AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: The School of Education
Program Reviewed: Childhood Education 1-6 MSED 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.
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
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.
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
EDU-Q
old
Fall 2011
453
Fall 2012
459
new
Fall 2013
424
399
149
149
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
EDU-Q
old
Fall 2011
489
Fall 2012
535
new
Fall 2013
531
480
145
145
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
Test-Takers
Mean Score (Verbal)
Mean Score (Quantitative)
Elementary*
2,331
150
148
Secondary*
2546
154
151
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
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)
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 2
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number
of
Students
2007
2008
2009
219
184
132
153
178
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
219
184
132
153
178
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
CEC
MSED
108
56
45
30
CED
MSED
8
8
17
3
CEF
MSED
3
2
CHD
MSED
2
Total
2h.
2006
Majors
Total
MAJORS
2005
116
69
64
33
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
MSED
79
47
44
56
50
Self-Study Template 3
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Childhood Education 1-6
MSED
5
4
5
Childhood Education: Career
MSED
29
26
17
Childhood Education: Field
MSED
Total
2
34
30
24
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
Masters
Local
3,756
3,619
3,242
National
182,139
185,009
178,062
1Local
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_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_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)
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 5
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’s 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.
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education and
training projected.
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Kindergarten and Elementary
School Teachers
Percent
Numeric
17%
281,500
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Kindergarten and
Elementary School
Teachers
Numeric
17%
281,500
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 15 to 20.9%
Kindergarten and Elementary School Teachers
Percent
Numeric
17%
281,500
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
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.
4a.
Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items:
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 6
(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.
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
16
203
219
Minors
FT
14
PT
170
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
16
203
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
16.00
67.67
Fall 2007
Total
184
FT
11
PT
121
0
Fall 2008
Total
132
FT
14
PT
139
0
Fall 2009
Total
153
FT
36
PT
142
Total
178
0
0
219
14
170
184
11
121
132
14
139
153
36
142
178
83.67
14.00
56.67
70.67
11.00
40.33
51.33
14.00
46.33
60.33
36.00
47.33
83.33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
0
0
0
0
0
Self-Study Template 7
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
0
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
45
72
117
16
54
Fall 2010
FTE MAJORS
70
29
35
Fall 2011
64
9
24
Fall 2012
33
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
8
63.667 71.667
Fall 2010
8
62.333 70.333
Fall 2011
4
0
Fall 2013
F
MAJORS
Total
0
49.667 53.667
Fall 2012
5
47.333 52.333
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.
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 8
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.
Credit Hours
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
FT Faculty
1610
23%
1496
22%
2241
34%
2070
31%
2762
38%
PT Faculty
5345
77%
5177
78%
4332
66%
4665
69%
4587
62%
Total
6955
100%
6673
100%
6573
100%
6735
100%
7349
10%
% consumed by
Non-Majors
Credit Hrs Taught
9%
Fall 2010
10%
Fall 2011
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
2,004
31.2%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
4,426
68.8%
Number
6,430
100.0%
Fall 2010
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
501
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Fall 2012
Percent
1,806
32.3%
1,686
32.0%
2,196
45.1%
3,792
67.7%
3,581
68.0%
2,668
54.9%
0.0%
5,598
100.0%
586
100.0%
Fall 2012
10%
Number
Percent
0.0%
5,267
314
6%
Fall 2013
Number
Fall 2011
8%
6%
Percent
0.0%
Total
13%
0.0%
4,864
100.0%
Fall 2013
6%
541
11%
Self-Study Template 9
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators).
