California State University, Northridge



2016-2017 Annual Program Assessment ReportPlease submit report to your department chair or program coordinator, the Associate Dean of your College, and to james.solomon@csun.edu, director of assessment and program review, by September 30, 2017. You may, but are not required to, submit a separate report for each program, including graduate degree programs, which conducted assessment activities, or you may combine programs in a single report. Please identify your department/program in the file name for your report.College: Science and MathematicsDepartment: Chemistry and BiochemistryProgram: BA/BS/MSAssessment liaison: Thomas MinehanPlease check off whichever is applicable:A. ___√____ Measured student work.B. ___√____ Analyzed results of measurement.C. ________ Applied results of analysis to program review/curriculum/review/revision.Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). On a separate sheet, provide a brief overview of this year’s assessment activities, including:an explanation for why your department chose the assessment activities (measurement, analysis, and/or application) that it enactedif your department implemented assessment option A, identify which program SLOs were assessed (please identify the SLOs in full), in which classes and/or contexts, what assessment instruments were used and the methodology employed, the resulting scores, and the relation between this year’s measure of student work and that of past years: (include as an appendix any and all relevant materials that you wish to include)if your department implemented assessment option B, identify what conclusions were drawn from the analysis of measured results, what changes to the program were planned in response, and the relation between this year’s analyses and past and future assessment activitiesif your department implemented option C, identify the program modifications that were adopted, and the relation between program modifications and past and future assessment activities in what way(s) your assessment activities may reflect the university’s commitment to diversity in all its dimensions but especially with respect to underrepresented groupsany other assessment-related information you wish to include, including SLO revision (especially to ensure continuing alignment between program course offerings and both program and university student learning outcomes), and/or the creation and modification of new assessment instruments3. Preview of planned assessment activities for next year. Include a brief description and explanation of how next year’s assessment will contribute to a continuous program of ongoing assessment.2. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). Provide a brief overview of this year’s assessment activities.The following assessment activities took place this year:?Measure Student WorkAssess basic knowledge in general chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry (SLO1) using standardized exam questions in course finals.Assess students ability to keep a laboratory notebook in chem 334L using our departmental notebook rubricAdministered a signature assignment for longitudinal assessment of knowledge (SLO1) in gateway (Chem 333, Chem 321) and capstone (Chem 401) courses.Assess graduate students’ scientific oral communication abilities in literature and thesis seminars, relevant to SLO2m: Organize and communicate scientific information clearly and concisely, both verbally and in writing?Analyze Results of MeasurementAn analysis of student performance trends in general chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry was undertaken.Current student lab notebook performance was compared to previous assessments from several years agoThe results of the signature assignment were reviewed and suggestions for an alternative exam format/source were made.Review evidence pertaining to SLO2m: Organize and communicate scientific information clearly and concisely, both verbally and in writing.The department chose these activities so as to 1.) encourage faculty to continue doing assessment in their courses each year so as to identify trends over multiple semesters and weaknesses in student comprehension that need to be addressed at the individual course level and in the program as a whole, and 2.) move forward with our longitudinal assessment program, identifying possible sources of the lack of significant change in student performance at the gateway and capstone courses that were identified in previous assessments.A: Measure Student WorkSLO’s addressed: SLO 1: Assess basic knowledge in the following areas of chemistry: general chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry, both at the individual course level and for the program as a whole.1. Assess basic knowledge in general chemistry (SLO1) using standardized exam questions. Alignment with core competencies: critical thinking, quantitative literacy.5163185180721000General Chemistry Assessment: Our General Chemistry courses Chem 101 and Chem 102 service majors, minors and a large number of non-majors. Students taking Chem 101 in fall 2016 and spring 2017 were assessed using 12-15 questions from the ACS standardized exam in General Chemistry. A previously established benchmark for success on these assessments is 60% or more of the questions answered correctly. For one section of 78 students, in fall 2016 the average score for was 6.6 correct out of 12 (55%, questions administered as part of course final exam). 