AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: The School of Education
Program Reviewed: Instructional Leadership EDD Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair:
Overview and Program Review Summary: Please summarize this program’s mission and its relationship to the vision
and mission of St. John’s University, and the program’s School/College. Identify similar programs regionally and
nationally and distinguish this program from them. In addition, summarize your findings as they relate to (1) program
quality, (2) market growth potential, and (3) student learning. Also, summarize any significant changes, achievements
(by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future. Finally, based on the information gleaned
from the data in the self-study, give an overall rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential by categorizing it as
one of the following: (1) Enhance; (2) Maintain; (3) Reduce support, Phase out, Consolidate, or Discontinue.
(Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s
University, and the program’s School/College.
1a.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the Catholic, Vincentian, and
metropolitan identity of St. John’s University? www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision.
www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission/vision-statement. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1c.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the
program’s School/College? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
Not applicable.
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
Not applicable.
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Not applicable.
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Graduate Standardized Test Scores(Verbal/Quantitative)
Fall
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
500/633
467/652
491/543
459/501
529/560
School/College
Average Rate
486/568
427/565
452/489
474/497
469/523
Regional
Comparison
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
See below
National
Comparison
The National Overall Average is 457/586, and the National Average in the Specific Discipline is 430/520 based on those
tested between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008.
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
EDU-Q
old
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
453
459
new
424
399
149
149
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
EDU-Q
old
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
489
new
535
531
480
145
145
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of
200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 2
The National Overall Average for verbal is 150.6 and a quantitative of 151.9, based on those tested between August 1,
2011 and April 30, 2013.
General test percentage distribution of scores within intended graduate major field that is based on the performance of
seniors and non-enrolled college graduates who were tested on the verbal and quantitative examination.
GRE
Intended Graduate Major
TestTakers
Mean Score (Verbal)
Mean Score (Quantitative)
Administration*
196
150
149
Higher Education*
934
152
149
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf
Comments: Refer to Charts 2a – 2d in your response. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2f.
If applicable, describe the program’s student performance over the past five years on licensure or professional
certification exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of
Students
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
70
67
54
61
79
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
70
67
54
61
79
MAJORS
2h.
2005
INL
EDD
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
109
108
98
108
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 3
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. Please complete the table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
EDD
13
8
14
6
16
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Degrees
Degrees
Conferred Conferred Conferred
EDU-GR-Q
INL
Instructional Leadership
EDD
9
18
22
Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS
website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 13-Education.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Doctorate
Local
130
146
145
National
9,233
9,623
9,990
1
Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national
patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2i.
What mechanisms are in place to monitor students’ progress toward degree? And, to what extent is there a
collaborative effort to provide quality advising and support services to students? (Suggested limit 1/4 page
2j.
If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or
attending graduate school. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 4
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your responses using data provided
below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and
School/College planning, direction, and priorities.
3a.
How does your program strategic goal/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s strategic
plan? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/leadership/strategic-planning
3b.
What is the evidence of monitoring the external and internal environments, specifically what are the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the program? How were they identified? What actions have been taken
in response to these findings? What characteristics of the program suggest a competitive edge against other programs
regionally and nationally?
3c.
What is the current and future market demand for the program? Support your response using the data
provided below or any other internal or external sources to justify your response.
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 4. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and
engagement.
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 5
4a.
Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items:
(Suggested limit 1/2 page for each of the three categories below)
1. Standards within the discipline
2. Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and study
abroad experiences.
3. The University Core competencies
4b.
The syllabi for the courses within this program incorporate the suggested elements of a syllabus – an example of
which can be found at the following St. John’s University Center for Teaching and Learning link. (Suggested limit 1/3
page) http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
4c.
Describe the assessment model currently in place for the program and indicate the extent to which disciplinary
and core knowledge, competence, and values are met, as well as findings and action plans for improvement. For
reference, visit WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com/ .
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality
has the program received? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 4.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 5. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals.
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 6
5a.
Below you will find the number of students enrolled as majors and minors in the program. Please complete the
table by adding the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program. Then calculate the student to full-time faculty
ratio.
