130 36 32 28 36 161 ‐ 165 18 141 45 42 37 42 166 ‐ 170 09 148 48 66 37 42 171 ‐ 175 0Mean 144.1 45.6 48.0 40.1 45.9 176 ‐ 180 0

Median 145 45 44 37 42Std. Dev. 9.0 10.6 12.4 11.0 11.0

130 ‐ 1

136 ‐ 1

141 ‐ 1

146 ‐ 1

151 ‐ 1

156 ‐ 1

161 ‐ 1

166 ‐ 1

171 ‐ 1

176 ‐ 1

Composite Score Ranges

MFT ‐ BS Chem Conc. S13‐S16

130 ‐ 1

136 ‐ 1

141 ‐ 1

146 ‐ 1

151 ‐ 1

156 ‐ 1

161 ‐ 1

166 ‐ 1

171 ‐ 1

176 ‐ 1

MFT ‐ BS Biochem. Conc. S13‐S16

BS Management Conc. Results ‐ 2013‐2016 Bin FrequencyStudent# Total Phy Org Inor Analy 130 ‐ 135 0

1 142 27 57 46 39 136 ‐ 140 12 158 51 60 43 63 141 ‐ 145 13 137 45 34 31 47 146 ‐ 150 0Mean 145.7 41.0 50.3 40.0 49.7 151 ‐ 155 0

Median 142.0 45.0 57.0 43.0 47.0 156 ‐ 160 1Std. Dev. 11.0 12.5 14.2 7.9 12.2 161 ‐ 165 0

166 ‐ 170 0171 ‐ 175 0176 ‐ 180 0

BS Sci Teach (Chem Specialization) Results ‐ 2013‐2016Student# Total Phy Org Inor Analy Bin Frequency

1 138 36 34 40 45 130 ‐ 135 02 142 42 42 46 45 136 ‐ 140 23 141 51 37 43 39 141 ‐ 145 34 136 39 34 40 33 146 ‐ 150 15 148 51 42 56 50 151 ‐ 155 06 141 42 32 56 42 156 ‐ 160 0Mean 141.0 43.5 36.8 46.8 42.3 161 ‐ 165 0

Median 141 42 35.5 44.5 43.5 166 ‐ 170 0Std.Dev. 4.1 6.2 4.3 7.4 5.9 171 ‐ 175 0

176 ‐ 180 0

130 ‐ 1

136 ‐ 1

141 ‐ 1

146 ‐ 1

151 ‐ 1

156 ‐ 1

161 ‐ 1

166 ‐ 1

171 ‐ 1

176 ‐ 1

MFT ‐ BS Manage. Conc. S13‐S16

130 ‐ 1

136 ‐ 1

141 ‐ 1

146 ‐ 1

151 ‐ 1

156 ‐ 1

161 ‐ 1

166 ‐ 1

171 ‐ 1

176 ‐ 1

MFT ‐ BS Sci.Teach. Chem. S13‐S16

BA Chem Results ‐ 2013‐2016Student# Total Phy Org Inor Analy Bin Frequency

1 142 39 55 46 25 130 ‐ 135 42 149 45 57 46 39 136 ‐ 140 13 141 45 49 34 33 141 ‐ 145 34 154 42 63 59 54 146 ‐ 150 15 134 42 39 28 39 151 ‐ 155 16 131 33 39 31 36 156 ‐ 160 07 128 33 34 25 33 161 ‐ 165 08 144 45 52 37 54 166 ‐ 170 09 139 39 44 34 36 171 ‐ 175 010 179 67 78 82 75 176 ‐ 180 111 132 33 39 31 31Mean 143.0 42.1 49.9 41.2 41.4

Median 141.0 42.0 49.0 34.0 36.0Std.Dev. 14.3 9.6 13.1 17.3 14.6

130 ‐ 1

136 ‐ 1

141 ‐ 1

146 ‐ 1

151 ‐ 1

156 ‐ 1

161 ‐ 1

166 ‐ 1

171 ‐ 1

176 ‐ 1

Conposite Score Ranges

MFT ‐ BA Chem. S13‐S16

MFT Summary by Subject S13 ‐ S16

Physical Chemistry (Overall EIU Chem = 47.3; National Data = 48.1)Content Area #questions Mean% correct Mean% correct nationally National Mean?Kinetics/Dynamics 8 34.9 38.7Quantum Chemistry 10 49.6 47.3 Thermodynamics 10 51 51.1

Organic Chemistry (Overall EIU Chem = 49.4; National Data = 47.8)Content Area #questions Mean% correct Mean% correct nationally National Mean?Biochemistry 4 65.7 52.5 Functional Groups 8 41.6 41.5 Molecular Structure 9 57.8 54.8 Reaction Mechanisms 7 45 46.5Special Topics 2 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐

Inorganic Chemistry (Overall EIU Chem = 45.7; National Data = 48.5)Content Area #questions Mean% correct Mean% correct nationally National Mean?General Chemistry 7 44.9 49Chemistry of Main Groups 4 47 42.3 Chemistry of Transition Elem 7 39.1 42.5Metallic and Ionic Substances 2 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐Special Topics 2 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐Structure and Bonding 4 36.7 46.9

Analytical Chemistry (Overall EIU Chem = 47.8; National Data = 48.2)Content Area #questions Mean% correct Mean% correct nationally National Mean?Exp. Design/Data Acqu. 2 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐Homog/Heterog. Equilibria 8 44.9 45.3Instrumental Methods 4 62.4 62 Solutions 2 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐

Report Date: 6/20/2016

The Item Information Report provides descriptive, item-level data for a particular cohort(s) in order to help your program further pinpoint specific concepts you may wish to reinforce with your students.Below is an excerpt from a sample Item Information Report with an explanation of each data element in the report.Example:

This example shows that for question number 1 in Section 1 of the MFT Biology test...

48.8% of your test takers answered the question correctly (Percent Correct: Institution).71.3% of the seniors at other institutions answered the question correctly (Percent Correct: National).This column allows you to gauge the difficulty level of this question for your students compared with the difficulty level of this question for test takers at other institutions.

For more information about this report or other ways the Major Field Tests can help your program, contact an ETS Advisor at highered@ets.org or call 1‐800‐745‐0269

Item Percent Percent Percent PercentNumber(a) Correct Correct Omit Not

Institution National(b) Reached1 25 17.1 29.3 0 0 Analytical Chemistry Exp Design & Data Acqu Standard deviation A1,A2 S42 6 72.5 64.8 0 2.4 Analytical Chemistry Exp Design & Data Acqu Random & Systematic error A2 S41 11 24.4 26.2 0 0 Analytical Chemistry Heterogeneous Equilibria Gravimetric analysis A2 S42 29 52.5 48.1 0 2.4 Analytical Chemistry Heterogeneous Equilibria Solvent extraction A2 S42 34 32.5 30.4 0 2.4 Analytical Chemistry Heterogeneous Equilibria Sol effects-pH; common ion; etc -- S41 2 41.5 53.3 2.4 0 Analytical Chemistry Homogeneous Equilibria pH; pOH; Ka; Kb calculations A2 S41 14 68.3 62.8 0 0 Analytical Chemistry Homogeneous Equilibria Acid-Base titrations A1,A2 S41 47 42.5 38.7 0 2.4 Analytical Chemistry Homogeneous Equilibria Qualitative descrip of acids/bases A2 S42 10 30 37.5 0 2.4 Analytical Chemistry Homogeneous Equilibria Acid-Base titrations A1,A2 S42 37 67.5 65 0 2.4 Analytical Chemistry Homogeneous Equilibria Standard potentials A2 S41 19 80.5 76.2 0 0 Analytical Chemistry Instrumental Methods Beer's law A1,A2 S41 37 39 51 0 0 Analytical Chemistry Instrumental Methods Chromatography -- S42 23 62.5 54.4 0 2.4 Analytical Chemistry Instrumental Methods Beer's law -- S42 46 67.5 66.3 0 2.4 Analytical Chemistry Instrumental Methods Chromatography A1 S41 26 36.6 48.5 0 0 Analytical Chemistry Solutions Concentration terms A1,A2 S42 16 0 8.5 4.9 2.4 Analytical Chemistry Solutions Concentration terms A1,A2 S41 20 31.7 37.7 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Main Group Chem prop - Noble gases A2 S31 33 53.7 46.3 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Main Group Chem prop - Halogens A2 S32 15 25 23 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Main Group Occurrences & recovery -- S32 21 77.5 62.1 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Main Group Chem prop - Alkali metals A2 S31 38 31.7 36.1 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Transition El Coord chem - Ligands A2 S3

About the ETS® Major Field Test Item Information Report

0.0% of your test takers skipped over this question without answering and continued with the tes(Percent Omit), and 0.0% of your test takers stopped taking the assessment before getting to this question and did not answer thiquestion or any subsequent questions (Percent Not Reached). The total of these two columns is the total percentage of your students that did not provide an answer to this question.This question contributes to the "Cell Biology"(Domain), is designed to assess a student's competency in "Cellular structure, organization, function(Content Area), and specifically addresses the concept "Structure/Function:organelles/other" (Subcontent Area).

Major Field Test - Chemistry (4HMF)Item Information Report

Administration Date Range: April 2013 - April 2016Eastern Illinois University

Number of Test Takers = 41

Section Domain Content Area SubContent Area Item Mapping

1 42 17.1 31.7 2.4 0 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Transition El Chemical prop/reactions -- S31 45 45 46.2 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Transition El Coord chem - Stereochemistry A2 S32 7 82.5 66.3 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Transition El Coord chem - Nomenclature -- S32 26 15 35.4 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Transition El Physical properties -- S32 27 37.5 31.4 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Transition El Coord chem - Bonding/spectro A2 S32 30 45 50.7 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Chem of Transition El Electronic structures -- S31 1 46.3 51.2 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry General Chemistry Periodic trends - phys prop A2 S31 5 24.4 40.4 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry General Chemistry Balancing eqns & stoich A2 S31 13 26.8 34.1 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry General Chemistry Lewis Acids-Bases -- S31 27 24.4 30.8 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry General Chemistry Balancing eqns & stoich A2 S3,S42 2 95 86.4 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry General Chemistry Bronsted-Lowry Acids-Bases -- S3,S42 20 25 37.4 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry General Chemistry Nuclear decay & reactions -- S32 50 72.5 62.9 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry General Chemistry Periodic trends - phys prop -- S31 21 39 23.2 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry Metallic & Ionic substances Conductors & semiconductors A2 S3,S42 35 25 31.1 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Metallic & Ionic substances Lattice structure -- S31 12 41.5 49.5 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry Special Topics Catalysis A2 S32 45 65 64.2 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Special Topics Environmental chemistry A1,A2 S3,S41 6 26.8 46 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry Structure & Bonding Lewis diagrams A2 S31 46 45 54.7 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Structure & Bonding -- -- S32 1 27.5 36 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Structure & Bonding MO model A2 S32 39 47.5 51 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry Structure & Bonding Intermolecular forces A2 S31 43 90.2 69.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Biochemistry Terpenes & steroids A1 S21 49 72.5 56.2 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Biochemistry Lipids A1 S22 19 55 46.4 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Biochemistry Proteins; amino acids; etc A1,A2 S22 43 45 37.6 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Biochemistry Proteins; amino acids; etc A1,A2 S21 17 48.8 40.6 0 0 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Cyclic compounds A1,A2 S21 29 51.2 47.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Aromatic compounds A2 S21 50 35 35.4 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Aldehydes & ketones A2 S22 4 45 46.1 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Aldehydes & ketones A2 S22 11 47.5 38.8 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Dienes A2 S22 12 42.5 47.8 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Alkynes A2 S22 44 20 24 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Alkynes A2 S22 48 42.5 51.3 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Alkenes A2 S21 3 70.7 71.8 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Hybridized description -- S21 7 70.7 64.7 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Acid/base properties A2 S2,S41 8 19.5 31.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Nomenclature -- S21 18 58.5 63.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Chirality A2 S21 36 68.3 54.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Anti/aromaticity; Huckel -- S22 18 55 51.1 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure NMR A2 S2,S42 32 47.5 49 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Acid/base properties A1,A2 S2,S42 38 40 35.2 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Acid/base properties A1,A2 S22 49 90 70.6 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Isomerism & tautomerism A2 S21 30 43.9 36.7 0 0 Organic Chemistry Reaction mechanisms Elimination reactions A2 S21 34 51.2 56.4 0 0 Organic Chemistry Reaction mechanisms Nucleophilic substitution rxns A2 S21 35 39 37 0 0 Organic Chemistry Reaction mechanisms Carbonyl rxn mechanisms A2 S21 41 73.2 62.9 2.4 0 Organic Chemistry Reaction mechanisms Radicals A2 S22 5 50 58.4 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Reaction mechanisms Isotopic labeling A2 S22 33 30 40.4 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Reaction mechanisms Racemization/inversion; etc A2 S22 42 27.5 34 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Reaction mechanisms Carbocations A2 S21 22 17.1 34.9 2.4 0 Organic Chemistry Special Topics Rearrangements A2 S22 28 62.5 60.2 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Special Topics Polymers A2 S21 15 31.7 37.9 4.9 0 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Ideal/real gas eqn & prop A2 S11 24 34.1 38.4 0 0 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Experimental rate laws A2 S1,S41 28 19.5 34.9 0 0 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Reaction mechanisms A2 S11 31 53.7 47 0 0 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Coll theory & Arrhenius equ A2 S1,S42 8 27.5 33.2 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Half-lives of chem & nucl rxns A2 S12 14 37.5 22.1 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Photochem processes & rxns -- S1