42 students (54% of the class) achieved the benchmark score of 7 (or more) correct out of 12 questions. For spring 2017, identical pre- and post-tests were administered (12 questions) to 78 students with the pre-test administered on the first day of class and the post-test administered as part of the final exam. The average for the pre-test was 3.8 correct out of 12 (32%), and only 7 students (9% of the class) achieved the benchmark score of 7 or more correct. The average for the post-test was 7.3 questions correct out of 12 (61%), and 50 students (64% of the class) achieved the benchmark score of 7 or more correct. In another section of Chem 101 (34 students), identical pre- and post-tests (15 questions) were administered on the first day of class and on the final exam. The average for the pre-test was 5.7 correct out of 15 (38%), and the average for the post-test was 9.3 correct out of 15 (62%). Interestingly, for the pre-test, only 5 out of 34 students (14.7%) achieved the benchmark of 60% (9 or more questions correct out 15); however, for the post-test, 21 out of 34 students (62%) achieved the benchmark score or higher. e. Analysis of the Results of Measurement Our Chem 101 general chemistry courses are doing a good job in improving student comprehension of the foundational concepts of chemistry. Students are clearly improving their understanding of the material as they proceed through the course, with significant gains evident in both the class average on the assessments and in the number of students achieving the benchmark level of performance. This upcoming year we will be expanding our assessment to other GE courses including Chem 100, Chem 102, Chem 103, Chem 104, and Chem 110, and although it is not desirable to “teach to the exam”, it may be helpful for general chemistry instructors to review the ACS exam questions and identify general topics with which the students seem to have more difficulty. This activity may result in changing the emphasis on some topics covered in the corresponding lecture course.642620014097000One Chem 101 instructor administered a survey at the end of the course asking students to reflect on what was the most valuable resource for their learning provided in the course: homework, lectures, exams, quizzes, textbook or discussion activities. There was an almost equal distribution of responses indicating homework, lectures, textbook and exams. However, only 5% of the class found discussion activities to be a valuable learning resource! Perhaps this indicates a prevailing student attitude toward discussion sections as “less valuable” than the lecture portion of the course. This attitude may provide a stumbling block for some students to take full advantage of group problem solving activities to improve their performance in the course, especially in more advanced chemistry courses. 2. Assess basic knowledge in organic chemistry (SLO1) using standardized exam questions. Alignment with core competencies: critical thinking, quantitative literacy.The organic chemistry courses Chem 333 and Chem 334 are taken in sequence by all Chemistry BS, Chemistry BA and Biochemistry BS majors. In addition, a large number of non-majors (especially from Biology) take this course as required in their program. Ten questions from an ACS Standardized exam in organic chemistry were incorporated in the course final exams for Chem 333 (Organic Chemistry I, Fall 2016) and Chem 334 (Organic Chemistry 2, Spring 2017). In Chem 333, of the 66 students who took the final exam, 36 students (54%) achieved the benchmark score of 6 or more questions out of 10 answered correctly. In Chem 334, of the 59 students who took the final exam, 22/50 (37%) got 6 or more questions correct.In another section of Chem 333 (Spring 2017) the instructor administered the entire 70-question ACS Exam in Organic Chemistry (First Semester) on the last day of class. Of the 63 students who took the exam, only 8 students (13% of the class) achieved the benchmark score of 40 (or more) correct out of 70 (50th percentile according to the national norms); the average class score on the exam was 27 correct out of 70, or 16th percentile. In Fall 2016 the entire ACS Exam in Organic Chemistry was administered to a section of Chem 334. Of the 64 students who took the exam, 19 students (30%) achieved the benchmark level of 39 (or more) correct out of 70 questions (50th percentile); the average class score was 34 correct out of 70, or 