AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Library and Information Science MS/MLS 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)
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 1
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
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
School/College
Average Rate
481/561
494/569
465/551
501/588
472/577
Regional
Comparison
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See below
National
Comparison
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
Library Science old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
640
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
545
Ir Grev Score
710
420
159
150
new
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 2
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
Library Science old
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
575
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
410
Ir Greq Score
720
580
148
145
new
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)
Based on students with valid scores in BANNER - therefore n maybe small in some cases.
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
Graduate School Arts &
Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
491
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
500
new
Ir Grev Score
497
532
154
153
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
Graduate School Arts &
Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
585
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
566
new
Ir Greq Score
593
604
149
150
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)
GRE
Intended Graduate Major
TestTakers
Mean Score (Verbal)
Mean Score (Quantitative)
Library and Archival Sciences*
1,278
157
148
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 3
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
MAJORS
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
90
92
105
143
187
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
90
92
105
143
187
LIS
ADVCRT
MLS
LIS1
ADVCRT
LIS2
MS
Total
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Majors
Majors
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
1
133
75
54
2
4
2
136
79
22
13
42
69
64
Self-Study Template 4
2h.
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
MLS
SJC-GR
LIS
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
41
35
24
25
28
Library Science
MLS
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
86
32
35
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 25-Library Science.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Local
340
345
319
National
7,448
7,727
7,441
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)
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 5
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?
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 6
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.
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Librarians
Percent
7%
Numeric
10,800
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Librarians
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
7%
10,800
Changes, 2010-20
Grow about as fast as average - Increase 7 to 14.9%
Librarians
Percent
Numeric
7%
10,800
*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)
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 7
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
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Total
Majors
17
73
90
Minors
FT
7
PT
85
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
17
73
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
17.00
24.33
Fall 2007
Total
92
FT
13
PT
92
0
Fall 2008
Total
105
FT
6
PT
137
0
Fall 2009
Total
143
FT
39
PT
Total
148
0
187
0
90
7
85
92
13
92
105
6
137
143
39
148
187
41.33
7.00
28.33
35.33
13.00
30.67
43.67
6.00
45.67
51.67
39.00
49.33
88.33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 8
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
37
99
136
24
55
79
Fall 2010
31
38
69
Fall 2011
33
31
64
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
37
33
70
24
Total FTE MAJORS
Fall 2010
18.333 42.333
Fall 2011
31
12.667 43.667
Fall 2012
33
10.333 43.333
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ration
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.
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 9
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
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
282
52%
249
52%
273
55%
546
70%
585
50%
PT Faculty
264
48%
228
48%
225
45%
231
30%
594
50%
Total
546
100%
477
100%
498
100%
777
100%
1179
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
NonMajors
0%
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Number
0%
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
0%
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
0%
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
417
50.4%
342
71.7%
361
81.1%
420
83.3%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
410
49.6%
135
28.3%
84
18.9%
84
16.7%
0.0%
Total
827
100%
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
0.0%
477
100%
0.0%
445
0%
100%
0.0%
504
100%
45
Self-Study Template 10
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
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
8
57%
8
62%
12
60%
12
52%
FT Faculty
7
54%
PT Faculty
6
46%
6
43%
5
38%
8
40%
10
48%
Total
13
100%
14
100%
13
100%
20
100%
22
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
13
54.2%
13
65.0%
11
84.6%
14
87.5%
P-T Faculty (inc Admin)
11
45.8%
7
35.0%
2
15.4%
2
12.5%
0.0%
Total
24
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
100%
0.0%
20
100%
0.0%
13
100%
0.0%
16
100%
Self-Study Template 11
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
#
%
#
%
Male
2
50%
1
33%
Female
2
50%
2
Total
4
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
Total
FT
2007
PT
#
%
#
%
3
2
40%
1
33%
67%
4
3
60%
2
3
100%
7
5
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
0
0%
0
0%
White
4
100%
3
Unknown
0
0%
Total
4
100%
Tenured
3
Tenure-Track
Total
FT
2008
PT
#
%
#
%
3
2
33%
2
67%
67%
5
4
67%
1
3
100%
8
6
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
100%
7
5
100%
3
0
0%
0
0
0%
3
100%
7
5
100%
75%
3
3
1
25%
1
Not Applicable
0
0%
Total
4
100%
Total
FT
2009
PT
#
%
#
%
4
2
33%
5
63%
33%
5
4
67%
3
3
100%
9
6
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
100%
8
6
100%
3
0
0%
0
0
0%
3
100%
8
6
100%
60%
3
3
2
40%
2
0
0
0%
4
5
100%
Total
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
7
2
33%
5
45%
7
38%
7
4
67%
6
55%
10
8
100%
14
6
100%
11
100%
17
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
100%
9
6
100%
8
100%
14
6
100%
11
100%
17
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
3
100%
9
6
100%
8
100%
14
6
100%
11
100%
17
50%
3
3
50%
3
3
50%
3
3
50%
3
3
50%
3
3
50%
3
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
5
6
100%
6
6
100%
6
6
100%
6
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 12
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
2
50%
2
29%
Female
2
50%
5
71%
Total
4
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
4
2
50%
1
50%
7
2
50%
1
50%
11
4
1
FT
2013
PT
#
%
3
2
40%
3
3
60%
6
5
1
#
Total
%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
1
100%
3
0%
3
Gender
7
2
2
0%
2
2
40%
100%
5
3
60%
7
5
1
2
1
6
Ethnicity
Black
25%
0%
1
20%
0
0%
1
Hispanic
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
100%
6
80%
1
100%
5
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
White
1
3
Unknown
Total
75%
7
0%
4
25%
0%
1
0
0%
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
100%
10
0%
7
3
0
75%
2
0%
11
4
20%
0%
1
0
0%
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
100%
5
0%
2
4
0
80%
2
0%
6
5
0%
2
4
0
0%
7
5
1
6
Tenure Status
Tenured
1
25%
1
2
50%
2
2
40%
2
3
60%
3
Tenure-Track
2
50%
2
2
50%
2
3
60%
3
2
40%
2
Not Applicable
1
25%
1
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Total
4
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
Self-Study Template 13
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
233,164
726,628
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
500
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
748,789
259,031
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
11,999
-
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)
Library &
Information
Science (Q)
Saint John’s
College
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
3.00
-
4.63
3.66
-
4.67
4.23
4.26
4.19
4.37
4.40
4.40
4.14
4.16
4.30
4.37
4.39
4.52
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).
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 14
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. (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)
LAS_LIS_LIB&INFO.SCI_MLS_Q
Self-Study Template 15