Debbie Sackett Self-study Chair

Al Dumbuya Full Time Faculty

John Young Full Time Faculty

Kathy Nabona Full Time Faculty

Donna Lyon Adjunct Faculty

Linnea Fletcher Full Time Faculty – Biotechnology

Nina Jo Baj Technical Lab Asssistant III

Toni Luckett Student

Facilitators:

Martha Oburn

Debra Iversen

One of our fundamental strengths is the quality of our faculty. They are dedicated to student learning. As well educated and experienced teachers, they believe in a rigorous curriculum. The faculty are diverse.

In chemistry classes, the instructor/student ratio is good. For lectures, there are between 15 and 48 students per classroom. In each lab there are 15 to 24 students. Small classes allow for interactive participation of students. We have an advantage over many large universities in that we teach a lab for every course offered. For example, there is a lab associated with General Chemistry I and a lab associated with General Chemistry II. At UT there is one lab that corresponds to both General Chemistry I and II. Lab activities are well thought out and are designed to reinforce concepts taught in the lectures. We are also fortunate to have the support of lab technicians who assist in set up and clean up of labs, maintenance of lab supplies, etc. It is the feeling of many of our faculty that students get a better chemistry education at ACC than at UT.

The Chemistry Task Force has developed course objectives for every course offered. Our subject area is well defined and our curriculum is structured so that students are prepared for the next course in the sequence. The newly redesigned prerequisites are formulated to maximize student success. Our curriculum is constructed to make transfer to UT and other major universities easy for the student.

Chemistry is offered at many locations around the Austin area and is expected to open up in new locations (EVC and PIN) soon. Because chemistry is a core course, enrollment is high and justifies many locations. Our students are of all ages, backgrounds and experiences. Our diverse faculty work well with the wide variety of students taking our courses.

As a rule, ACC has a good record for safety in the labs. However, the potential for accidents is great in some cases. We are beginning this year to address safety issues and emergency procedures to be followed by instructors and students. At this point, we do not have standard procedures on how to operate in the event of an emergency.

The facilities for labs are in need of improvement. Fundamental safety equipment at some locations (e.g., fume hoods at RGC) barely works and is constantly breaking down. A specific detailed report is included in the Summary Analysis.

For the number of students we support, we do not have enough facilities. Some campuses (RVS, CYP, and EVC) share labs with biology. This compromises safety in that the lab set-ups are incompatible. A specific example is that these shared labs contain stools. For biology, students most easily carry out experiments if they are sitting down. In chemistry, students should never sit. Chemical spills would end up in the student's laps.

The number of students allowed in a lab at one time needs to be evaluated for each campus. We hope to make the lab experience as informative and safe as possible for our students.

We need better mentoring/training for adjuncts. The mentoring system has too many hoops to jump through. Adjuncts assigned to multiple campuses tend to slip through the cracks. We need more professional development directed toward the chemistry faculty.

A possible liability is that faculty teaching the same course have varying assessments of students. This can have a negative impact on student retention.

Ideally there would be more communication between workforce education/academic programs and chemistry, and from department to department.

Another suggestion is that teacher evaluations need to be posted so that students can evaluate an instructor before signing up for their course.

We lack some of the basic equipment needed to teach some of our courses. For example, infrared (IR) spectroscopy is fundamental to Organic Chemistry courses. NRG does not have an operating instrument. Money to buy and a new one or to fix the old one is continually denied.

Lecture and lab rooms need to be near stockrooms/ preparatory rooms. For the most part, labs and preparatory rooms are close. However, lecture often is not. Instructors would like the option of doing chemical demonstrations in the lecture. If chemicals need to be carried or carted any distance, this increases the likelihood of an accident. When possible, classrooms should have plumbing.

We need more instructional technology in the classroom and training to use it for our specific needs.

Our course outlines/objectives are not sufficiently outlined. Ideally, our curriculum needs to be more application-based. Another ideal scenario is that labs would be sequenced with classroom concepts. However, because the lab schedule is rigid, this would require a more rigid lecture schedule, which would detract from teaching quality.

Scheduling of sequenced courses needs to be available to students in the evening. For example, this was the first year we were able to offer General Chemistry II in the evening at CYP. In the past kill sessions cut down availability of classes to students, because those courses were never offered again.

We do not have community outreach by the chemistry department to Austin, with an emphasis on attracting minority students.