2 25 32.5 57.3 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Coll theory & Arrhenius equ A2 S12 36 42.5 39.1 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Ideal/real gas eqn & prop A2 S11 10 68.3 66.3 0 0 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Atomic struct - E; orbitals; etc -- S11 16 61 63.6 0 0 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Electron diffraction; de Broglie -- S11 23 87.8 69.3 0 0 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry MO & VB -- S11 39 29.3 27.3 2.4 0 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Lasers A2 S1,S41 48 70 62.7 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Wave/particle duality A2 S1,S42 9 35 33.4 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Rot-vib spectroscopy -- S1,S42 22 37.5 40.4 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry H atom spectra & Rydberg equ -- S1,S42 31 47.5 39.7 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Schrodinger - Particle-in-a-box A2 S12 41 35 39.9 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Blackbody radiation -- S12 47 25 29.9 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry NMR principles A2 S1,S41 4 53.7 59.9 0 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Gibbs' energy G(T;P;V;n) A2 S11 9 29.3 42 0 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics -- A2 S11 32 41.5 55.8 0 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics First law - U; H; q; w; Cp; Cv A2 S11 40 65.9 48.9 2.4 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics First law - U; H; q; w; Cp; Cv -- S11 44 22 21.2 2.4 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Equilibrium K A2 S12 3 42.5 53 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Thermochem - calorimetry A2 S12 13 80 70.7 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Second law - Phys/chem changes A2 S12 17 52.5 50.8 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Equil/spont criteria - G; A; etc -- S12 24 52.5 56.5 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics -- A2 S12 40 70 52 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Third law -- S1

(b) Based on Comparative Data population for this form. Data ranges in date from September 2011 thru June 2015.

S1 ‐ Physical ChemistryS2 ‐ Organic ChemistryS3 ‐ Inorganic ChemistryS4 ‐ Analytical Chemistry

A1 ‐ BiochemistryA2 ‐ Critical Thinking and Reasoning

There are 4 Subscores (S) and 2 Assessment Indicators (A) .

(a) The total Chemistry test consists of 100 items. Items not scored are denoted by a double asterisk "**".

MFT Item Analysis S13‐S16 ‐ Physical Chemistry

Item Percent Percent Percent PercentNumber Correct Correct Omit Not

Institution National Reached

1 15 31.7 37.9 4.9 0 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Ideal/real gas eqn &

prop A2 S1

1 24 34.1 38.4 0 0 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Experimental rate

laws A2 S1,S4

1 28 19.5 34.9 0 0 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Reaction

mechanisms A2 S1

1 31 53.7 47 0 0 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Coll theory &

Arrhenius equ A2 S1,S4

2 8 27.5 33.2 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Half-lives of chem &

nucl rxns A2 S1

2 14 37.5 22.1 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Photochem

processes & rxns -- S1

2 25 32.5 57.3 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Coll theory &

Arrhenius equ A2 S1

2 36 42.5 39.1 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Kinetics/Dynamics Ideal/real gas eqn &

prop A2 S1

Mean 34.9 38.7

1 10 68.3 66.3 0 0 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Atomic struct - E;

orbitals; etc -- S1

1 16 61 63.6 0 0 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Electron diffraction;

de Broglie -- S1

1 23 87.8 69.3 0 0 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry MO & VB -- S1

1 39 29.3 27.3 2.4 0 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Lasers A2 S1,S4

1 48 70 62.7 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Wave/particle duality A2 S1,S4

2 9 35 33.4 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Rot-vib spectroscopy -- S1,S4

Section Domain Content Area SubContent AreaItem Mapping (See Note 1)

2 22 37.5 40.4 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry H atom spectra &

Rydberg equ -- S1,S4

2 31 47.5 39.7 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Schrodinger -

Particle-in-a-box A2 S1

2 41 35 39.9 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry Blackbody radiation -- S1

2 47 25 29.9 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Quantum Chemistry NMR principles A2 S1,S4

Mean 49.6 47.3

1 4 53.7 59.9 0 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Gibbs' energy

G(T;P;V;n) A2 S1

1 9 29.3 42 0 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics -- A2 S1

1 32 41.5 55.8 0 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics First law - U; H; q; w;

Cp; Cv A2 S1

1 40 65.9 48.9 2.4 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics First law - U; H; q; w;

Cp; Cv -- S1

1 44 22 21.2 2.4 0 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Equilibrium K A2 S1

2 3 42.5 53 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Thermochem -

calorimetry A2 S1

2 13 80 70.7 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Second law -

Phys/chem changes A2 S1

2 17 52.5 50.8 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Equil/spont criteria -

