AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: English BA 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)
Self-Study Template 1
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
2007
2008
High School Average
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
1085
1132
1147
1020
1175
86
90
88
88
89
School/
College
1014
1057
1074
1069
1097
85
87
88
88
88
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
English
Fall 2012
High School
85
Fall 2013
High School
92
SAT Scores
High School
100
89
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - SI
1079
1113
1097
1104
87
88
88
90
Total
University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
SAT
Intended College Major
English Language and Literature
Test-Takers
Mean Scores
Number Percent (%) Critical Reading
2,072
1.5%
558
Mathematics
Total
512
1070
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
Self-Study Template 2
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2b.
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
Program
80%
100%
75%
83%
100%
2
2
100%
School/
College
76%
70%
79%
83%
77%
102
86
84%
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
ENG
4
DNR
#
%
#
3
75% 1
2011
Total Returned
%
25%
5
DNR
#
%
#
3
60% 2
Total
%
40%
2
2012
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
2
100%
Total
%
1
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
1
100%
%
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - SI
85%
71%
85%
53
45
85%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
Self-Study Template 3
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Program
50%
40%
100%
School/
College
Average Rate
74%
65%
60%
69%
58%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
2004
Total
ENG
2005
Graduated
#
%
2
40%
5
80%
Total
2006
Graduated
4
#
%
2
50%
Total
6
2007
Graduated
#
%
3
50%
Total
3
Graduated
#
%
1
33%
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - SI
56%
74%
65%
58%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
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)
Self-Study Template 4
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
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
45
52
43
35
30
Minors
5
7
5
6
1
Total
50
59
48
41
31
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Majors
MAJORS
ENG
BA
Majors
Majors
27
17
20
20
1
2
3
2
28
19
23
22
BA/MA
Total
Majors
Fall 2010 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Minors
MINORS
English
Minors
1
Minors
1
1
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Total
Total
Total
29
19
Total
24
Total
23
Self-Study Template 5
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
2h.
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
BA
13
13
15
12
12
SJC-UG-SI ENG
English
BA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
12
4
9
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 23-English Language and
Literature/Letters.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Bachelors
Local
944
978
906
National
53,231
52,744
53,767
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)
Self-Study Template 6
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
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 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?
Self-Study Template 7
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
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.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
Writers and Authors
6%
9,500
Proofreaders and Copy Markers
6%
4,100
Editors
1%
800
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Writers and Authors
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
6%
9,500
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much slower than average – Increase 1 to 6%
Percent
Numeric
Writers and Authors
6%
9,500
Proofreaders and Copy Markers
6%
4,100
Editors
1%
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
Self-Study Template 8
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
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
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Majors/
FT
Faculty
FT
PT Total
FT
PT Total
FT
PT Total
FT
PT Total
FT
PT Total
Majors
42
3
Minors
5
Majors
& Minors
Combine
d
47
3
# of FTE
Students
(Majors
&
Minors)
47.0
0
1.0
0
45
50
5
7
50
57
48.0
0
57.0
0
2
52
42
1
43
31
4
35
26
4
30
7
4
1
5
5
1
6
1
2
59
46
2
48
36
5
41
27
4
31
0.6
7
57.6
7
46.0
0
0.6
7
46.6
7
36.0
0
1.6
7
37.6
7
27.0
0
1.3
3
28.3
3
1
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Self-Study Template 9
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Fall 2010
F
P
Majors
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Total
P
2
Fall 2010
F
Total
Minors
31
18
1
Fall 2013
F
F
Total
1
2
2
FTE MAJORS
F
Total
Total
25
25
22
22
Total
2
2
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
30
2
32
18
1
19
27
27
24
24
Fall 2010
Total
F
Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors
1
MAJORS/MINORS
19
Fall 2012
Fall 2010
Total
Total
Fall 2013
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
29
MINORS
F
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
27
27
24
24
30
0.667 30.667
18
0.333 18.333
Self-Study Template 10
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
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.
The figure for majors includes first and any second majors.
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
486
27%
957
55%
657
39%
456
51%
594
72
1347
73%
792
45%
1032
61%
438
49%
234
28%
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Total
% consumed by
1833 100% 1749 100% 1689 100% 894 100% 828 100%
Non-Majors
86%
82%
86%
80%
n/a
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 include English Composition.