35th percentile according to the national norms. Finally, in Spring 2017 the entire ACS Exam in Organic Chemistry was administered to another section of Chem 334. Of the 66 students who took the exam, 12 students (18% of the class) achieved the benchmark score of 39 (or more) correct out of 70 questions (50th percentile); the average class score was 31 correct out of 70, or 26th percentile according to the national norms.e. Analysis of the Results of MeasurementThe results show that when the instructor selects the standardized questions for incorporation on the final (clearly focusing on material that was directly covered in the course), the students do better. When the entire ACS exam, which clearly contains some topics that may not have been emphasized as much by the instructor in the course, is administered, students perform more poorly. This clearly indicates that the majority of our students have problems applying what they have learned in the course to examples with which they are not already familiar. Since critical thinking skills are of paramount importance in science regardless of major, these findings, which are consistent in assessments year after year, are of great concern. It is interesting to note that even with mandatory discussion sections for each course (which emphasize problem solving activities) less than 30% of a typical class (and usually less than 20%) achieves the benchmark score of 50th percentile on the ACS standardized exam. The qualitative data available from Chem 101 on student attitudes toward the value of discussion sessions is especially informative in this case. Perhaps instructors need to emphasize the value/importance of discussion activities (for getting better grades!) on the first day of class.3. Assess basic knowledge in biochemistry (SLO1) using standardized exam questions. Alignment with core competencies: critical thinking, quantitative literacy.Chem 464 is a one-semester course in biochemistry taken primarily by non-majors; Chem 462 is the second-semester of a two-semester biochemistry course (Chem 461 and Chem 462) taken by biochemistry majors. In Spring 2017, 42 students in Chem 464 were administered 10 questions taken from the ACS standardized exam in biochemistry in a pre-test on the first day of class and in a post test on their course final exam. The benchmark for success in this assessment was 6 or more questions correct out of 10. For the pre-assessment, only 4 students (9.5% of the class) achieved the benchmark level or higher; however, for the post assessment, 24 students (57% of the class) achieved the benchmark level or higher. Interestingly, the percentage of students who improved their score (by >1) between pre-and post-assessment was 79%. Furthermore, the percentage of students who improved their score significantly (by >3) between pre- and post-assessment was 38%. In Chem 462 (spring semester 2017, 22 students), 10 questions from an ACS standardized exam in biochemistry were given as a pre-test at the start of the semester and as a post-test on the course final exam. For the pre-assessment, 8 students (38%) achieved the benchmark of 6 or more questions answered correctly out of 10. The average score for the pre-test was 4.2/10. For the post-assessment, 18 students (82%) answered 6 or more questions correctly out of 10. Furthermore, 16 students (72% of the class) improved their score by 1 or more between pre- and post assessment; 10 students (45%) improved their score by 3 or more between pre- and post- assessment (see bar graphs below). The average score for the post-assessment was 6.6/10. 62865069215004470400-254000523875015240000Improved student performance on the final assessment has been observed over the past several years (2015-2017), with post-assessments now showing >80% of the class achieving the benchmark level of performance or higher (see graph below). It should be noted that as a result of course assessments between 2012 and 2014, beginning in 2015 the questions selected for this assessment were changed so that poorly worded ones were replaced with questions perhaps geared more toward content emphasized in the course. While this may partially explain the jump in student performance between 2014 and 2015, it is also clear that students have made real gains in their understanding and knowledge of biochemistry throughout the years. e. Analysis of the Results of MeasurementIn Chem 462, it is evident that students are significantly improving in their knowledge of biochemistry from the pre-test to the post-test: the class average on the pre-assessment was 4.2/10 (below benchmark), while the class average on the post assessment was 6.6/10 (above benchmark). The gains in student performance from pre- to post are very impressive, with nearly half the class increasing their score by 3 or more. One suggestion to allow comparison of our students’ performance with national averages is to administer the entire ACS standardized exam in biochemistry on the last day of class, time permitting. This has been a useful comparison for general chemistry instructors and organic chemistry instructors, allowing them to gauge where our students stand with respect to others assessed across the nation in the same subject area.A. Measure Student WorkSLO’s assessed: SLO 4: Work effectively and safely in a laboratory environment, including the ability to follow experimental chemical procedures and maintain a proper lab notebook. Assess students’ ability to keep a laboratory notebook in Chem 334L using our departmental notebook rubric. Alignment with core competencies: written communication.Chem 334L, Organic Chemistry II laboratory, is taken roughly midway through the BS/BA Chemistry and Biochemistry majors, and students in this lab have already taken three required laboratory courses as prerequisites: Chem 101L, Chem 102L, and Chem 333L. With this preparation, it is expected that students in this course should be able to properly maintain their laboratory notebook, an important skill for all practicing scientists. 29 Chem 334L lab notebooks from Chemistry and Biochemistry majors were assessed using the departmental lab notebook rubric (see Appendix B) by our lab TA’s. Out of a possible score of 20 points, the average score was 16.3/20 (81.5%). Although this appears to be a good indication of our students ability to properly keep their lab notebooks, the highest scores were obtained for categories in which students prepared their notebook outside of the lab: abstract, TOC entry, page #s, completed table of amounts and physical properties of all reactants and solvents, procedure flowchart, etc. Poorer performance was observed in the categories “record of in-lab observations”, “notation of changes to experimental procedures”, and “conclusions and comparison of results to literature values”. For these three categories (assigned 4 points each), the average scores were 8.8/12, or 73%. f. Comparison to data from previous yearsIn the 2013-2014 academic year laboratory notebooks were assessed in Chem 411, Chem 422, and Chem 433. Although these courses are taken after Chem 334L by our majors, the average scores for the notebook assessment was in the range of 15.1-18.1/20, which tells us little about whether our students are improving their notebook-keeping skills. Indeed, instructors also noted poorer performance in the same categories mentioned above (“record of in-lab observations”, “notation of changes to experimental procedures”, and “conclusions and comparison of results to literature values”). Since the importance of in-lab notebook record-keeping for practicing scientists cannot be overstated, it is suggested that our rubric be amended to place a greater emphasis on in-lab observations, deviations from protocol, conclusions, and post lab-reflection of the results obtained.A. Measure Student Workc. Administered a signature assignment for longitudinal assessment of knowledge (SLO1) in gateway (Chem 333, Chem 321) and capstone (Chem 401) courses.Signature Assignment Administration, year 3: previously, twenty multiple-choice questions from all subdisciplines of chemistry (general, organic, inorganic, analytical, physical, and biochemistry) were assembled to create an assignment with the input of the department faculty (Appendix A). For the past two years this assessment has been implemented into Moodle, and given as an extra-credit assignment to students in Chem 321 (Analytical Chemistry I, the gateway course for majors and minors) and Chem 401 (Inorganic Chemistry, the capstone course for majors and “unclassified” graduate students who would like to demonstrate proficiency in inorganic chemistry). Since the previous two assessments showed no significant difference in performance on the assignment in the gateway and capstone courses, it was decided to administer the assessment in Chem 333 (Organic Chemistry I, a required course for majors and non-majors often taken before Chem 321) as well as in Chem 321 in the 2016-2017 academic year.?Results of assessment: In Spring 2017 Chem 333 (6 Chem/Biochem majors), the average score was 8.16 correct out of 20 (41%). In spring 2017 Chem 321 (50 students), the average score for those who completed the assignment was 10.2 correct out of 20 (51%). For spring 2017 Chem 401 (49 students), the average score for the students taking the exam was 11.2 correct out of 20 (56%). We now see an upward trend in performance as expected for students proceeding through the major; however, the difference in average performance between chem 401 and Chem 321 is still relatively small. Between Chem 321 and Chem 401 students take upper division courses in analytical chemistry (Chem 422), physical chemistry (Chem 351, Chem 352), and biochemistry (Chem 464, Chem 461/462), as well as corresponding lab courses and upper division experimental courses (Chem 411, Chem 433). Hence the modest increase in average student performance observed on this assessment is quite