G; A; etc -- S1

2 24 52.5 56.5 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics -- A2 S1

2 40 70 52 0 2.4 Physical Chemistry Thermodynamics Third law -- S1

Mean 51.0 51.1Note 1: Item MappingThere are 4 Subscores (S) and 2 Assessment Indicators (A)S1 = Physical; S2 = Organic; S3 = Physical; S4 = AnalyticalA1 = Biochemistry; A2 = Critical Thinking and Reasoning

MFT Item Analysis S13‐S16 ‐ Organic Chemistry

1 43 90.2 69.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Biochemistry Terpenes & steroids A1 S2

1 49 72.5 56.2 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Biochemistry Lipids A1 S2

2 19 55 46.4 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Biochemistry Proteins; amino

acids; etc A1,A2 S2

2 43 45 37.6 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Biochemistry Proteins; amino

acids; etc A1,A2 S2

Mean 65.7 52.5

1 17 48.8 40.6 0 0 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Cyclic compounds A1,A2 S2

1 29 51.2 47.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Aromatic

compounds A2 S2

1 50 35 35.4 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Aldehydes &

ketones A2 S2

2 4 45 46.1 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Aldehydes &

ketones A2 S2

2 11 47.5 38.8 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Dienes A2 S2

2 12 42.5 47.8 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Alkynes A2 S2

2 44 20 24 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Alkynes A2 S2

2 48 42.5 51.3 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Functional Groups Alkenes A2 S2

Mean 41.6 41.5

1 3 70.7 71.8 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Hybridized

description -- S2

1 7 70.7 64.7 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Acid/base

properties A2 S2,S4

1 8 19.5 31.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Nomenclature -- S2

Domain Content Area SubContent AreaItem Mapping (See Note 1)Section

1 18 58.5 63.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Chirality A2 S2

1 36 68.3 54.9 0 0 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Anti/aromaticity;

Huckel -- S2

2 18 55 51.1 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure NMR A2 S2,S4

2 32 47.5 49 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Acid/base

properties A1,A2 S2,S4

2 38 40 35.2 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Acid/base

properties A1,A2 S2

2 49 90 70.6 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Molecular Structure Isomerism &

tautomerism A2 S2

Mean 57.8 54.8

1 30 43.9 36.7 0 0 Organic Chemistry

Reaction mechanisms

Elimination reactions A2 S2

1 34 51.2 56.4 0 0 Organic Chemistry

Reaction mechanisms

Nucleophilic substitution rxns A2 S2

1 35 39 37 0 0 Organic Chemistry

Reaction mechanisms

Carbonyl rxn mechanisms A2 S2

1 41 73.2 62.9 2.4 0 Organic Chemistry

Reaction mechanisms Radicals A2 S2

2 5 50 58.4 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry

Reaction mechanisms Isotopic labeling A2 S2

2 33 30 40.4 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry

Reaction mechanisms

Racemization/inversion; etc A2 S2

2 42 27.5 34 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry

Reaction mechanisms Carbocations A2 S2

Mean 45.0 46.5

1 22 17.1 34.9 2.4 0 Organic Chemistry Special Topics Rearrangements A2 S2

2 28 62.5 60.2 0 2.4 Organic Chemistry Special Topics Polymers A2 S2

Mean ------ ------

Note 1: Item MappingThere are 4 Subscores (S) and 2 Assessment Indicators (A)S1 = Physical; S2 = Organic; S3 = Physical; S4 = AnalyticalA1 = Biochemistry; A2 = Critical Thinking and Reasoning

MFT Item Analysis S13‐S16 ‐ Inorganic Chemistry

1 1 46.3 51.2 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry

General Chemistry

Periodic trends - phys prop A2 S3

General Chemistry

Balancing eqns & stoich A2 S3

General Chemistry Lewis Acids-Bases -- S3

General Chemistry

Balancing eqns & stoich A2 S3,S4

2 2 95 86.4 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry

General Chemistry

Bronsted-Lowry Acids-Bases -- S3,S4

General Chemistry

Nuclear decay & reactions -- S3

2 50 72.5 62.9 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry

General Chemistry

Periodic trends - phys prop -- S3

Mean 44.9 49.0

Chem of Main Group

Chem prop - Noble gases A2 S3

Chem of Main Group

Chem prop - Halogens A2 S3

2 15 25 23 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry

Chem of Main Group

Occurrences & recovery -- S3

Chem of Main Group

Chem prop - Alkali metals A2 S3

Mean 47.0 42.3

Chem of Transition El

Coord chem - Ligands A2 S3

1 42 17.1 31.7 2.4 0 Inorganic Chemistry

Chemical prop/reactions -- S3

Section Domain Content Area SubContent AreaItem Mapping (See

Note 1)

Coord chem - Stereochemistry A2 S3

Coord chem - Nomenclature -- S3

Physical properties -- S3

Coord chem - Bonding/spectro A2 S3

Electronic structures -- S3

Mean 39.1 42.5

1 21 39 23.2 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry

Metallic & Ionic substances

Conductors & semiconductors A2 S3,S4

Metallic & Ionic substances Lattice structure -- S3

Mean ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Special Topics Catalysis A2 S3

Special Topics

Environmental chemistry A1,A2 S3,S4

Mean ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1 6 26.8 46 0 0 Inorganic Chemistry

Structure & Bonding Lewis diagrams A2 S3

Structure & Bonding -- -- S3

2 1 27.5 36 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry

Structure & Bonding MO model A2 S3

2 39 47.5 51 0 2.4 Inorganic Chemistry

Structure & Bonding

Intermolecular forces A2 S3

Mean 36.7 46.9 Note 1: Item MappingThere are 4 Subscores (S) and 2 Assessment Indicators (A)S1 = Physical; S2 = Organic; S3 = Physical; S4 = AnalyticalA1 = Biochemistry; A2 = Critical Thinking and Reasoning

MFT Item Analysis S13‐S16 ‐ Analytical Chemistry

1 25 17.1 29.3 0 0Analytical Chemistry

Exp Design & Data Acqu

Standard deviation A1,A2 S4

2 6 72.5 64.8 0 2.4Analytical Chemistry

Exp Design & Data Acqu

Systematic error A2 S4

Mean ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Heterogeneous Equilibria