Chemistry faculty do not have enough control over program. They are, after all, the ones who have contact with the students.

We should be able to use faculty-developed lab manuals and to offer them to the students free of charge. Other disciplines give their manuals away for free. Chemistry should not be the exception.

We need representatives for each campus. There is no site supervision by a trained scientist. The job now falls to lab assistants in certain situations. This is beyond their job description.

Our money is spent inefficiently because a bidding process is currently not in place. Lab assistants do not have time to bid all of the items they routinely order. The average mark up on unbid items is 35%. The time it takes for ordering and receiving equipment is too long. The supplies needed to operate a lab are numerous, and cannot always be anticipated months in advance.

One of our weaknesses is our low retention of students particularly in Introduction to Chemistry and General Chemistry I. This, in part, is due to the fact that many students do not have the correct prerequisites. Not all advisors and counselors are aware of the prerequisites. Even if the prerequisites are known, the students will sometimes ignore them. Our past registration system did not check for prerequisites. It was up to the instructor to check and this task was often neglected. Another source of our low retention pertains to General Chemistry I. One of the prerequisites for this course is two years of high school chemistry. Our department has no control over what is taught in the high schools - it may or may not be adequate.

Unlike the larger universities, we do not have student study groups or review sessions. These would aid in student success. We also need more computer labs for chemistry students that could, for example, run tutorial simulations.

We need to monitor students better after leaving ACC in order to assess our success. Also, students need information on ACC's viability/transferability.

We are working diligently this year to improve/standardize safety precautions for students and staff. By the end of this fiscal year, we hope to have in place standards for checking safety equipment, training staff and students in safety measures and emergency procedures, and documenting of all hazardous materials present. We want to dispose of all unnecessary chemicals. We intend to develop safe means for storage and disposal of all chemical wastes.

We are going to work closely with Biotechnology in the preparation of chemistry-related courses. Preparation of a bio-organic course is in the works and the possibility of biochemistry is envisioned in the future. This will give chemistry and biotechnology the opportunity to share resources and contacts with industry.

We would also benefit from cooperation with disciplines and programs requiring chemistry as a prerequisite. For example, coordination with the Nursing program at ACC and UT could strengthen our position and enhance their programs.

We have the opportunity for increased partnership with industry and government. The benefit is that we could generate a list of classroom speakers who are knowledgeable in the practical applications of chemistry. This would help with placement of students in jobs after graduation.

Faculty could serve internships in order to enhance their knowledge base. Also, this would open us up to the possibility of donations of equipment that our department needs.

We also could increase our partnership with the large universities, especially UT. [Donna's bit]. UT has equipment and instruments that ACC could never purchase. Tours and visits to their labs would be a benefit to our students. More sophisticated library research projects for our students could be developed with the use of UT's resources. However, the fees for use of this material should not be the burden of the students. Students could, for example, do mini-research projects for credit. We could also devote more lab time to student lab projects.

We have to potential to tie in with or set up a Chemistry Tech Prep degree option. There are many opportunities for chemistry students to find employment in the Austin area.

With the purchase of our computers last year, we hope to develop more computer-related activities for the students.

There exists the potential for a chemistry touring initiative with area high schools.

The chemistry faculty hope to have more control and input over their own program. We would also like to increase faculty development for chemistry-related topics.

 THREATS

As with all the programs, we need more money. We need money to hire more lab technicians. As it is, their time is mostly consumed with preparing chemicals and equipment for labs, clean up, purchasing of supplies, tracking down lost orders, and testing new equipment. Ideally, additional lab technicians would assist in the labs that are being taught. This would increase student learning because 1:1 instruction is more important in lab. It would also increase safety for all involved.

There seems to be a general lack of support for faculty who are attempting to get things done. Chemistry has only 9 hours of release time for the task force chair. This is the fewest hours of any science discipline.

We need the freedom to save money over a period of years to buy expensive equipment. Not all of our needs have to be met by the technology committee. We could plan over a number of years to buy major equipment if we could save money over that period of time. On the equipment we do own, we need warranty service for equipment or financial support for maintenance.

As mentioned above, the college needs to set up a bidding process for supplies. We are trying to set up our own list, but a lack of hourly/classified time has been a problem.