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Total
Majors
5
65
70
Minors
FT
PT
7
Total
60
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
5
65
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
5.00
21.67
Fall 2007
FT
67
PT
4
Fall 2008
Total
50
0
70
7
60
26.67
7.00
20.00
FT
54
PT
5
Fall 2009
Total
56
61
0
67
4
50
FT
PT
4
Total
75
0
54
5
56
79
0
61
4
75
79
27.00 4.00 16.67 20.67 5.00 18.67 23.67 4.00
25.00
29
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Fall 2010
F
P
Fall 2011
Total
F
P
Fall 2012
Total
F
P
Fall 2013
Total
F
P
Total
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
MAJORS
6
103
109
5
103
108
9
89
98
9
99
108
Total
6
103
109
5
103
108
9
89
98
9
99
108
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 7
Fall 2010
Total
FTE MAJORS
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
6
34.333
40.333
5
34.333
39.333
9
29.667
38.667
9
33
42
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by SJU for all external reporting.
If your department provides service instruction to support the core curriculum, please explain in the context of student
credit hours taught, 4c, and courses taught, 4d, and 4e below.
.
5b.
Below you will find the credit hours the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators) and the total credit hours consumed by non-majors.
How many credit hours has the department delivered by full-time faculty? How many credit hours has the department
delivered by part-time faculty (including administrators)? What percent of the total credit hours consumed were by
non-majors?
Credit Hours
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
FT Faculty
1671
51%
1416
53%
1107
41%
963
40%
975
50%
PT Faculty
1602
49%
1272
47%
1617
59%
1451
60%
989
50%
Total
3273
100%
2688
100%
2724
100%
2414 100%
1964
100%
% consumed by
Non-Majors
14%
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
3%
4%
1%
3%
Self-Study Template 8
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Number
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty (inc Admin)
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
693
37.0%
762
42.3%
891
52.8%
807
47.9%
1,179
63.0%
1,039
57.7%
798
47.2%
879
52.1%
0.0%
Total
Fall 2012
1,872
0.0%
100.0%
1,801
Fall 2010
% Consumed by NonMajors
0.0%
100.0%
1,689
Fall 2011
141
8%
298
0.0%
100.0%
1,686
Fall 2012
17%
321
100.0%
Fall 2013
19%
191
11%
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
How many courses has the department delivered by full-time faculty? How many courses has the department delivered
by part-time faculty (including administrators)?
Courses
Fall 2005
Taught
#
Fall 2006
%
FT Faculty
32
46%
PT
Faculty
37
54%
Total
69
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
36
49%
30
40%
27
35%
27
49%
37
51%
45
60%
51
65%
28
51%
73
100%
75
100%
78
100%
55
100%
Fall 2011
Percent
Fall 2008
#
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2007
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Percent
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
24
42.1%
33
43.4%
25
51.0%
26
50.0%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
33
57.9%
43
56.6%
24
49.0%
26
50.0%
0.0%
Total
57
100.0%
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
0.0%
76
100.0%
0.0%
49
100.0%
0.0%
52
100.0%
Self-Study Template 9
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental
information on next page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Explain the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental
information on next page)
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 10
Departmental Data
FT
#
%
2005
PT
#
%
T
FT
#
%
2006
PT
#
%
T
FT
# %
2007
PT
#
%
T
FT
#
%
2008
PT
#
%
T
FT
#
%
2009
PT
#
%
T
Gender
Male
8
62%
11
58%
19
7
Female
5
8
4
13
19
42%
100
%
13
Total
38%
100
%
32
11
Black
Hispanic
Asian
2
0
1
15%
0%
8%
0
2
0
0%
11%
0%
2
2
1
2
0
1
White
Unknown
9
1
17
0
8
0
13
89%
0%
100
%
26
1
Total
69%
8%
100
%
32
11
64
%
36
%
10
0%
10
48%
17 7 54%
11
21
52%
100
%
15 6 46%
1 100
32 3 %
1
3
0
5%
14%
0%
3
3
1
17
0
81%
0%
100
%
25 9 69%
0 1 8%
1 100
32 3 %
1
2
1
3
2
5
48%
19
6
46%
52%
100
%
19
38
7
1
3
54%
100
%
4%
12%
0%
2
3
2
1
0
2
8%
0%
15%
84%
0%
100
%
30
1
38
9
1
1
3
69%
8%
100
%
1
2
1
2
2
4
50%
18
6
50%
9
64%
15
50%
100
%
19
50%
100
%
5
1
4
36%
100
%
11
37
6
1
2
0%
13%
0%
1
3
2
1
0
2
8%
0%
17%
0%
14%
0
1
2
2
88%
0%
100
%
30
1
67%
8%
100
%
86%
0%
100
%
20
1
37
8
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
2
0
1
4
2
Ethnicity
19
18
%
0%
9%
73
%
0%
10
0%
21
1 8%
0 0%
2 15%
1
3
0
2
1
0
2
5
0
3
0
2
1
0
2
4
26
Tenure
Status
Tenured
TenureTrack
Not
Applicable
9
69%
9
8
3
23%
3
2
1
1
1
Total
13
8%
100
%
13
11
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
73
%
18
%
9%
10
0%
8
8 62%
8
8
62%
8
7
58%
7
2
2 15%
2
2
15%
2
2
17%
3
3 23%
1 100
11 3 %
3
3
1
3
23%
100
%
3
3
1
2
25%
100
%
4
1
13
13
12
Self-Study Template 11
FT
Gender
Male
Female
Total
2010
PT
#
%
2011
T
#
%
4
7
11
36%
64%
10 59%
7 41%
17
14
14
28
1
2
0%
0%
18%
0%
6%
0%
0
1
2
9
0%
82%
0%
16 94%
0
25
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
American
Indian/Alaskan Native
White
2 or More Races
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
Total
11
Tenure Status
Tenured
Tenure-Track
Not Applicable
Total
6
2
3
11
0%
0%
17
55%
18%
27%
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
FT
PT
T
FT
T
FT
#
%
4
5
9
44%
56%
13
8
21
62%
38%
17 7
13 4
30 11
64%
36%
13
7
20
65%
35%
20 8
11 4
31 12
67%
33%
12
10
22
55%
45%
20
14
34
2
2
1
10%
10%
5%
2
2
3
2
0%
0%
18%
3
1
2
0%
0%
22%
15%
5%
0%
3
1
2
2
0%
0%
17%
5
1
0
23%
5%
0%
5
1
2
7
0%
78%
16
0%
76%
0
23
8
0%
73%
0%
80%
0
24
9
0%
75%
0
16
0
0%
73%
0%
0
25
0
0
0
22
0%
0%
0
1
34
9
6
2
3
11
7
1
1
9
0%
21
78%
11%
11%
0 1
30 11
9%
7
1
1
9
64%
18%
18%
7
2
2
11
16
0%
20
#
%
T
%
0%
%
2013
PT
#
%
#
0
28
#
2012
PT
#
%
1 1
31 12
8%
7 8
2 2
2 2
11 12
67%
17%
17%
8
2
2
12
Self-Study Template 12
5e.
What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching and/or
learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5f.
What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty development in support of the
program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5g.
The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. If available, please provide
the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program
dollar amounts are available through departmental records.)
5h.
Please comment on the table below that shows trends in overall course evaluation and instructional vibrancy for
your program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Admin &
Instructional
Leadership (Q)
School of
Education
Total
Undergraduate
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.32
4.24
4.3
4.45
4.36
4.5
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Note: Instructional Vibrancy is the average of the first 14 questions on the course evaluation, with questions pertaining
to course organization, communication, faculty-student interaction, and assignments/grading. All course evaluation
questions range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
5i.
What percentage of full time faculty assigned to this program have terminal degrees or industry certifications
renewed within the past 2 years? Comment. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 5.
Comments: Indicate to what extent the program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission
and goals. Include references from 5a – 5i. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 13
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it is cost-effective.
6a.
Narrative/Supportive Technological Environment - Comment on classrooms and labs meeting industry-standards
for quality and availability of hardware, software, and peripherals; library space, holdings and services; science
laboratories, TV studios, art/computer graphic labs; etc. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6b.
Narrative/ Supportive Physical Environment - Comment on level of faculty and student satisfaction with HVAC;
faculty and student satisfaction with classroom lighting, crowdedness, and acoustics; flexible teaching environments,
and faculty offices, etc.. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6c.
To what extent has the University funded major capital projects, e.g., renovations, which are linked directly to
the program during the past five years? (Bulleted list)
6d.
If external data that describes the cost effectiveness of the program has been provided by your School/College
Dean, please comment on the program’s cost-effectiveness. (Suggest limit 1 page)
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program review and plans have
been initiated for the future.
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
EDU_AIL_INSTRU.LEAD_AC.EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 14