AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: The School of Education
Program Reviewed: Reading/Literacy Reading Specialist 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.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
EDU-Q
old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
453
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
459
new
Ir Grev Score
424
399
149
149
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
EDU-Q
old
new
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
489
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
535
Ir Greq Score
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)
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_HSC_LITERACY_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
MAJORS
2005
2006
2007
2008
Majors
87
74
54
54
60
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
87
74
54
54
*62
LTC
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MSED
3
4
2
NM
3
2
LTC4
MSED
17
23
21
20
LTC5
MSED
11
10
11
9
LTC6
MSED
1
1
6
LTC7
MSED
6
6
14
19
LTCB
MSED
41
36
23
16
78
80
74
73
Total
2h.
2009
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
MSED
49
45
39
15
23
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 3
EDU-GR-Q
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Literacy 5-12
MSED
1
3
5
Literacy Birth-6
MSED
13
19
13
14
22
18
Total
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)
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
National 182,139
3,619
3,242
185,009
178,062
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.
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_HSC_LITERACY_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_HSC_LITERACY_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.
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:
(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)
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 6
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
8
79
87
Minors
PT
7
67
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
8
79
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
8.00
26.33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
4.33
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
FT
Fall 2007
Total
74
FT
PT
5
49
0
Fall 2008
Total
54
FT
PT
3
51
0
Fall 2009
Total
54
FT
11
PT
Total
49
0
60
0
87
7
67
74
5
49
54
3
51
54
11
0
11
34.33
7.00
22.33
29.33
5.00
16.33
21.33
3.00
17.00
20.00
11.00
16.33
27.33
4.3 3
50.5
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
4.33
55.6
5.69
43.1
4.69
35.8
44.1
Self-Study Template 7
Fall 2010
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
19
59
78
22
58
80
Fall 2010
14
60
74
Fall 2011
23
50
73
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
14
20
34
23
Total FTE MAJORS
19
19.667 38.667
22
Fall 2010
19.333 41.333
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
16.667 39.667
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_HSC_LITERACY_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
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
2085
55%
1893
57%
1857
55%
2007
57%
2121
49%
PT Faculty
1716
45%
1446
43%
1494
45%
1530
43%
2244
51%
Total
3801
100%
3339
100%
3351
100%
3537
100%
4365
100%
FT Faculty
%
consumed
by
NonMajors
26%
Credit Hrs Taught
27%
21%
Fall 2010
Number
35%
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
34%
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
2,403
50.0%
2,556
51.4%
2,544
48.8%
2,136
47.9%
P-T Faculty (inc Admin)
2,403
50.0%
2,421
48.6%
2,664
51.2%
2,325
52.1%
0.0%
Total
4,806
100.0%
Fall 2010
% Consumed by NonMajors
1,785
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
0.0%
4,977
100.0%
Fall 2011
37%
1,821
0.0%
5,208
100.0%
Fall 2012
37%
1,932
0.0%
4,461
100.0%
Fall 2013
37%
1,134
25%
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
%
FT
Faculty
35
55%
PT
Faculty
29
45%
Total
64
100%
Courses Taught
F-T Faculty
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
32
54%
31
50%
46
54%
38
48%
27
46%
31
50%
39
46%
41
52%
59
100%
62
100%
85
100%
79
100%
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2007
Fall 2011
Percent
Fall 2012
Number
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
45
49.5%
58
49.6%
48
46.6%
44
47.3%
46
50.5%
59
50.4%
55
53.4%
49
52.7%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
0.0%
Total
91
100.0%
0.0%
117
100.0%
0.0%
103
100.0%
0.0%
93
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_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 10
Departmental Data
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
8
53%
6
33%
Female
7
47%
12
Total
15
100%
Black
3
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
14
9
56%
6
26%
67%
19
7
44%
17
18
100%
33
16
100%
20%
0
0%
3
3
0
0%
2
11%
2
Asian
1
7%
1
6%
White
11
73%
14
Unknown
0
0%
Total
15
100%
Tenured
6
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
T
#
%
#
%
15
10
67%
10
36%
74%
24
5
33%
18
23
100%
39
15
100%
19%
0
0%
3
2
0
0%
2
9%
2
2
1
6%
1
4%
78%
25
12
75%
18
1
6%
1
0
0%
18
100%
33
16
100%
40%
6
7
9
60%
9
Not Applicable
0
0%
Total
15
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
10
59%
10
40%
64%
23
7
41%
15
28
100%
43
17
100%
13%
0
0%
2
2
0
0%
5
18%
5
2
1
7%
1
4%
78%
30
12
80%
21
2
9%
2
0
0%
23
100%
39
15
100%
44%
7
8
9
56%
9
0
0
0%
15
16
100%
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
20
9
56%
9
38%
18
60%
22
7
44%
15
63%
22
25
100%
42
16
100%
24
100%
40
12%
0
0%
2
2
13%
0
0%
2
1
6%
3
12%
4
1
6%
4
17%
5
2
2
12%
1
4%
3
1
6%
0
0%
1
75%
33
12
71%
21
84%
33
12
75%
19
79%
31
1
4%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
1
4%
1
28
100%
43
17
100%
25
100%
42
16
100%
24
100%
40
53%
8
9
53%
9
9
9
6
40%
6
8
47%
8
7
7
0
1
7%
1
0
0%
0
0
0
16
15
100%
15
17
100%
17
16
1
6
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 11
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
#
%
#
%
Male
7
44%
11
37%
Female
9
56%
19
63%
Total
16
FT
2012
PT
T
#
%
#
%
18
7
39%
11
35%
28
11
61%
20
65%
46
18
0%
2
2
11%
10%
4
1
6%
2
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
18
7
35%
10
31%
31
13
65%
22
69%
49
20
0%
2
2
10%
13%
5
1
5%
11%
0%
2
3
0%
0%
0
87%
40
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
17
9
43%
10
28%
19
35
12
57%
26
72%
38
52
21
0%
2
2
10%
0
0%
2
13%
5
1
5%
3
8%
4
15%
0%
3
3
14%
0
0%
3
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
84%
41
71%
33
92%
48
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Gender
30
31
32
36
57
Ethnicity
Black
2
13%
Hispanic
1
6%
Asian
2
13%
0%
2
0%
0%
0
87%
37
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White
11
Unknown
Total
69%
0%
16
3
26
1
30
3%
13
1
72%
4
27
0%
46
18
0%
31
14
0
70%
0%
49
20
4
27
1
32
3%
15
1
0%
52
21
36
57
Tenure Status
Tenured
11
69%
11
11
61%
11
11
55%
11
11
52%
11
Tenure-Track
5
31%
5
6
33%
6
8
40%
8
10
48%
10
0%
0
1
6%
1
1
5%
1
0%
0
16
18
18
20
Not Applicable
Total
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
16
20
21
21
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.)
The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department.
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
$ Amount
Program
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
130, 656.
130,656
130,656
123,181
305,655*
1,001,843
2,067,883
1,622,151
2,124,274
2,969,870
$ Amount
Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
2,245,957
2,906,930
3,102,531
3,852,394
Self-Study Template 13
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)
Human Services
& Counseling (Q)**
School of
Education
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.15
4.32
4.3
4.34
4.42
4.48
4.24
4.33
4.3
4.4
4.48
4.49
4.14
4.16
4.3
4.37
4.39
4.52
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).
**Information is based on departmental data not specific to the program.
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)
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 14
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_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_Q
Self-Study Template 15