Skip to main content
Results from a National Needs Assessment Survey: A View of Assessment Efforts within Chemistry Departments
Journal of Chemical Education
  • Mary Elizabeth Emenike, Iowa State University
  • Jacob Schroeder, Clemson University
  • Kristen L. Murphy, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
  • Thomas Holme, Iowa State University
Document Type
Publication Version
Published Version
Publication Date
As is true for virtually all of higher education, chemistry departments are often required to provide evidence of student learning at both course and curricular levels through evaluation and assessment. The ACS Exams Institute conducted a needs assessment survey of 1500 chemistry faculty members from across the country to investigate motivation, role, instrument use, and challenges associated with assessment efforts. For the more than 70% of participants who reported departmental efforts related to assessment, these findings emerged: motivations were primarily external factors related to accreditation and certification, ACS Exams and in-house exams were the most common instruments used, and time management associated with grading and reporting assessment results was the most frequently cited challenge. Summary results for each survey question related to these aspects of departmental assessment efforts are provided, along with logistic regression analyses of responses based on institution type. Logistic regression analyses were also used to identify differences among sex, years teaching, and chemistry subdiscipline for responses to departmental assessment efforts and instrument use.

Reprinted (adapted) with permission from J. Chem. Educ., 2013, 90 (5), pp 561–567. Copyright 2013 American Chemical Society.

Copyright Owner
American Chemical Society
File Format
Citation Information
Mary Elizabeth Emenike, Jacob Schroeder, Kristen L. Murphy and Thomas Holme. "Results from a National Needs Assessment Survey: A View of Assessment Efforts within Chemistry Departments" Journal of Chemical Education Vol. 90 Iss. 5 (2013) p. 561 - 567
Available at: