AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Language Pathology/Audiology BA 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)
Self-Study Template 1
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
High School Average
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
1077
1049
1182
1264
1114
88
90
88
94
91
School/
College
1104
1099
1085
1093
1093
88
88
88
88
89
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Computed
Speech Pathology
Fall 2012
Computed
1,179
Fall 2013
Computed
1,191
Computed
1,129
1,196
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
Speech Pathology
Fall 2012
High School
91
Fall 2013
High School
91
High School
91
94
SAT Scores
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - Q
1089
1077
1087
1098
88
88
88
88
Total University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
Self-Study Template 2
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Intended college major for 2012 college-bound seniors
TestTakers
SAT
Intended College Major
Mean Scores
Number
Percent
(%)
Critical
Reading
Mathematics
Total
2,072
1.5%
558
512
1070
380
0.3%
568
582
1150
English Language and Literature
Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2b.
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
Program
85
83
79
94
100
10
9
90%
School/
College
77%
79%
77%
77%
73%
1005
768
76%
University
78%
78%
78%
79%
76%
3268
2557
78%
Note* The % of students started in Fall 2004 and returned to the program in Fall 2005
** The % of students started in Fall 2008 and returned to the program in Fall 2009
2009
2010
Total Returned
SPE
7
DNR
#
%
#
%
5
71%
2
29%
Total Returned
14
2011
DNR
#
%
#
%
13
93%
1
7%
Total Returned
9
#
%
9
100%
2012
DNR
#
Total
%
26
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
24
92%
2
8%
Self-Study Template 3
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012*
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - Q
76%
74%
72%
905
683
76%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
*The % of students started in Fall 2012 and returned to the program in Fall 2013
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Program
71%
78%
75%
75%
77%
School/
College
Average Rate
61%
59%
58%
60%
57%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
SPE
Fall 2004 cohort
Total Graduated
12 10
83%
Fall 2005 cohort
Total
Graduated
14 7
50%
Fall 2006 cohort
Total Graduated
17 15
88%
Fall 2007 cohort
Total Graduated
9 8
89%
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - Q
57%
57%
57%
51%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Self-Study Template 4
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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
2005
2006
2007
2009
Majors
138
148
114
116
112
Minors
1
1
4
1
0
139
149
118
117
112
Total
MAJORS
MINORS
SPE
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
BA
109
115
141
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Speech Pathology & Audiology
Total
2h.
2008
4
4
3
3
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Total
Total
Total
Total
113
119
144
147
150
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Self-Study Template 5
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
BA
25
40
55
36
39
SJC -UG-Q SPE
Speech Pathology & Audiology BA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
35
35
34
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 51-Health Professions and Related
Programs.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Bachelor's
Local
2,261
National 129,634
2,238
2,591
143,430
163,440
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)
Self-Study Template 6
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your response 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’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.
Self-Study Template 7
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education
and training projected.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
37%
4,800
23%
28,800
Audiologist
Speech Language Pathologists
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Speech Language
Pathologists
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
23%
28,800
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 21% or more
Percent
Numeric
Audiologist
37%
4,800
Speech Language Pathologists
23%
28,800
*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)
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)
Self-Study Template 8
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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.
#
Majors/
FT
Faculty
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
Majors
134
4
138
142
6
148
109
5
114
112
4
116
111
1
112
Minors
1
0
1
1
0
1
4
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
Majors
&
Minors
Combin
ed
135
4
139
143
6
149
113
5
118
113
4
117
111
1
112
# of FTE
Student
s
(Majors
&
Minors)
135.0
0
1.3
3
136.3
3
143.0
0
2.0
0
145.0
0
113.0
0
1.6
7
114.6
7
113.0
0
1.3
3
114.3
3
111.0
0
0.3
3
111.3
3
# of FTE
Faculty
assigne
d to the
program
7
7
14
5
9
14
5
8
13
8
9
17
7
8
15
FTE
Student
/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
19.29
0.1
9
9.74
28.60
0.2
2
10.36
22.60
0.2
1
8.82
14.13
0.1
5
6.73
15.86
0.0
4
7.42
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Self-Study Template 9
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Fall 2010
F
P
Majors
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Total
F
P
Total
110
1
111
Total
Minors
MINORS
112
4
F
P
Total
4
2
2
F
143
143
P
143
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
F
4
Fall 2010
Total
3
3
Fall 2011
Total
4
147
Total
3
3
Fall 2012
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
114
1
115
114
6
120
146
146
Fall 2010
FTE MAJORS
Total
Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors
4
MAJORS/MINORS
116
Fall 2011
F
Total
F
Fall 2013
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2013
F
P
Total Total
146
Fall 2012
4
Total
Total
150
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
2
116
146
146
146
114
Fall 2010
0.333 114.333 114
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
1.333 147.333
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 STJ for all external reporting. Majors include first and second majors
Self-Study Template 10
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
2571
43%
2638
40%
2545
37%
1756
59%
Not
available
as of yet
PT Faculty
3467
57%
3936
60%
4295
63%
1231
41%
Total
6038
100%
6574
100%
6840
100%
2987
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
Non-Majors
62%
Credit Hrs
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
0%
63%
62%
22%
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
0
0%
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
1,555
56.4% 1,503
57.6% 1,643
61.2% 1,496
55.8%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
1,201
43.6% 1,107
42.4% 1,040
38.8% 1,185
44.2%
Total
% Consumed
by NonMajors
2,756
413
0.0%
0.0%
100% 2,610
100%
0.0%
15.0% 417
16.0% 261
2,683
%
100%
0.0%
2,681
9.7% 348
100%
13.0%
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. Figures from Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 reflect the department at
that time and fall 2008 represents the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders.