Gravimetric analysis A2 S4

Solvent extraction A2 S4

p ;common ion; etc -- S4

1 2 41.5 53.3 2.4 0Analytical Chemistry

Homogeneous Equilibria

pH; pOH; Ka; Kb calculations A2 S4

Acid-Base titrations A1,A2 S4

descrip of acids/bases A2 S4

2 10 30 37.5 0 2.4Analytical Chemistry

Acid-Base titrations A1,A2 S4

2 37 67.5 65 0 2.4Analytical Chemistry

Standard potentials A2 S4

Mean 44.9 45.3

Instrumental Methods Beer's law A1,A2 S4

1 37 39 51 0 0Analytical Chemistry

Instrumental Methods

Chromatography -- S4

Instrumental Methods Beer's law -- S4

Section Domain Content AreaSubContent

AreaItem Mapping (See Note 1)

Instrumental Methods

Chromatography A1 S4

Mean 62.4 62.0

1 26 36.6 48.5 0 0Analytical Chemistry Solutions

Concentration terms A1,A2 S4

2 16 0 8.5 4.9 2.4Analytical Chemistry Solutions

Concentration terms A1,A2 S4

Mean ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Note 1: Item MappingThere are 4 Subscores (S) and 2 Assessment Indicators (A)S1 = Physical; S2 = Organic; S3 = Physical; S4 = AnalyticalA1 = Biochemistry; A2 = Critical Thinking and Reasoning

MFT ‐ Assessment Indicators ‐ 2013‐2016

BiochemistryCritical Thinking and Reasoning

Mean % Percentile Mean % Percentile SampleNational Data 47.9 Rank 45.1 Rank Size

Spring 2013 54 73 45 48 14

Spring 2014 54 73 39 26 8

Spring 2015 45 32 44 42 10

Spring 2016 47 41 43 39 9

Composite S13‐S16

50 54 43 39 41

Spring 2013

Spring 2014 Spring 2015

Spring 2016 Combined Spring 2013 ‐ Spring 2016

EIU WG scores vs. Chem. Dept. Mean Score (Spring 2013‐Spring 2016)

EIU WG Mean Scores by SemesterTest 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

Term Inference Rec.Assump Deduction Interpret. Eval. Argum. Composite Sample Size

S13 3.64 4.94 5.83 4.05 6.44 24.90 722SU13 3.46 4.98 5.69 3.99 6.35 24.44 326F13 3.56 4.83 5.83 3.91 6.51 24.62 677S14 3.61 4.74 5.60 3.88 6.32 24.16 686SU14 3.56 5.02 5.84 3.97 6.48 24.87 317F14 3.69 4.77 6.03 4.07 6.49 25.05 646S15 3.51 4.76 5.61 3.89 6.34 24.10 515SU15 3.56 4.64 5.92 3.94 6.57 24.63 286F15 3.76 4.70 5.82 3.93 6.47 24.69 518S16 3.60 4.61 5.82 3.92 6.52 24.42 609

Chem. Dept. Mean Scores ‐Overall S13‐S16Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

Term Inference Rec.Assump Deduction Interpret. Eval. Argum. Composite Sample Size

S13‐S16 4.58 5.58 6.81 5.06 6.32 28.58 40

Chem. Dept. Mean Scores ‐ by program S13‐S16Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

Inference Rec.Assump Deduction Interpret. Eval. Argum. Composite Sample Size

4.67 6.56 7.44 6.00 6.78 31.44 93.86 5.71 7.14 5.14 5.14 28.00 74.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 31.00 14.67 4.50 7.00 4.50 6.00 26.67 65.13 5.00 5.88 4.13 6.88 27.00 8

Program

BS Chem. Conc.BS Biochem. Conc.BS Manage. Conc.BS Sci.T. Chem. Sp.BA Chem.

AY 14-15 Exit Interview Summary 8 respondents (so 1 respondent = 12.5% of total) 5 BS - 3 ACS Track, 2 Biochem (63%) 3 BA (27%) 2 honors students, 1 minor spanish, 1 minor biology, 1 minor business administration Personal decision to come to EIU reasons to come 25% due to (each) family recommendation, friends, closeness to home, small size, good visit other reasons mentioned by 1 person each were ability to do research, Doudna center, low cost, Hands-On EIU day, friendly campus, HS teacher alum recommendation, exchange student other places considered / applied to (each line is 1 respondent) one went to Oakland City University first due to sports scholarship one considered SIU rest did not mention 50% were transfer students came from Waubonsee, Moraine Valley, Richland, and Oakland City/Lincoln Trail CC’s choice of chemistry as a major 37.5% knew they wanted to be chem majors when they came in, with 37.5% citing their HS chemistry

as a contributing factor 25% were originally bio majors (with premed interests) but switched 12.5% switched after taking 1040 25% chose chemistry due to interest in forensic science or premed future 37.5% are going on in their schooling, 2 to PhD program in chemistry and 1 to EIU Biosci Biotech certificate 12.5% are going on to Pharmacy PharmD program (SIU) 12.5% plan on applying to PA school after a year off 37.5% plan to get a job in industry / forensic lab Curriculum distribution of courses among the four years 37.5% said overall it was good. 25% said sophomore year seemed heavier, due to math/physics and organic getting difficult 37% said junior year was too packed 12.5% said senior year too easy, while 12.5 % said last semester senior year hard 12.5% said it was a bit of a struggle after switching from a bio major of the 4 transfer students 50% said the transfer process was easy and didn’t affect course distribution 25% said they felt behind after transferring

25% said they wished they had taken the organic sequence here for doing better in 4915 bad combinations mentioned calc-based physics while in calc calc with 3910 Org II and Inorg I 27% took at least one summer course at another institution course sequence/prerequisites 87.5% were ok with these / said they could see the need for these 12.5% mentioned that perhaps we should have chem majors take molec and cell bio before taking upper level bio courses (this person had not had biochem yet) 12.5% expressed strong sentiments about the large differences in expectations, format, and coverages between 2-semester sequences (gen chem, organic, and inorganic mentioned). this student also noted that there was too long a gap between taking 2310 and 4910 value of lab courses 62.5% said they really enjoyed all of them / found them all worthwhile other comments (specific labs): instrumental- 1 good. 1 bad. 1 wanted more detailed working principles taught. 1 said it should be better prepared and it was hard to find related resources organic – 1 good. 1 challenging because of reports, but were helped through it stepwise biochem – 1 said really cool, liked the non-cookie cutter styel quant – 1 really liked this since there were not written reports pchem – 1 said this was fun advanced lab – 1 liked this. 1 said it was confusing with 2 instructors (directions, expectations), that too much time was required outside of the class to complete assignments or lab work, had too many lab reports, and that 2 exams was excessive for a 3 credit course (they felt it should be 5-6 credits) other comments (general): 1 said they liked being able to have hands-on experience on instruments 1 said they were more difficult since didn’t have gen chem/org labs here 1 said the GA answers could be confusing and pointed at language issues as well value of required courses outside department 37.5% said worthwhile / could see while physics and calc needed 25% said they had a hard time seeing the value in physics 25% said they enjoyed taking classes outside the major 12.5% said they took calc elsewhere due to reputation of EIU math dept 12.5% said they found cell and molecular bio super helpful for CHM 3450 12.5% did not find the value in EIU senior seminars the way they are taught (not as upper-level) seminar 100% said it was a “huge skill”, a “really good thing”, or similar sentiment 25% said they learned a lot though it 25% said they were stressed about it 12.5% said they enjoyed it and that you had to go into it with correct mindset 12.5% said they liked being able to choose their own topic

12.5% said it cured them of being afraid to talk in front of people 12.5% said they were concerned about types of / fairness of faculty questions 25% said they saw the need for BS students to do 2 seminars electives 12.5% mentioned they did not take many most students simply listed their electives, which included biochem I (2 students), biochem II, inorg II, 4915, supramolecular, med chem one said they were going to take genetics until being talked out it to instead be a bio TA (this from a bio professor) textbooks 12.5% said they liked TRS 25% indicated they had purchased textbooks, while another 25% expressed desire to buy them / saw it would be helpful to have them 12.5% thought they were all good 25% mentioned they didn’t use them much, except for (12.5%) the practice problems specific books mentioned like – Organic, Inorganic, McQuart, Biochem (though not as good as Micro book) dislike - Organic grading 87.5% said it was fair other comments (12.5% each line) when got a low grade it was clear why you just had to adjust to each class / grading didn’t think it was fair that there was no partial credit in 4900 favorite / least favorite class* favorites 37.5% biochem, 25% pchem I, 25% advanced lab, 25% org II 12.5% each org I, gen chem, pchem II, instrumental least favorites 25% instrumental (getting help from instructor, disorganized) 25% organic II (difficulty and intensity) 12.5% 3910 12.5% calc II * some students mentioned more than one 12.5% did not have a favorite nor a least favorite one student mentioned moving 4915 to the fall semester so doesn’t fall during their last semester, especially when doing an honors thesis

Summariesofresponsesfromexitinterviewsof6studentsinAY15‐16.ExitInterviewTopicsPersonaldecisiontocometoEIU‐HSPhysics(RochesterHighSchool,Springfield)teacherinitially,likedtheTeacherCertProgram,Fatherwenthere,visitday,Professorstooktimeduringtour,cheapestchoice,small‐ishschool,didn’twantbig,inEducation,ThisstudentinitiallyplannedtoattendMarquetteUniversity.Aftersomedifficultywithfollowthroughwiththeiradmissionsoffice,thisstudentdecidedtoattendEIU.fathertaught,halfpricetuition,local,ThestudentwasinthesoccerteamofEIU.AnotherreasonforcomingtoEIUisthatEIUisaresponsibleuniversityanddistinguishesitselffromothers.choiceofchemistryasamajor‐InitialintentwastomajorintheBiologySciences,butafterthisstudent’spositivefirstyearexperiencewiththedepartment(C1310/1410),theydecidedtoalsopursueaBAinChemistry.Thestudentindicatedthatiftheycouldstartagain,theywouldbeaChemistrymajorbiochemistryconcentration.[OpportunityAlert],goodhighschoolchemistryteacher,nothingelseasinterestedin,beforetheymatriculatedhaddecided,waiveredaboutEd.,knewthat’swhattheywantedtodo.ChemIandIIinhighschool.interestingbutnotgoodatinhighschool.poorresultinChemistryAPexam,butwellinGenChem,Thestudenthadadualmajor:biology(BS)andchemistry(BA)Curriculumdistributionofcoursesamongthefouryears‐mostofGenEdfromCommunityCollege.TookThermoandinstrumental,noEnglish,noGenChemI,cameinwith30credits,Organic,InorganicandQuant.atthesametimeinthefirstsemesterduetotransfer,OrganicIinthesummer.ThedistributionisOK.Thestudentsindicatedthathe/shemissedseminarbecauseofathletictraining.Studentdidnottakeanymathcourses.coursesequence/prerequisites‐TheydidmentionobservingstudentsstrugglewithInorganicChemistrywithoutpriorenrollmentinOrganicCoursesequence,OrganicbeforeBiochemistrywasgood,Summerphysicsinstead,Calc2withDadvalueoflabcourses‐oneofthemostimportantparts.Onecreditnotfairfortheamountofwork.valueofrequiredcoursesoutsidedepartment,likedupperlevellabcourses.likeslessscriptedandmorecriticalthinkingrequired,enjoyedthelabcomponenttothecurriculum.EnjoyedOrganiclab.WishedtheyhadtakenBiochemlabandInstrumental,AnalyticalChemistrywashelpfulforpreparingthestudentfortheMCAT.mostlyverygood,GenChemgood,Instrumentalwasroughgoing(logisticsproblem).Fine.Nointerestinsyntheticchemistry.

