dnsm exit instrument analysis reflectionwasc.chaminade.edu/assessment/nsm/documents/dnsm...finalize...

Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics

DIVISIONAL EXIT ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT

ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION

SPRING SEMESTER 2008.

Program Assessment Spring 2008 Semester.

2

Program Assessment Timeline

Task Timeframe Method Participants

Decide on nature of program assessment

instrument

Fall 08 Discussion in Divisional and Disciple

Meetings

Dean, Faculty

Construct draft exit survey (indirect

analysis)

Fall 08 Collate questions Dean, Faculty

Review draft exit survey (indirect analysis)

Fall 08 Faculty

Devise comprehensive exam questions

Spring 08 Tasking at January 08 Faculty Retreat

Faculty

Finalize exit instrument construction

Spring 08 Collation and assembly Dean and staff

Deliver exit instrument to graduating seniors

Spring 08 2h closed exam session with students

FS and biology co-ordinators

Survey data analysis Summer 08 Dean and staff

Comprehensive exam grading

Summer 08 Faculty

Assemble data for report to faculty

Summer 08 Document for distribution at August

08 Faculty Retreat

Dean and Staff

Reflection and Analysis Fall 08 Presentation by Dean and Discipline work-groups scheduled at August 08 Faculty

Retreat

Dean, Faculty

Preparation of reflection documents

Fall 08 Faculty

Collation of data and reflections into this

report, distribution to faculty

Fall 08 Dean and staff


3

Table of Contents. 1. OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE EXAM DATA............................................................................................................ 4 2. FORENSIC SCIENCES...................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. FORENSIC SCIENCES SURVEY DATA............................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. FORENSIC SCIENCES STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES. .......................................................................................................... 7 2.3. ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION........................................................................................................................................... 7

3. BIOLOGY. ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 3.1. BIOLOGY SURVEY DATA................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.2. BIOLOGY STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES............................................................................................................................10 3.3. ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION......................................................................................................................................... 11

4. CHEMISTRY...................................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.1. ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION......................................................................................................................................... 12

5. PHYSICS. ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13 5.1. ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION......................................................................................................................................... 13

6. COMPUTER SCIENCES. ................................................................................................................................................ 14 6.1. ASSESSMENT STATUS AND TASKING............................................................................................................................14 6.2. ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION......................................................................................................................................... 14

7. MATHEMATICS. ..............................................................................................................................................................16 7.1. ASSESSMENT STATUS AND TASKING............................................................................................................................16 7.2. ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION......................................................................................................................................... 16


4

1. Overall Comprehensive Exam Data


5

2. Forensic Sciences

2.1. Forensic Sciences Survey Data.


6


7

2.2. Forensic Sciences Strengths/Weaknesses.

STRENGTHS

1. Undergraduate program provides solid scientific background 2. Professors have experience in their fields - 2 3. Availability/accessibility of professors – 2 4. Access to information thru the faculty 5. The increase in resources 6. Quality of instructors 7. Variety of classes related to field - 2 8. Hands-on experience - 3 9. Good core classes and electives – 2 10. Advising 11. Small class sizes 12. Opportunities to interact with people in the field 13. Emphasis on professional preparation 14. Quality of classes

WEAKNESSES

1. Under-qualified professors at graduate level -no knowledge of advanced techniques or technology

2. Program underdeveloped at graduate level 3. Graduate course material not challenging enough 4. Lack of organization 5. Infrequency of course offerings 6. Academic Advising/Records not aware of actual degree requirements, misleads students 7. Repetitive -2 8. Lack of equipment - 4 9. Lack of FS lab space 10. Program too lengthy 11. Lack of professors – 2 12. Need more hands-on experience 13. Need contracted professors to be more accessible/available 14. Small course variety

2.3. Analysis and Reflection.

Prepared by: Dr Lee Goff.

Summary of Discussion at Faculty Retreat – August 2008.

Generally speaking, the results of the survey present an accurate picture of the state of the undergraduate and graduate programs in Forensic Sciences at the time these students would have completed their studies. There are some areas indicated that require attention. It should be noted that these areas had been previously identified and have either already been corrected or are in the process of being remedied. The concerns and solutions tend to fall into two basic areas: Faculty and Facilities.

The Forensic Sciences Program at Chaminade University of Honolulu currently has 140 undergraduate students and 15 graduate students. The faculty consists of 2 full-time permanent faculty members and a variety of adjunct faculty. The Forensic Sciences Program is currently the second largest single program at Chaminade University, with Criminal Justice as the largest. The presence of only 2 full-time faculty has presented several challenges to the program and resulted in


8

a heavy reliance on adjunct faculty. While adjunct faculty in the Program are generally well qualified and respected in their fields, they lack permanence. Many of our faculty are affiliated with military and other governmental organizations. Over the past several years, activities in Iraq and other areas have resulted in unexpected deployments of individuals who had been heavily involved in our instructional program. This has necessitated a number of last minute changes in instructional faculty. In some cases, courses were team-taught and often not a cohesive as might have been the case had there been a single instructor. Although not the best of all possible situations, required information was adequately disseminated to the students. In one case, an adjunct was hired who, on paper and from references, appeared to be exceptionally well qualified to teach at the graduate level. The actual experience was completely unsatisfactory and the individual was dismissed. With the addition of 2 new, permanent faculty now being recruited and the return of adjunct faculty from deployments, our instructional faculty will be increased and again become stable.

Activities associated with the ongoing renovations of the laboratory and lecture facilities in Henry Hall have placed constraints on our course offerings and our ability to provide “hands-on” experiences. These constraints have fallen primarily into the bench laboratory aspects of our offerings., while the scene processing and presumptive testing aspects have largely remained unaffected. With the completion of new laboratories currently under construction and the purchase of appropriate instruments, space and equipment problems will be eliminated. The addition of the Forensic Sciences Compound to be completed in Dec. 2008, will serve to compliment an already strong crime scene aspect of our program.

The survey indicates a high level of satisfaction of the students with the basic core areas within the Forensic Sciences that were identified and emphasized in our curriculum. The levels of understanding in the various specific subdisciplines listed reinforce this. Other specialized areas listed show more scattered levels of exposure among students. This is largely a function of the fact that these specific courses are electives and not taken by all students, thus the distribution.

For example, although treated in several undergraduate courses, Trace Evidence is not treated as a separate subdiscipline until the graduate level. One area that deserves mention deals with exposure of students to “advanced scientific instrumentation.” The emphasis of the undergraduate curriculum is on the basic techniques common to all crime laboratories. Many advanced instruments are not commonly used in most crime laboratories and student exposure to these instruments comes during their internship experiences. Cost and limited utility of many of these instruments are such that it is not practical for a program of our size to invest in them, even at the graduate level.

The graduate program is in its first cycle and there have been problems associated with organization. This is the first day-based graduate program here at Chaminade University and several unforeseen problems with scheduling and prerequisites have arisen. At present, the majority of these problems have been resolved and a greater level of cooperation with Academic Advising with respect to both undergraduate and graduate programs is emerging.

Given the nature of the Forensic Sciences Program, there has not been an emphasis on providing students with summer research experiences at Chaminade or other institutions. The majority of these experiences available to students are not actually directly relevant to Forensic Sciences. The Forensic Sciences Program has emphasized experiences in laboratories directly involved in the type of work encountered by the graduating student. These experiences have included internships at agencies such as NCIS, FBI National Laboratories, local crime laboratories, and various Medical Examiner facilities across the country. In many cases, these have resulted in employment following graduation. In a similar manner, the program has not provided specific instruction in testing (GRE, MCAT, PCAT, etc.) but has concentrated on development of skill sets (reading, writing, calculation and analytical thinking) that are applicable to future employment and basic to testing.


9

Overall, while not perfect, the Forensic Sciences Program at Chaminade University is providing more than adequate preparation for our students in their chosen fields and continues to evolve and progress.

Recommendations

1. Complete hiring of additional permanent faculty and decrease reliance on adjunct faculty.

2. Complete ongoing renovations of laboratories and lecture halls along with the Forensic Sciences Compound. As facilities are completed, appropriate instrumentation must be installed.

