AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: The School of Education
Program Reviewed: Reading/Literacy Reading Specialist MSED SI
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_SI
Self-Study Template 1
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Not applicable. The Literacy program does not require standardized tests for admittance.
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
edu-si
old
340
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
edu-si
old
357
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)
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of
Students
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
33
28
29
26
12
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
33
28
29
26
12
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
Self-Study Template 2
S
LTC
MSED
LTC4
MSED
LTC5
MSED
LTC6
MSED
LTC7
MSED
LTCB
MSED
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
4
2
1
2
Total
2h.
2
5
5
1
2
1
1
2
2
8
3
3
1
13
9
12
11
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
MSED
21
18
13
10/11
11/12
07/08
08/09
8
15
12/13
Degrees
Degrees Degrees
Conferred Conferred Conferred
EDU-GR-SI
Literacy 5-12
MSED
1
Literacy Birth-6
MSED
4
3
2
5
3
2
Total
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
Self-Study Template 3
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.
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)
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)
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
Self-Study Template 4
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’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)
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
Self-Study Template 5
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)
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.
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
Self-Study Template 6
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Total
Majors
3
30
33
Minors
Majors
& Minors
Combined
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
FT
PT
Fall 2007
Total
28
28
0
3
0
28
3.00 10.00 13.00
0.00
9.33
1
1
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
1.33
2
28
2
27
2
PT
1
Total
25
Total
26
29
1
25
P
PT
5
7
12
7
12
9.33 5.00 2.33
7.33
1.
5
1
.67
.67
27
28.50
Fall 2012
Total
Total
0
26
23.50
F
FT
0
Fall 2011
P
Majors
29
2
30.75
F
FT
9.33 2.00 9.00 11.00 1.00 8.33
Fall 2010
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
27
Total
Fall 2009
0
1.33
36
MAJORS
PT
0
33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
30
FT
Fall 2008
F
P
Fall 2013
Total
F
P
Total
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
7
6
13
5
4
9
6
6
12
6
5
Self-Study Template 7
11
Fall 2010
F
FTE
Total
FTE MAJORS
7
P
Fall 2011
Total
FTE FTE
2
9
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
5
Fall 2010
1.333 6.333
Fall 2012
F
P
FTE FTE
6
Fall 2011
2
Fall 2013
Total
F
FTE FTE
8
Fall 2012
6
P
Total
FTE
FTE
1.333 7.333
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_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
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
Credit Hrs Taught
F-T Faculty
26%
27%
Fall 2010
21%
Fall 2011
35%
Fall 2012
34%
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
2,403
50.0%
2,556
51.4%
2,544
48.8%
2,136
47.9%
2,403
50.0%
2,421
48.6%
2,664
51.2%
2,325
52.1%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
0.0%
Total
4,806
100.0%
Fall 2010
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
1,785
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
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
Fall 2007
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
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 2011
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
45
49.5%
P-T Faculty (inc Admin)
46
50.5%
Number
100.0%
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
58
49.6%
48
46.6%
44
47.3%
59
50.4%
55
53.4%
49
52.7%
0.0%
91
Fall 2009
#
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2008
0.0%
117
100.0%
Number
0.0%
103
100.0%
Percent
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_SI
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
Total
#
%
#
%
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
Total
#
%
#
%
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
16
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
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_SI
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.)
External
Funding
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
External
Funding
Fiscal Year
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
Fiscal Year
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
EDU_HSC_LITERACY_MSED_SI
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
(SI)**
School of
Education
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.37
4.00
4.54
4.33
4.26
4.7
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 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_SI
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_SI
Self-Study Template 15