AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE Reporting School/College: The School of Education Program Reviewed: Teach Child with DIS Childhood (includes TEACHING FELLOWS) 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. N/A Undergraduate SAT and High School Average 2b. N/A Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate 2c. N/A Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template 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 Fall 2011 Ir Grev Score EDU-Q Fall 2012 Ir Grev Score old 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 Fall 2012 Ir Greq Score 489 Fall 2013 Ir Greq Score 535 new 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) 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) Special Education* 1,375 149 146 * 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_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template 2g. Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below. Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Majors MAJORS TCD MSED/NM TFD MSED 27 35 Majors Majors 25 33 2 Total 2h. Majors 27 35 27 33 Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below. EDU-GR-Q TCD-TEACH CHILD WITH DIS CHILDHOOD 10/11 11/12 12/13 Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred 8 17 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 National 182,139 3,619 3,242 185,009 178,062 EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template 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_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template 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. 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? 3b. 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. EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template 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 Special Education Teachers, Preschool, Kindergarten and Elementary School Percent Numeric 17% 77,400 Occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment Change, 2010-20 Percent Numeric Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020) Changes, 2010-20 Grow much faster than average – Increase 15 to 20.9% Special Education Teachers, Preschool, Kindergarten and Elementary School Percent Numeric 17% 77,400 *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: (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) EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template 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 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 11 16 27 15 20 35 Fall 2010 Total FTE MAJORS 10 17 27 Fall 2011 14 17 31 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 11.00 5.33 16.33 15.00 6.67 21.67 10.00 5.67 15.67 14.00 5.67 19.67 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_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template 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 Fall 2010 Number F-T Faculty 27% 21% 35% Fall 2011 Percent Number 34% Fall 2012 Percent Number Fall 2013 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% 0.0% 4,977 Fall 2010 % Consumed by NonMajors 1,785 100.0% 0.0% 5,208 Fall 2011 37% EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q 1,821 100.0% 0.0% 4,461 Fall 2012 37% 1,932 100.0% Fall 2013 37% 1,134 25% Self-Study Template 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 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 F-T Faculty Fall 2007 Fall 2011 Percent Number Fall 2012 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% EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q 0.0% 117 100.0% 0.0% 103 100.0% 0.0% 93 100.0% Self-Study Template 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) 2005 FT 2006 PT Total # % # % 8 53% 6 33% 7 47% 12 15 100% 3 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 1 7% 1 6% 11 73% 14 0 0% 15 100% 6 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 0 0% 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% EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q 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 Self-Study Template 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 16 EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q 20 21 Self-Study Template 21 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 1,001,843 2,067,883 1,622,151 2,124,274 2,969,870 $ Amount Program $ Amount Department Fiscal Year External Funding 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 2,245,957 2,906,930 3,102,531 3,852,394 $ Amount Program $ Amount Department EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template 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 **Information is based on departmental data not specific to the program. 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) EDU_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template 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_TEACH_CHILD_DIS_CHILDHOOD_MSED_Q Self-Study Template