surprising.g. Analysis of the results and suggestions for improvementThis is the third year in which this assignment has been given in gateway and capstone courses, and the third year in which incremental improvements in student learning between gateway and capstone have been observed. Since last year several of the assignment questions have been modified to clarify what is being asked or to further differentiate the response options. While there has indeed been a measureable improvement in student performance at the capstone course, the small difference in class average between Chem 321 and Chem 401 is still alarming. The results indicate that our students are struggling with concepts not only encountered in upper division courses (questions 17-19), but also with foundational knowledge related to molecular structure, acid-base chemistry, and orbital theory (questions 4, 11, and 20). Several department faculty have suggested changing the assignment to the ACS DUCK (Diagnostic Test of Undergraduate Chemistry Knowledge) exam, and this option is being seriously considered for implementation this year (however, due to copyright issues it may be difficult to administer the exam in an online format through Canvas). An advantage of using this exam is that the ACS provides data on student performance on the exam (and on individual questions) from educational institutions across the U.S., a very useful comparison for our faculty in assessing where our students stand at the national level. Measure Student WorkAssess graduate students’ scientific oral communication abilities in literature and thesis seminars, relevant to SLO2m: Organize and communicate scientific information clearly and concisely, both verbally and in writing. Alignment with core competencies: oral communication, information literacy.The oral presentation rubric developed in the department of chemistry and biochemistry (see Appendix C) was used to assess the literature and thesis seminars given by 12 MS chemistry students in the 2016-2017 academic year. The scoring rubric has five categories: organization, understanding of scientific content, style/delivery, use of visual aids, and ability to answer questions. Performance in each category could be rated with a score of 0-20. The rubric provided descriptions for “A” range (17-20 points), “B” range (14-16 points), “C” range (12-13 points), and “D” range (10-11 points) performance. Faculty attending the seminar filled out the rubrics and forwarded them to the seminar coordinator. The seminar coordinator then tabulated the results for each category and an average score for literature and thesis seminars was obtainedResults for 2016-2017: For the ten literature seminars, the average scores were 17.9/20, 17.4/20, 17.3/20, 17.8/20 and 16.5/20 for the categories of organization, understanding of scientific content, style and delivery, use of visual aids and ability to answer questions, respectively. The average total score for the literature seminars was 87.1/100. For the two thesis seminars, the average scores were 19.0/20, 17.0/20, 18.5/20, 18.5/20 and 16.5/20 for the categories of organization, understanding of scientific content, style and delivery, use of visual aids and ability to answer questions, respectively. The average total score for the thesis seminars was 89.5/100.Results for 2015-2016: For the nine literature seminars, the average score for the category of organization was 18.6/20; the average score for the category of understanding of scientific content was 17.7/20; the average score for the category of style and delivery was 16.7/20; the average score for the category of use of visual aids was 17.8/20; and the average score for the category of ability to answer questions was 16.8/20. The average total score for the literature seminars was 87.6/100. For the seven thesis seminars, the average score for the category of organization was 18.4/20; the average score for the category of understanding of scientific content was 17.4/20; the average score for the category of style and delivery was 17.1/20; the average score for the category of use of visual aids was 17.7/20; and the average score for the category of ability to answer questions was 17.0/20. The average total score for the thesis seminars was 87.7/100.Results from the 2014-2015 academic year are also provided: For the five literature seminars, the average score for the category of organization was 17.2/20; the average score for the category of understanding of scientific content was 16.6/20; the average score for the category of style and delivery was 16.3/20; the average score for the category of use of visual aids was 16.6/20; and the average score for the category of ability to answer questions was 16.2/20. The total score for the literature seminars was 82.9/100. For the seven thesis seminars, the average score for the category of organization was 19.0/20; the average score for the category of understanding of scientific content was 17.0/20; the