Outsidedepartment–Required–LikedWeatherandClimateandAstronomy(scienceclasses)Education‐differentmajors

GenEd–SpeechandEnglishCompusefulbutprobablywouldn’tchoose.CommunicationnotpreparingforSeminar,Physics(helpedwithPChem),Calculus2(notafanof,necessarybutpoorinstruction),UniversityHonors,jokeinHonorsForum(“jokeandatravesty”).ThestudenttookCAPStonefilmclasstomeetgraduationrequirement.Studentjusttookrequiredcourses(GenChemIandII,OrgChemIandII)forhis/hermedicalschoolapplication.He/shefoundthePhysicswasquitehelpfulandtherewasnoneedtotakeCalculus.seminar‐Thestudentexpressedthechallengeofpreparinganddeliveringtheirseminar.Evenso,theyfounditusefulandacknowledgedthepublicspeakingskillsgainwillbehelpfulfortheircareerpath.Thetopicsoftheexternalspeakersforthepastacademicyearweresomewhatlimited.Morebiochemistrywouldbeappreciated.Reallylikeditbecausehecouldseeclassroomconceptsappliedtoresearch,nervewracking.Teachestimemanagement.Maybeacheckonprogressmorebycoach,Superimportant.Wentfromterrifiedtoconfident.goodexperience.facultycommentsmosthelpful.notpleasedwithperformance,preferhavingpaperevals,Tookthejuniorseminar.Itwasgood.Thestudentwouldliketoseemoreinteractionsbetweenpresenterandaudience.He/shefeltthestudentswerenotinvolved.electives‐Chem–likedEnvironmental,BondingandReactivity,alotofBioMath–linearalgebra,CalcSeniorSem–didnotlike(FilmandSociety),BiochemistryII–excellentpreparationforMCAT.Relevantandspecifictoexamandshould

beencouraged.HelpfulcoursesfortheMCAT–ThecontentoftheThermodynamicsandQuantitativeAnalysiscoursesarecoveredontheMCATandarenecessaryforstudent’ssuccessonthisprofessionalexam.Thestudenttookmedicinalchemistrybecausehe/shefounditwasquiteinteresting.

textbook‐mightlaterbuyOrganicandBiochemistry,likestextbookrental,fullpriceofferonlyforpurchase,GeneralChemistry–studentdidnotusethesetextbooks.PhysicalandOrganicChemistry–Thesetextbookswereusedextensively,likestextbookrentalservice,usedtextbookinQuantitativeandInorganic.Good.Thestudentalsoboughtafew.grading‐Thestudentexpressedthatthegradingschemesintheircoursesweretoofairattimes.Forexample,OrganicChemistryhadalargecurvefortheassignmentofgradesandthestudentsensedthatotherstudentsreliedandadjustedtheirstudyhabitsbecauseofthegradingscheme.fairgrading,widevariety,butcleartostudents.mostlyfair.Inorganicw/Semenuic,unclear?Itwasfair.

favorite‐BiochemistryII,Organic1lab(veryinterestingtouseveryexpensiveglassware),Pchemclasses,organic,Biochem(likewellstructuredandlikedintegrationofmaterial,ChemPracticum,characterizationinAdvancedLab,Instruments,Biochemistryleastfavoriteclass‐Calculus2(sequences),quantitativelecture(drymaterial),Thermo,SurveyOrganic(maybeawholeyear?)Experienceinspecialprogramsresearch‐Thestudentparticipatedinthreesemesters(2summersandfoursemester)ofresearchunderDrs.Menze(Biology)andKonkle(Chemistry).Thisactivityhasbeeninstrumentalinhelpingtoclarifyandpreparingthestudentfortheirfutureprofessionalgoals.1summer,wishedhe/shewouldhavecontinuedResearchpresentations–LouisStokes(broadeningtheSTEMpipeline)inIndianapolisandNationalConferenceonUndergraduateResearchatEasternWashingtonUniversity.CurrentlyworkingonamanuscriptforpublicationwithDr.Konkle.PositiveExperienceswiththeirresearchexperience‐InteractionswithChemistryfaculty,howtomanagemyschedule,criticalthinking,primaryliteraturesearches,andpublicspeaking.

3years+researchrotation,OhioStateUniversity(went),UofI(wenttwice,presentedonce),NCUR(2years),Denver(ACS).On3paperssofar.Reallyenjoyed.Thestudentwishedhe/shestartedtheresearchfromthebeginning.He/shewasquiteinterestedinbio‐relatedresearch.departmental/universityhonors–didinBio,notthatmuchextrawork(outsideofthesis),likedclassesandclasssize.Thestudenttook12credits(universityhonors)includingseminarsandintroductiontochemicalresearchstudentteaching‐gotfirstchoice.IsgoingtobeteachingChem,Astronomy,andBio.ContentTest–noproblem,prettystressedaboutEdTPA(maybeawholeclassonit?)EdTPA–knowswhat’sexpected,goingtohappenduringstudentteaching.EIUEdSchoolwelltrainedinternship‐ParticipatedinashadowingexperiencewithsurgeriesinDr.Grotto’spractice.ThestudenthadaninternshipforresearchattheUniversityofPittsburghfocusingoncardiology.Thisalsohelpedthestudentbuildhis/herconnectionwithfacultyfromoutside.

tutoring‐teacherCert,ExperienceinTeacherCertclass,ChemistryDepartment–onesemester–servedasatutorfortheOrganicandGeneralChemistrycourses.helpfultolearnherownmaterial,bothDepartmentalandprivate.likedtutoring.“helpingpeopleunderstandthingsontheirown”

pre‐professionalcurriculum‐ThestudentexpressedastrongopinionthatEIU/departmentsneedtoconsidermodifyingthecurriculumforpre‐medtrackstudents.Examplesofthisinclude‐OrganicEvolutionwasnotappropriateforthepre‐medtrackstudentsandTeachingMethodswasnotwelltaughtwithcontentunrelatedtofuturemedicalprofessionals.BothcoursesareofferedintheBiologicalSciencesDepartment.Thestudentexpressedconcernwiththepre‐medadvisor.Thestudentwastreatedrudelyattimesandtheadvisorseemedtolacknecessaryinformationaboutcourserequirementsrelatedtothemajor.Assuch,thestudentonlysoughttheadvisorouttoretrievetheirtemporarypinnumberforcourseregistration.ThisstudentiscurrentlyapplyingtomedicalschoolinJuneandhasajobinterviewinthenearfuture.