Courses
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
22
26%
35
39%
41
32%
40
44%
FT Faculty
26
31%
PT Faculty
58
69%
62
74%
55
61%
88
68%
51
56%
Total
84
100%
84
100%
90
100%
129
100%
91
100%
Courses Taught
2010
2011
2012
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
33
40.7%
43
35.8%
25
33.8%
40
51.3%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
48
59.3%
77
64.2%
49
66.2%
38
48.7%
0.0%
Total
81
100.0%
0.0%
120
100.0%
0.0%
74
100.0%
0.0%
78
100.0%
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)
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 10
Departmental Data
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
2
14%
23
64%
Female
12
86%
13
Total
14
100%
Black
2
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
25
2
13%
30
46%
36%
25
13
87%
35
36
100%
50
15
100%
14%
2
6%
4
2
1
7%
1
3%
2
Asian
1
7%
0
0%
White
9
64%
33
Unknown
1
7%
Total
14
100%
Tenured
8
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
2
13%
32
49%
54%
48
14
88%
33
65
100%
80
16
100%
13%
7
11%
9
2
1
7%
1
2%
2
1
1
7%
0
0%
92%
42
11
73%
55
0
0%
1
0
0%
36
100%
50
15
100%
57%
8
9
5
36%
5
Not Applicable
1
7%
Total
14
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
34
1
7%
38
54%
51%
47
14
93%
32
65
100%
81
15
100%
13%
4
6%
6
2
2
13%
1
2%
3
1
1
6%
0
0%
85%
66
11
69%
59
2
3%
2
0
0%
65
100%
80
16
100%
60%
9
11
6
40%
6
1
0
0%
14
15
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
39
2
11%
32
53%
34
46%
46
16
89%
28
47%
0
70
100%
85
18
100%
60
100%
0
13%
5
7%
7
2
11%
3
5%
5
2
13%
1
1%
3
2
11%
1
2%
3
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
1
6%
0
0%
1
91%
70
10
67%
62
89%
72
13
72%
55
92%
68
1
2%
1
0
0%
2
3%
2
0
0%
1
2%
1
65
100%
81
15
100%
70
100%
85
18
100%
60
100%
78
69%
11
11
73%
11
11
11
4
25%
4
4
27%
4
7
7
0
1
6%
1
0
0%
0
0
0
15
16
100%
16
15
100%
15
18
18
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 11
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
FT
#
%
#
%
#
Male
1
6%
37
52%
38
Female
15
94%
34
48%
49
14
Total
16
87
14
2012
PT
T
%
#
%
0%
44
53%
100%
39
47%
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
44
1
7%
25
58%
53
14
93%
18
42%
97
15
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
26
2
12%
19
63%
21
32
15
88%
11
37%
26
58
17
Gender
71
83
43
30
47
Ethnicity
Black
2
13%
5
7%
7
2
14%
5
6%
7
3
20%
2
5%
5
3
18%
1
3%
4
Hispanic
2
13%
2
3%
4
2
14%
3
4%
5
1
7%
3
7%
4
1
6%
2
7%
3
Asian
1
6%
0%
1
1
7%
2
2%
3
2
13%
3
7%
5
3
18%
0
0%
3
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
62
87%
73
86%
80
81%
44
59%
27
90%
37
1
1%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White
11
69%
2 or More Races
0%
9
64%
71
0%
9
60%
35
10
1
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Unknown
Total
0%
16
1
71
1%
1
0%
87
14
1
83
1%
1
0%
97
15
0%
43
0
0%
58
17
30
47
Tenure Status
Tenured
11
69%
11
10
71%
10
10
67%
10
10
59%
10
Tenure-Track
5
31%
5
3
21%
3
5
33%
5
7
41%
7
0%
0
1
7%
1
0%
0
0%
0
16
14
Not Applicable
Total
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
16
14
15
15
17
17
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.)
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
1,664,288
1,329,166
2,247,935
736,181
603,505
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
270,000
296,251
272,859
413,000
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
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
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Childhood 1-6 (Q)
4.22
4.39
4.46
4.42
4.56
4.57
School of
Education
4.24
4.33
4.3
4.4
4.48
4.49
Total Graduate
4.14
4.16
4.3
4.37
4.39
4.52
EDU_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 13
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)
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_C&I_CHILD.ED_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 14