Self-Study Template 11
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Credit Hrs
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
2,622
56.0% 2,631
57.4% 2,580
48.2% 2,451
47.9%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
2,058
44.0% 1,956
42.6% 2,775
51.8% 2,661
52.1%
Total
% Consumed
by NonMajors
4,680
2,838
0.0%
0.0%
100% 4,587
100%
60.6% 2,826
61.6% 3,711
5,355
0.0%
0.0%
100% 5,112
100%
69.3% 3,579
70.0%
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
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Taught
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
19
58%
14
40%
10
48%
12
71%
FT Faculty
9
26%
PT Faculty
25
74%
14
42%
21
60%
11
52%
5
24%
Total
34
100%
33
100%
35
100%
21
100%
17
100%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 include English Composition.
Self-Study Template 12
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
40
56.3% 54
78.3% 44
50.0% 47
54.0%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
31
43.7% 15
21.7% 44
50.0% 40
46.0%
Total
71
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100% 69
100% 88
100%
0.0%
87
100%
Self-Study Template 13
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
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
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
11
58%
19
43%
Female
8
42%
25
Total
19
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
30
17
46%
12
46%
57%
33
20
54%
14
44
100%
63
37
100%
0%
3
7%
3
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
1
5%
1
2%
White
15
79%
38
Unknown
3
16%
Total
19
100%
Tenured
9
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
29
19
42%
8
36%
54%
34
26
58%
14
26
100%
63
45
100%
5%
2
8%
4
2
1
3%
0
0%
1
2
3
8%
1
4%
86%
53
31
84%
21
2
5%
5
0
0%
44
100%
63
37
100%
47%
9
10
10
53%
10
Not Applicable
0
0%
Total
19
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
27
13
52%
7
32%
64%
40
12
48%
15
22
100%
67
25
100%
4%
0
0%
2
1
2
4%
0
0%
2
4
3
7%
2
9%
81%
52
34
76%
15
2
8%
2
4
9%
26
100%
63
45
100%
27%
10
12
12
32%
12
0
15
41%
19
37
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
13
52%
3
25%
16
68%
27
12
48%
9
75%
21
22
100%
47
25
100%
12
100%
37
4%
2
9%
3
1
4%
1
8%
2
0
0%
1
5%
1
0
0%
1
8%
1
5
2
8%
2
9%
4
2
8%
1
8%
3
68%
49
20
80%
16
73%
36
20
80%
9
75%
29
5
23%
9
2
8%
1
5%
3
2
8%
0
0%
2
22
100%
67
25
100%
22
100%
47
25
100%
12
100%
37
27%
12
14
56%
14
15
60%
15
12
27%
12
11
44%
11
10
40%
10
15
21
47%
21
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
37
45
100%
45
25
100%
25
25
100%
25
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
Self-Study Template 14
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
12
48%
8
47%
Female
13
52%
9
53%
Total
25
1
17
1
4%
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
12
50%
3
30%
22
12
50%
7
70%
42
24
0%
1
1
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
15
12
50%
7
39%
19
12
50%
11
61%
34
24
0%
1
1
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
13
54%
11
52%
24
23
11
46%
10
48%
21
42
24
Gender
10
18
21
45
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
2
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
1
6%
1
8%
1
6%
3
0%
0%
4%
0%
1
10%
1
1
4%
1
10%
2
0
1
4%
0%
4%
0%
1
0%
1
5%
1
0%
3
14%
3
0%
2
11%
2
1
4%
2
11%
3
2
8%
2
10%
4
1
1
4%
0%
1
1
4%
0
0%
1
White
21
84%
12
71%
33
20
83%
6
60%
26
20
83%
12
67%
32
20
83%
13
62%
33
2 or More Races
1
4%
1
6%
2
1
4%
1
10%
2
1
4%
1
6%
2
1
4%
1
5%
2
0
0%
0
1
5%
1
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
Total
0%
25
2
17
12%
2
0%
42
24
1
10
10%
1
0%
34
24
1
18
6%
1
0%
42
24
21
45
Tenure Status
Tenured
16
64%
16
18
75%
18
20
83%
20
22
92%
22
Tenure-Track
9
36%
9
6
25%
6
4
17%
4
2
8%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Not Applicable
Total
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
Self-Study Template 15
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
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
External
Funding
136,000
Fiscal Year
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
7,500
3,333
103,500
-
Self-Study Template 16
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
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)
English (SI)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.02
4.12
3.75
-
4.14
-
Saint John’s
3.95
4.01
4.00
4.28
4.33
4.33
College
Total
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Undergraduate
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)
Self-Study Template 17
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
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)
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 18
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI