Have formal Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) or Student Learning Outcomes (SLOS) been developed?
Yes.
Published where? (website)
See Chemistry SLOs, Curriculum Matrix, and Rubrics. SLOs are also published in the UH Hilo Student Catalog for Chemistry.
Do PLOs include or imply link to Core Competency? (AY 2022-2023: Written Communication)?
Yes.
Process of Core Competency Assessment:
Course (300 or 400- level)
CHEM 350L: Physical Chemistry for Life Sciences Lab. For Fall 2022, the Course was also designated as Writing Intensive (WI)
Type of Student Artifact
Lab Report
Assignment: Students were provided a handout and given instruction in an experimental procedure called “Bomb Calorimetry.” Students worked in pairs to carry out the procedure and collect relevant data under the supervision of the instructor. Individually, students calculated results for the experiment and prepared a formal lab report. A set of writing guidelines and a grading rubric were provided to the student to help guide the organization and content of their report. These documents indicate the report must include the following sections: Title, Abstract, Experimental/Methods, Results, Discussion, and References. The writing guidelines provided instructions on how to prepare each of these sections while the rubric indicated point values for each section and provided examples of point deductions. The papers were required to be a minimum of four pages long, assuming lines were double spaced with 12-point Times New Roman font. The average page length of the four reports submitted was seven pages.
Rubric or other instrument
GE Rubric for Written Communication and rubric for Writing Intensive
Data (measurement of the competency)
Two readers external to the department served as evaluators and read four (n = 4) papers using the Written Communication Rubric (WC) and the Writing Intensive Rubric (WI). When scores were more than one point apart, a third reader external to the program was utilized. Scoring follows.
Readers noted that occasionally there was a wrong choice of word (both for regularly used words and technical vocabulary). For example, exothermic and exergonic were interchanged. If teaching could further emphasize word choice, scores under “WI: Learning of course materials (vocabulary)” should improve.
Readers also noted some students were not able to properly cite a reference. This is an important feature of writing that will be addressed during the “Information Literacy” assessment. Fortunately, the quality of references used was high.
There were some cases when students did not know when to end a paragraph and begin another one. This could make the presentation a little awkward or disjointed in places. Additionally, in some cases, there was no consistent flow from concept to concept. In the future, instruction should include attention to paragraph structure and flow (“WC: Organization and Structure”).
It should be noted that the students writing these reports are still developing their own sense of writing style. Sometimes they oscillate between 1st person and 3rd person point of view though standard lab reports should only use 3rd person. They regularly have trouble understanding their reading audience and what level language should be employed. It is difficult to provide a rubric for writing style because style is a writing skill that needs to be polished over time. Improvements in student writing style will come with practice and this will lead to an increase in scores in the “WC: Language/Prose/Syntax” category.
Action Taken in Response to the Data (What will you do in response to the Findings?)
The guidelines and rubric for this assignment are actually a general set of instructions that apply to all written reports required in this “WI” course. One suggestion is to have some guiding questions that the students must address in their report. The lab handout did have some suggestions for items to include in the report. One such example was “Make sure to compare Qm with the expected value.” While this is an important feature to include in the report, guiding questions that might generate more discussion could be “1. Describe a source of experimental error that could cause Qm to be less than the expected value” and “2. Describe a source of experimental error that could cause Qm to be greater than the expected value.” This way, even if Qm is very close to the expected value, the student will still have to examine the experimental procedure and theory in an effort to explain the experimental details that could lead to high or low results.
Another suggestion being weighed by the department is whether to give students in the upper division courses the option of submitting a draft to the instructor (or a tutor) to provide some preliminary comments. The student may then revise and submit a revised report that will be used for grading.
Regarding assessment, it is suggested that the department work on calibration of readers and to confine evaluations to whole numbers to enable calculations of averages for readers and interrater reliability.
Date of Last Program Review
2022-2023