3. Increase emphasis and obtain funding to allow students presentations of research based on internship experiences.

4. Improve communications with Academic Advising Office to eliminate problems in course selection.

5. Track institutions at which prerequisite courses, particularly Chemistry, are taken by transfer students.

3. Biology.

3.1. Biology Survey Data.


10

3.2. Biology Strengths/Weaknesses.

STRENGTHS

1. Small class sizes - 6 2. Accessibility/compassion of teachers - 5 3. Challenging courses


11

4. Advising - 4 5. Well-structured courses 6. New lab facilities 7. Summer research opportunities 8. Research opportunities 9. Diversity of teaching styles 10. Professors’ knowledge of respective fields 11. Program is personal and wants students to succeed

WEAKNESSES

1. Weekend labs 2. Friday afternoon labs 3. Quality of teaching in some classes 4. Inadequate lab resources - 3 5. Infrequency of course offerings (every year/every other year) - 2 6. No sub-specializations of the biology major (ex: Biology with an emphasis in biochemistry) 7. Not enough full-time faculty 8. Summer research advisor is very selective in who gets to go where/who gets chosen 9. Students need more help in preparing for graduate entrance exams 10. Not enough course variety


Prepared by: Professor Ron Iwamoto.


Strengths

1. Biology faculty were pleased by the personal observations of students that they learned biological principles from accessible faculty with diverse teaching styles.

Weaknesses

1. Biology graduating seniors did not take the exit examination instrument seriously.

a. Some faculty wanted the instrument to be administered prior to the last weeks of the academic calendar in spring.

b. A suggestion was made to administer the exit exam in the junior year so an attempt could be made to inform students of deficiencies.

2. Some biology faculty desired a more comprehensive examination than the limited questions on the exit examination.

3. Several faculty suggested a 4 day teaching schedule and expansion to evening labs in response to weekend labs and Friday afternoon lab dislikes of students.

4. Lisa mentioned that she would be submitting for models to be purchased to help remedy lab resources.

5. Infrequency of course offerings, course variety, sub-specializations, and not enough full-time faculty was discussed with the limitation of number of students/majors able to enroll in courses and the need for more full-time faculty.

6. Patty stated she was selective in choosing students for summer research.


12

Recommendations

1. Scheduling is a priority so we do not cancel courses

2. Do not cancel courses before classes begin, after first week of classes.

3. Have formal advising sessions for faculty and students.

4. Have biology majors take junior year comprehensive exams.

5. Make exam comprehensive than limited number of questions on current exam.

4. Chemistry

4.1. Analysis and Reflection

Prepared by: Dr Terem, Dr Kawakami.


• Although we had roughly expected a score of 80% from our stronger students and 50% from

our norm, the overall score reflected well.

• However in order to better access the data, it would have been helpful to see the group further broken down into majors and their GPA. The former is important as the BA group of Bio students only take Gen and Org Chem, and not BioChem and Analytical Chem.

• As for the chemistry questions, we would like to see one of our suggested acid/base questions included.

• Overall, we believe based on the current data the students retained sufficient information in the chemistry curriculum and are prepared for their next level of higher education or the beginning of their professional career.


13

5. Physics.


Prepared by: Dr Cooke, Dr Minami.


Strengths Weaknesses

Small student/teacher ratio Inadequate facilities

Highly motivated professors Inadequate equipment Research experienced professors No equipment storage space

Extra free tutorial sessions held on regular basis Insufficient whiteboard area

Good ties between labs and classes Difficulty scheduling 4th hour Small class size Difficulty scheduling physics classes at times that suit students

Professors available for direct consultation No consultation re: design of new physics facilities

Effort put in to prepare students for professional life

Questions:

• Students who do the calculus based physics sequence – are they better performers in the labs?

• Are students who enter Forensic Science without having done the physics at Chaminade – do they perform in the FS major courses as well?

• Is age a factor in performance in Physics?


14

6. Computer Sciences.

6.1. Assessment Status and Tasking.

The CS Exit Instrument was not delivered to any students in SD08 since no seniors graduated in that semester. We anticipate delivering the exit instrument to graduating seniors in Fall 08. The CS faculty were asked to use allotted time at the faculty retreat to (a) discuss Brother Maruyama’s findings from his work on curriculum at his NYU retreat over the summer, and (b) to discuss the possibilities for a CS capstone experience.


Prepared by: Brother Bob Maruyama.


Capstone Course.