Self-Study Template 11
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Fall 2005
Taught
#
Fall 2006
%
#
Fall 2007
%
#
Fall 2008
%
#
Fall 2009
%
45
42%
15
37%
21
50%
#
Not
available
as of yet
FT Faculty
43
43%
PT Faculty
58
57%
63
58%
26
63%
21
50%
Total
101
100%
108
100%
41
100%
42
100%
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
0%
0
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
25
59.5% 32
55.2% 27
62.8% 23
54.8%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
17
40.5% 26
44.8% 16
37.2% 19
45.2%
Total
42
%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100% 58
100% 43
100%
0.0%
42
100%
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. Figures from Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 reflect the department at
that time and fall 2008 represents the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
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)
Departmental Plan
Self-Study Template 12
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
2005
FT
#
2006
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
2007
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
2008
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
2009
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
PT
%
#
Total
%
Not
available
as of yet
Gender
Male
7
41%
13
38%
20
9
50%
16
42%
25
8
40%
15
38%
23
7
64%
3
21%
10
0
Female
10
59%
21
62%
31
9
50%
22
58%
31
12
60%
25
63%
37
4
36%
11
79%
15
0
Total
17
100%
34
100%
51
18
100%
38
100%
56
20
100%
40
100%
60
11
100%
14
100%
25
0
Black
0
0%
1
3%
1
1
6%
1
3%
2
0
0%
2
5%
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
Hispanic
1
6%
0
0%
1
0
0%
2
5%
2
3
15%
0
0%
3
1
9%
0
0%
1
0
Asian
1
6%
0
0%
1
2
11%
0
0%
2
1
5%
0
0%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
White
14
82%
32
94%
46
15
83%
34
89%
49
16
80%
36
90%
52
9
82%
12
86%
21
0
Unknown
1
6%
1
3%
2
0
0%
1
3%
1
0
0%
2
5%
2
1
9%
2
14%
3
0
Total
17
100%
34
100%
51
18
100%
38
100%
56
20
100%
40
100%
60
11
100%
14
100%
25
0
Tenured
10
59%
10
12
67%
12
12
60%
12
5
45%
5
0
Tenure-Track
6
35%
6
3
17%
3
6
30%
6
4
36%
4
0
Not Applicable
1
6%
1
3
17%
3
2
10%
2
2
18%
2
0
Total
17
100%
17
18
100%
18
20
100%
20
11
100%
11
0
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. Figures from Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 reflect the department at that time and fall 2008
represents the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
Self-Study Template 13
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
3
27%
1
6%
Female
8
73%
16
94%
Total
11
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
4
3
27%
1
6%
24
8
73%
15
94%
28
11
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
4
3
25%
3
20%
23
9
75%
12
80%
27
12
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
6
2
18%
2
13%
4
21
9
82%
14
88%
23
27
11
Gender
17
16
15
16
27
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
0%
2
18%
1
0%
0
6%
3
0%
2
18%
1
0%
0
6%
3
0%
2
17%
1
0%
0
7%
3
2
0%
0
0%
0
18%
1
6%
3
Asian
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
American Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
88%
23
88%
22
11
73%
20
82%
14
88%
23
1
7%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
1
6%
1
White
8
73%
15
8
73%
14
9
75%
2 or More Races
9
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
1
Total
11
9%
1
17
6%
2
1
28
11
9%
1
16
6%
2
1
27
12
8%
2
15
13%
3
0%
27
11
16
27
Tenure Status
Tenured
6
55%
6
6
55%
6
6
50%
6
8
73%
8
Tenure-Track
5
45%
5
5
45%
5
5
42%
5
3
27%
3
0%
0
0%
0
1
8%
1
0%
0
11
12
Not Applicable
Total
11
11
11
12
11
11
Self-Study Template 14
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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
Fiscal Year
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
22,000
82,500
408,686 107,225
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. The figures above reflect the department at that time. FY
2008 includes figures from both departments.
External
Funding
Fiscal Year
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
4,000
14,345
17,500
-
If available, please provide the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program
under review. (Program dollar amounts are only available through departmental records.)
Self-Study Template 15
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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
Speech
Language
Pathology/
Audiology (Q)
Saint John’s
College
Total
Undergraduate
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.95
4.01
4.00
4.28
4.33
4.33
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Note: Institutional 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. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Self-Study Template 16
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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)
Self-Study Template 17
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q