Research is cross-disciplinary, and success requires integration of all of the department’s outcome skills.  Thus the department considers this an excellent venue for evaluating student outcomes.

Overall, faculty ratings of student outcome performance in all five areas were favorable.  (See Form A, Appendix A). [PDF]  The averages (scale of 1-5) for all of the seniors performing research ranged from 3.8-4.3.  The one outcome area that scored lower than the others was “communication skills”, with a 3.8 average.  The other areas each had averages in the 4.2-4.3 range.

• Form B:  Student self-assessment. 

The student self-assessments were also consistently positive, with averages of 4.2-4.4 in all five outcome target areas.  (See Form B, Appendix B). [PDF]

• Form C: Faculty ratings of student performance in senior seminars.

The faculty evaluation (scale of 1-5) of the student seminars was also favorable, with averages of >4 in all five outcome areas.  (See Form C, Appendix C). [PDF]

• Form D: Student exit-surveys. 

Because of the length of this survey, and because student responses involve written comments, neither the survey nor the results are included in this assessment report.  But a number of interesting generalizations and/or issues arise. 

• Most of the graduating chemists have relatively good GPA’s, the majority being >3.0.

•  Most of the graduating students intend to pursue further education in graduate school or professional school.

• Students are consistently positive about their experiences in the department, and answer “No” when asked if they’ve regretted being a chemistry major. 

• Most of the students are very positive about the education they have received in their chemistry courses.

• Most are positive about their experiences in their liberal studies courses, although the responses are not nearly as positive or consistent as for their science courses.

• Students were very positive about the permanent faculty they interacted with in the chemistry department.  There were repeated concerns about some of the fixed-term faculty they’d had or had heard about.

• Several students commented on the difficulty of General Chemistry II, and mentioned their belief that putting the best faculty in general chemistry should be a departmental priority. 

• Students were very positive about the friendliness and accessibility of chemistry faculty.

• Students thought the department ‘s expectations were very demanding.

• Students were very positive about both their laboratory and their research experiences. 

• Students were somewhat mixed on the quality of the laboratory, laboratory equipment and computers that were provided.

• Students were somewhat mixed on the quality of advising that they received.

3. Departmental Responses to Assessment Input

Given that none of the assessment tools have identified major weakness in the program, or desired outcomes that our students are not reaching, we have not made any major policy or program adjustments based on this assessment data.  Several things that the department does wish to prioritize in the future include:

• Better laboratory facilities, laboratory equipment, and computers available for student use.  We expect that the new science addition should address these issues!

• An attempt to prioritize the quality of instructors in the general chemistry program.

A member of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System
an equal opportunity educator and employer | Accessibility Questions? | Contact assess@mnstate.edu | Updated 1/11/06
MSU Moorhead | 1104 7th Ave South | Moorhead, MN 56563 | 1.800.593.7246
home | msum | committee members | faqs | forms | grants | learning improvements
plans and reports | policies and procedures | resources | schedule status