Everyone was in agreement on the need for some type of a capstone course for the CS/CIS majors. There are two possible ways to offer such a course.

a. Internship An internship in a CS/CIS related area offers a practical experience for a student. Some students find such an opportunity locally on their own initiative, but many do not. If internship is made a requirement, the CS/CIS program needs to guarantee such an opportunity for all senior students. This would be a difficult task at this time.

b. CS 499 A directed research course (CS 499) can be offered as an alternative to internship. There are a number of ways in which such a course can be designed.

i. Under the supervision of CS faculty at Chaminade

ii. Under the supervision of faculty from other science discipline at Chaminade

iii. Teamed with another science major (e.g., Biology), under a joint supervision of more than one faculty

iv. Under the supervision of Computer Engineering faculty at University of Hawaii

Laboratory.

The Computer Science laboratory needs to be used more effectively, but in order to take advantage of the facilities, a lab manager is needed. This will become especially true if the number of students who are involved in CS 499 grows. Possible sources for a lab manager are: 1) CS student; 2) Chaminade IT member on part-time basis; 3) graduate student from UH; 4) part-time faculty. The first type is not completely reliable. The second type causes a conflict of interest. The third type is a distinct possibility, depending on the financial need of a graduate student. The last type requires a


15

budget increase.

CS Curricula.

The current view of the Computer Science education by curriculum experts from the ACM (Association of Computing Machinery) and IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) consists of the following areas of specialization as distinct disciplines:

• Computer Science (much theory, less application)

• (Computer) Information Systems (little theory, business applications, organization structure)

• Computer Engineering (much hardware, theory)

• Software Engineering (large-scale software development, project management)

• Information Technology (less theory, emphasis on applications)

Historically, the first three disciplines in the US universities often grew out of Mathematics, Business, and Electrical Engineering departments, respectively. Chaminde’s programs are based on this old model, in which the CS program and CIS programs were distinguished by the amount of mathematics (emphasis on theory) requirements and business (emphasis on application) courses. However, today’s computer applications have grown to such a degree (e.g., data communications, network security, Web applications) that Information Technology has emerged as a distinct discipline.

The (Computer) Information Systems discipline belongs more properly to a Business program. It seems that the intent of Chaminade’s CS programs, and the needs of the students, would be more accurately reflected by the Computer Science and the Information Technology disciplines. A review of the CS curricula with this view is an urgent task.


16

7. Mathematics.

7.1. Assessment Status and Tasking

No mathematics questions were submitted for use in the Exit survey. The Faculty expressed reservations at the Fall Retreat about how to select just a few topics for a ‘comprehensive examination in Math. Therefore Faculty were asked at the Fall Retreat to use the allotted time to: (1) work further on the course matrix under Dr Miller’s guidance, and (2) develop recommendations for an assessment method for inclusion in the divisional exit instrument, assessing graduating science majors for their math skills.


Prepared by: Dr Jim Miller.

Summary of Discussion at Faculty Retreat – August 2008

(1) As you requested, the Math group (C. Wong, E. Tyler, J. Miller) completed thepreviously started course matrix and links for MA098, MA103 and MA110. In addition, we added MA100 although it is not a prerequisite for any other math course.

Matrix of math core knowledge and linkage to math curriculum (Exhibit A)

a. The matrix of core knowledge components of MA098, MA103 and MA110. (Completed 8/19/08)

b. The matrix of core knowledge components of MA100, although MA100 is not a prerequisite for any other math course. 1. Placement or satisfactory completion of MA098 is prerequisite for MA100. (Completed 8/19/08)

c. The linkage of the matrix of core knowledge to the courses in the math curriculum. (Completed 8/19/08)

(2) As you further requested, the Math group developed recommendations for an assessment method for inclusion in the divisional exit instrument, assessing math skills of graduating science majors with recommended action plan.

1. Obtain from the faculties of CS, BS and FS situations appropriate for assessing math skills of their graduates. (Miller: due date 10/31/08)

2. Prepare math assessments within the above situations to demonstrate math skills with one or more or all of the following:

a. Rate of change b. Binomial distribution c. Mean and standard deviation of interval data d. Scientific notation e. Using percentages

3. Prepare Draft of CS, BS and FS math skills assessment for review by CS, BS

i. and FS. (Math Group, 12/31/08)


17

4. Prepare Rev 1 of CS, BS and FS math skills assessment for submission to i. Dean: DNSM. (Math Group, 2/29/08)

(3) The Math group is preparing a matrix of core knowledge for Calculus I. (Exhibit B) Proposed due date is 10/31/08.


18


19


20

dnsm exit instrument analysis reflectionwasc.chaminade.edu/assessment/nsm/documents/dnsm...finalize...

Documents