The fact that we do not have total control of our own budget is a hindrance. For example, we have written and used for many years a lab manual for Introduction to Chemistry. In recent years we have been forbidden to photocopy it and pass it out to the students for free. Chemistry is the only discipline to which this rule applies.

Inefficiencies in purchasing and accounts payable exist. This past year, about $4000 of equipment was purchased, and officially received. The bills were not paid and this equipment was charged to this year's account. This is after 3 memos to accounts payable to pay the bills before the deadline.

A lot could and has been said about Datatel. The fact is, it's implementation as not been smooth, and has inconvenienced many faculty, staff and students.

We need more faculty, especially full time. Relying on Adjunct faculty, although we have an excellent group, makes scheduling difficult when there are not enough faculty to go around.

Adjunct faculty need to be treated better. The lack of a home campus, no direct supervisor in the chemistry discipline at each campus, and slotting by assistant deans from another discipline are some of the issues raised by adjunct. For example, the ability to get the best teacher into a class has declined. considering the contributions of the adjuncts to the program, it is important to maximize their potential.

Salaries for faculty/staff are too low. This affects our ability to hire/retain quality employees, especially adjunct faculty and lab assistants.

There is a need for more office space for faculty and lab assistants (depending on the campus). If office space is too small, it is difficult for instructors to meet with students.

In recent years, the educational requirements for lab assistants have been lowered. Fortunately, this has not affected our program much because most of our lab technicians have been with us for a while and have more than adequate experience/education. However, if new lab assistants are hired with only an A.A. degree, they will be seriously under qualified for the job. A minimum of a B.S. with classes taken through Organic Chemistry is needed.

There does seem to be a lack of people to get things done. The task force chair should have additional funds to hire hourly help. The purchasing department needs more help as does human resources, facilities, etc.

Many of our lab facilities have design flaws, outdated equipment, etc., that is a threat to student safety. A comprehensive list of needed improvements is included with this report with the summary analysis.

There is a lack of meaningful communication between groups (chemists with chemists and chemists with others). Often, one factor is a lack of time and opportunity. Another consideration is that there is no place to meet. A faculty/staff lounge would give everyone a chance to share ideas and teaching techniques.

There seems to be a lack of appreciation of the importance of labs within the administration (evidenced by the lack of financial support). The basis of all scientific knowledge is experimentation. Without the experiment, nothing is learned. The students absolutely need this experience to appreciate scientific learning. The lab experience also enhances and reinforces concepts learned in the lecture.

Crisis management impacts program effectiveness. Since the implementation of Datatel, everything as been done haphazardly, at the last minute and with ridiculously short deadlines. If everyone is spending their time running from one fire to the next, it is impossible to maintain steady, everyday routines. Some of the new administrative rules are clearly not thought out and are not the result of faculty input. The recent attempt at faculty portfolios is a typical example. While theoretically it might sound good to have these many different types of portfolios, depending on longevity of instruction (including essays on teaching strategies), it is totally impractical from the evaluator's perspective. The idea of quality over quantity needs to be considered. There seems to be a prevalence of inappropriate business values floating around the college. A good business treats customers and employees well. There has been an overwhelming feeling from the employees of dissatisfaction with the current administration.

The chain of command and task assignments are often not logical. For example, lab assistants are paid out of the chemistry budget, but are supervised by Assistant Deans. Who then is responsible for deciding the exact duties for the lab assistant should a conflict arise? And, as mentioned earlier in the SWOT, adjunct faculty are assigned by an Assistant Dean who has not reasonable idea of who best fills which teaching slots.

There seems to be a lack of belief/respect in faculty's decision-making capabilities with respect to controlling their own program. For example, as mentioned in the budget section, we are not free to spend our money as we choose.

 There is a lack of support at campuses within the specific disciplines. New adjunct faculty need to be able to talk to a superior (not the mentor) who is knowledgeable about the discipline they are in. An Assistant Dean, not in chemistry, can not adequately assess the work quality of a lab assistant. Chemistry Task Force needs more control over program; non-chemistry/non-lab staff administrators often make program decisions.

Evaluation needs to include assessment of administrators as well as faculty. Currently, evaluation includes faculty, task force chairs, assistant deans and deans. We should be able to evaluate those higher up in the administrative process.

The current course evaluation forms do not necessarily reflect faculty effectiveness. This may be a problem inherent with student evaluations as opposed to a problem specifically with the ACC evaluation form.