average score for the category of style and delivery was 16.3/20; the average score for the category of use of visual aids was 17.3/20; and the average score for the category of ability to answer questions was 15.7/20. The total score for the thesis seminars was 85.3/100.Results from the 2013-2014 academic year are also provided: for the nine literature seminars, the average score for the category of organization was 16.8/20; the average score for the category of understanding of scientific content was 15.6/20; the average score for the category of style and delivery was 16.6/20; the average score for the category of use of visual aids was 16.9/20; and the average score for the category of ability to answer questions was 14.4/20. The total score for the literature seminars was 80.3/100. For the seven thesis seminars, the average score for the category of organization was 17.6/20; the average score for the category of understanding of scientific content was 17.1/20; the average score for the category of style and delivery was 16.7/20; the average score for the category of use of visual aids was 17.2/20; and the average score for the category of ability to answer questions was 16.0/20. The total score for the thesis seminars was 84.6/100.h. Analysis of the Results of MeasurementAs can be seen, the overall scores for both literature and thesis seminars have increased year-over-year since 2013, but are starting to level off now. Each year, the thesis seminar grades have been slightly higher than the literature seminar grades. The results indicate that, on the whole, graduate students are doing well in their oral seminars, since the average scores in most categories are in the 17-18 range. The weakest category tends to be the ability to answer questions. One likely reason for the increase has been the more rigorous level of pre-talk preparation that has occurred in recent years, particularly in the area of practice talks. It is now common to see students giving 3-4 practice talks in advance of their seminar date, and they invite both faculty and students from a variety of subdisciplines within the department. Up to several years ago, students who attended the practice talks would not provide a lot of constructive feedback to their peers. However, in recent years, as they have become more familiar with critically evaluating presentations, they have participated more and the overall quality of the seminars has increased as a result. The students who continue to have low scores are those that tend not to involve their research mentors and tend to have significantly fewer practice runs in advance of their seminars. These practice sessions have clearly been extremely valuable to both the audience and the presenting student. Another factor in the improvements may be the fact that we raised our minimum GPA for admission to our Chemistry and Biochemistry programs about three years ago.3. Preview of planned assessment activities for next year. Include a brief description and explanation of how next year’s assessment will contribute to a continuous program of ongoing assessment.In the next year we plan to do assessment of our GE courses Chem 100, Chem 101, Chem 102, Chem 103, Chem 104, and Chem 110. The student learning outcomes we will be focusing on initially will be: 1) demonstrate an understanding of basic knowledge, principles and laws in the natural sciences; 2) explain how the scientific method is used to obtain new data and advance knowledge; and 5) demonstrate competence in applying the methods of scientific inquiry. We will also continue with longitudinal program assessment in gateway and capstone courses using a revised instrument or the ACS DUCK exam. Appendix A: Longitudinal Assessment Assignment, Revised 2016-2017 (new questions: *)909955315595001. Which best represents a step in the mechanism for the saponification of methyl acetate?2. A mixture of the following four compounds is dissolved in diethyl ether and shaken with a 2M NaOH solution. Which compound(s) remain in the organic (ether) phase?118745031242000A, B and DB and CB, C, and DB and DThe correct chair conformation of the following structure is:Which of the following molecules are expected to have a net dipole moment?BF3CCl4CH2OCH45.What are the chief products of aerobic metabolism?*(A)Sugars, fats and amino acids.Water and oxygenCarbon dioxide, oxygen and adenosine triphosphate (ATP)Carbon dioxide, water and adenosine triphosphate (ATP)Oxygen, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide in its oxidized form (NAD+) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP).Which level of protein structure is described by the amino acid sequence of a protein?*PrimarySecondaryTertiaryQuaternaryPrimary and secondary are both described by the amino acid sequence.What is the chief thermodynamic driving force causing the formation of lipid bilayers by polar lipids such as phosphatidylcholine? *The polar head groups are attracted to each other forming hydrogen bonds and ionic interactions with neighboring polar head groups.The fatty alkyl chains become dispersed in the water solvent which is entropically favorable.The polar head groups assemble in a head-to-tail fashion with the fatty alkyl chains which forms lots of strong hydrogen bonds.When the fatty alkyl chains interact and orient themselves toward the center of the bilayer, waters-of-solvation are released to the bulk solvent which is entropically favorable.None of these are correct.Which of the enzymes below produces adenosine triphosphate (ATP) during glycolysis? *3-Phosphoglyerate KinaseTriosephosphate IsomerasePyruvate KinaseHexokinaseBoth a and c are correctWhich of the following is true about how enzymes catalyze reactions: *(A)They accelerate reaction rates by stabilizing the reaction product(s).(B)They accelerate reaction rates by stabilizing the transition state of the reaction.(C)They shift the reaction equilibrium to the right, favoring product(s).(D)They stabilize the reactant, thereby lowering the ΔG of the overall reaction.(E)Both A and C are correct. 10. Which solution should be mixed with 50.0 mL of 0.050 M HF to make an effective buffer?50.0 mL of 0.10 M NaOH 25.0 mL of 0.10 M NaOH 50.0 mL of 0.050 M NaOH 25.0 mL of 0.050 M NaOH 11. In the dissociation of a monoprotic weak acid in aqueous solutions, HA, which leads to the assumption that [H+] ≈ [A-]?The autoprotolysis of water is the dominant source of H+ The concentration of the acid is sufficiently high such that the dissociation of the acid is the dominant source of [H+] The concentration of the acid has no effect on the approximation; [H+] is always approximately equal to [A-] 12. The confidence interval for a set of measurements represents for a defined confidence level thatThe true value lies within a certain range about the mean value The results from two different methods will agree with each other The variances of two different methods will agree with each other An experimental value lies within a certain range about the mean value 13. Which choice is not a requirement of a primary standard solid?Its reactions must be known and stoichiometric It can be dried to remove surface moisture Its purity must be accurately known It must have a low formula weight 14. Glass pH electrodes must be soaked in water prior to conducting measurements in order toClean the glass surface Allow the internal reference electrode to reach its equilibrium potential Hydrate the glass to allow ion-exchange between the sample solution and the glass surface Adjust the concentration of the internal filling solution with respect to the external sample solution 15.The addition of traces of antimony to crystalline silicon produces a material having(A)a lower conductivity than silicon.(B)a higher conductivity than silicon.(C)no conductivity(D)superconductivity16.The bonding interactions in SmF3 are stronger than the bonding interactions in SmI3. Therefore, one can conclude thatI.Sm3+ is a soft acid.II.Sm2O3 will be more stable than Sm2S3.III.Sm3+ is a hard acid.(A)only I(B)only III(C)I and II(D)II and III 17.What substitution mechanism is most common for square planar complexes?(A)associative(B)dissociative(C)migratory insertion(D)reductive elimination18.In a dissociative reaction, how does an increase in the nucleophilicity of the incoming ligand affect the rate of the reaction?(A)The rate of the reaction increases(B)The rate of the reaction decreases(C)The rate of the reaction is unchanged(D)The change in the rate of the reaction depends on the oxidation state of the metal. 19.Square planar complexes containing metal atoms in a low oxidation state typically undergo(A)ligand dissociation(B)migratory insertion(C)oxidative addition(D)reductive elimination20.How does “negative overlap” in Molecular Orbital Theory lead to “antibonding” between atoms? (A)The opposing charges of two orbitals cancel each other out. (B)The opposing phases of two orbitals cancel each other out. (C)The like charges of two orbitals repel each other. (D)The concentration of electron density between nuclei pushes them apart.(E)The negative phases of two orbitals repel each other. Appendix B: Customizable Departmental Laboratory Notebook RubricGeneral Rubric for Grading Laboratory NotebooksStudent Name: T.A. Name: Lab section (day/time): Semester: Category Score CommentsPre-lab preparation: Date, Title of Experiment, TOC entry, page #’s.One sentence description/abstract of experiment.Mathematical equations used and/or balanced chemical equations for reactions performed.Specific reference to the exact procedure used.b.A completed table of amounts and physicalproperties for all reactants, solvents and productsinvolved in preparative experiments; lot and sourcenumber for reagents; acknowledgementof safety precautions and hazards. A flowchart forthe experiment, including work-up, isolation, andpurification processes.In lab work: Changes to the experimental procedure notedall notes in ink; line