RSOActivities

ACS‐treasurerAlphasigmaalpha–treasurer,scholarshipchairperson.Orderofomega‐secretary

employmentThreejobs–HonorsCollege,Rehabilitation,Tutoring,andBetaBetaBeta(Biologyorganization)Advising/careerguidance/mentoringcourses‐Drs.McGuireandKonklewereveryhelpful.Positiveexperienceswithboth,goodadvising,Dr.Sheeran.goodadvising.courseavailabilitycancauseproblems,goodadvicefromDr.Sheeran.Thestudentobtainedlotshelpfromchemistryandbiologyadvisors.He/shementionedDr.GopalPeriyannanemployment‐Veryhelpful–Gaines,Konkle,Dr.Gotto,Menze,Lewandowski,resumeworkshop,CareerServices(WCC),preparedmefornextstep,EducationalJobFair(goearly).WantstogotoSt.Louisarea.

graduateschool‐Dr.S.PeebleshelpedtogetstraightaboutseminarDidyoufeelsupported?Thestudentwouldhavelikedtoknowmoreaboutwhatchemistsdo?Offeringsomeinformationtofirstandsecondyearundergradswouldbetterhelpthemdecideaboutamajor.Thestudentsuggestedthisbeincorporatedintothe1310/1410courseseries.CHM1440–Thisstudentparticipatedwithfreshmanresearch(CHM1440).Thisstudentsuggestedallchemistrymajorsberequiredtotakefreshmanresearchtohelpdeveloptheirinteractionswithfaculty,students,andscience.feltverysupportedbyfaculty.Yes.Dr.Konkledidprovidelotsofhelp.Adequacyoffacilitieswithindepartment(equipment,labs,etc.)‐impressedwithequipmentinPChemlab.,computerlab.adequate.Thisstudenthadsomedifficultywiththecomputersinthechemistrycomputerlabs(e.g.printersnotworkingproperly).likedtheComputerlab.Youngerstudentsmaynotknowaboutit.outsidedepartment(librarycomuputers,etc.)‐libraryniceplacetowork.adequate.Someofthelibraryserviceswereinadequate.Thelibraryclosingearlyontheweekendswasnothelpfulwhenthestudentwastryingtostudyforcourseprojects.didn’tusethingsoutsideoftheDepartment.BallengerTeacherCenterhelpfulforcollectionoftexts.BuzzardTeachersCenter

ExtraStuff/CommentsCriticalthinkingskillsThestudentexpressedhowthedepartment’scurriculumpositivelyaffectedtheircriticalthinkingskills.Howtoattractstudents?(Askedbythefacultyrecorders)ThestudentrespondedbysayingthattheChemistryDepartmentshouldincreasestudentenrollmentinthedepartmentbyattractingBiologystudents.ThereexistsapopulationoutsideofchemistrythatwouldbebetterservedbytheclosestudentinteractionstheChemistryDepartmentprovides.

ThestudentwasactivewiththeACSstudentaffiliateschapter.Theymentionedthatthisgroupcouldbetterdevelopactivitiestoshowcasechemistryandthedepartmentonourcampus.ThisstudentrepeatedlyemphasizedChemistryneedstohaveagreaterpresenceonourcampstotohelpshowcaseChemistry’sactivities.

LikedinteractionbetweeninteractionsbetweenFaculty/studentsintheDepartmentAdviceDisciplineandorderinsidetheclassroom.

Whenbeingaskedifhe/shewillchooseEIUagain,theanswerwasyes.He/shealsoprovidedsomesuggestionstonewstudentsthattobesuccessfultheymustworkhard,puteverythingintowork,andbeinvolved.

Speaking Data Comparing Freshman CMN 1310G with EIU 41xx/EIU 42xx

Student # Program CMNa EIUb

1 BS Biochem 28 282 BS Manage 223 BS Chem 20 284 BS Chem 23 28 = incomplete score report

5 BS Sci Teach 166 BA Chem/BS Bio 19 28 = transfer student

7 BS Chem 278 BA Chem/BS Bio 28 28 = no scores reported by

9 BS Sci Teach 28 instructors

10 BA Chem11 BS Biochem 28 = did not retrieve this data

12 BS Chem 21 2813 BS Chem 21 2814 BA Chem 28 aSum of scores from 15 BA Chem all categories + overall score16 BS Chem 27 28 for CHM students in CMN 1310G17 BS Chem 2518 BS Sci Teach 27 bSum of scores from 19 BA Chem 28 all categories + overall score20 BA Chem 28 for CHM students in EIU21 BS Biochem 28 Senior Seminar course

22 BA Chem 2823 BS Sci Teach 28 2624 BS Biochem25 BS Manage 28 2826 BS Chem27 BS Biochem28 BS Biochem 2129 BS Chem 2730 BA Chem/BS Bio 2831 BA Chem/BS Bio 2832 BA Chem 2333 BS Biochem 23 2834 BS Sci Teach 2335 BS Manage (S15) 2536 BS Chem 2437 BS Sci Teach 2838 BS Biochem39 BS Chem If only count those who had 40 BS Chem 27 two scores to compare:41 BS Biochem 28 24.18 27.82

Mean 23.85 26.78 3.66 0.60Std. Dev. 4.22 2.04

department of chemistry - eiu bs ay14.15 and ay15.16-total report.pdfets major field test (mft) in...

Documents

2012 introduction - eiu

aptitude tests - eiu

eiu sap supply_chain_article_we_br1

mft rp projects

mft spikerpistol - prisliste

eiu value challenge

golden apple, eiu presentation

kyree klimist, mft,: qa associate administrator clinical...

ntfs mft example coen 152 / 252. mft table entry

deuta mft en

informational packet - eiu

afb24-mft, afb24-mft-s , afx24-mft , afx24-mft- s...

eiu+ tu21133-03

northgate high school crisis counselors shannon brueckner,...

applications of ccd array spectrometers in undergraduate...

school of - eiu

if/then - eiu

i iiil mft

mft ii_16 marks

benin country report - eiu