drawn through mistakes,numerical data with units; Record of unknown number &instruments used (settings, manufacturer, model, type).A record of in-lab qualitative observations, a detailed description of unexpected experimental behavior or mishaps encountered. Rough and final calculations,plots of data and results (tabulated). Post-lab reflection:Summarized results/conclusions, comparison of resultsto literature values or expected range, preferably in theform of a concise table. Appropriate references included.Total: /20CategoryExcellent (4 points)Good (3 points)Fair (2 points)Poor (1 point)1. Pre-lab preparation, a. Date, Title, TOC entry, page #’s, abstract; mathematical / chemical equations used. Reference to the exact procedure used. All of the information (date, title, balanced equations, TOC entry, one line abstract) is presented neatly, and the appropriate citation is made. Information presented neatly, but citation, date, abstract, or TOC entry missing. Equation(s) presented is (are) not balanced or incorrect; date, TOC entry, abstract or citation missing.No equation(s) given; title/date/TOC entry missing completely. No reference to exact procedure.2. Pre-lab preparation, b. Completed table of amounts and physical properties for all reactants, solvents and products; reagent lot and source numbers; safety precautions and hazards mentioned. Experimental flowchart (work-up, isolation, and purification processes) Data table is complete and of a proper size and format; known safety hazards and precautions are clearly noted. Concise experimental flowchart presented in the student’s own words; Data table is mostly complete and properly formatted, but some important data are missing. Precautions are noted.Flow chart presented is complete but mirrors the procedure from lab manual and is not concise; Format/size of table does not adhere to guidelines; important data are missing; precautions/hazards not mentioned. Flowchart missing crucial experimental steps/details; verbatim copying of the lab manual procedure; some procedural changes missingNo recognizable data table presented or data table is mostly blank; precautions/hazards not mentioned. Minimal or no flowchart presented; procedural changes completely missing.3. In-lab work, a.Changes to the experimental procedure noted; all notes in ink; line drawn through mistakes; numerical data with units; Record of unknown number & instruments used (settings, manufacturer, model, type, etc).All data (with units) recorded directly in the lab notebook; procedural changes noted. All notes in ink. Unknown number recorded, and information about instruments used included.Ink used for all entries. The majority of the relevant data recorded; some units missing. Procedural changes noted. Unknown number recorded but information about instruments missing.Pencil used and/or white out for mistakes. Some changes to the procedure noted. Some missing numerical data entries and incorrect units. Unknown number included but no information recorded about instruments used.Pencil used and/or white out for mistakes. Changes to procedure omitted. Completely missing numerical data entries/ incorrect units. Unknown number omitted and no information recorded about instruments used.4. In-lab work, b.A record of in-lab qualitative observations, a detailed description of unexpected experimental behavior or mishaps encountered. (Rough and final calculations), plots of data and results (tabulated) Detailed observations made throughout the experiment. (All calculations shown explicitly). Tables/plots of data/results included. Mistakes/unexpected outcomes noted.The majority of the relevant calculations shown. However, few observations made, or limited descriptions provided. Tables/plots of data/results included but incomplete.Mistakes/ unexpected experimental behavior not mentioned/ minimal qualitative observations. Incomplete/incorrect data plots/calculations or results not tabulated.Data/results not recorded during the experiment. No qualitative observations included. (No calculations shown); data tables completely missing.5. Post-lab reflectionSummarized results/ conclusions, comparison of results to literature values or expected range, preferably in the form of a concise table. Relevant references included.A concise summary/ conclusion presented in1-2 complete sentences. Table comparing experimental and literature/expected data, with complete references included.Appropriate conclusion given, but comparison of experimental and literature/expected data incomplete or lacking; references given but incomplete.Inappropriate or incomplete summary/conclusion given; limited or no comparison to literature/expected data; references missing.Conclusion/summary completely missing and no comparison of results made to literature/ expected data; references missing.13970038544500Appendix C: Chemistry and Biochemistry Oral Presentation Rubric48831534290000 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download