AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Rhetoric/Public Address 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)
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 1
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
Program
1110
1060
School/
College
1104
1099
University
1068
1075
2007
High School Average
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
1440
1390
75
94
1085
1093
1093
88
88
1075
1087
1092
86
87
2008
2009
97
92
88
88
89
87
87
88
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2011
Computed
Speech
1,010
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2011
High School
Speech
91
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
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 2
SAT
Test-Takers
Intended College Major
Mean Scores
Number
Percent (%)
Critical Reading
Mathematics
Total
4,002
3.0%
503
487
990
Communication, Journalism and Related Programs
* 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
Program
0
100
# Ret
%
1
1
100%
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
Total
SPE1
1
2010
Returned
#
%
1
100%
DNR
#
Total
%
2011
Returned
#
%
DNR
#
Total
%
1
2012
Returned
#
%
1
100%
DNR
#
%
Total
Returned
#
%
DNR
#
%
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
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 3
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Program
100%
School/
College
Average Rate
61%
59%
58%
60%
57%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
Fall 2004 cohort
Total
Fall 2005 cohort
Graduated
Total
SPE1
Fall 2006 cohort
Graduated
Total
0%
1
1
Graduated
1
Fall 2007 cohort
Total
Graduated
100%
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
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)
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 4
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of
Students
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
7
7
6
8
12
Minors
8
9
6
8
11
Total
15
16
12
16
23
MAJORS
2h.
2005
SPE1
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
BA
12
12
9
6
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
0
1
4
2
0
10/11
SJC -UG-Q SPE1
Speech(Public Add.,Gen.Speech)
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
BA
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Degrees
Degrees
Conferred
Conferred
Conferred
2
6
2
Self-Study Template 5
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)
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)
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 6
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.
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 7
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)
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 8
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
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Total
Majors
7
0
7
7
0
7
6
0
6
8
Minors
7
1
8
8
1
9
5
1
6
8
Majors
& Minors
Combined
14
1
15
15
1
16
11
1
12
16
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
14.00
0.33
14.33
15.00
0.33
15.33
11.00
0.33
11.33
16.00
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
0
Fall 2009
Total
FT
PT
Total
8
12
12
8
11
11
0
16
23
0
23
0.00
16.00
23.00
0.00
23.00
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
14
14
Fall 2010
15
15
10
10
7
7
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
MINORS
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
4
4
5
5
4
4
2
2
Self-Study Template 9
Total
Total
MAJORS/MINORS
FTE MAJORS
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
18
18
20
20
14
14
9
9
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
18
18
20
20
14
14
9
9
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.
Majors include first and second majors.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 10
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%
1455
34%
1506
40%
PT Faculty
3467
57%
3936
60%
4295
63%
2802
66%
2283
60%
Total
6038
100%
6574
100%
6840
100%
4257
100%
3789
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
Non-Majors
Credit Hrs Taught
62%
63%
Fall 2010
Number
Percent
62%
Fall 2011
Number
1,314
Fall 2012
Percent
30.5%
Number
1,149
99%
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
31.0%
1,446
37.3%
F-T Faculty
1,257
31.6%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
2,715
68.4%
2,988
69.5%
2,559
69.0%
2,430
62.7%
3,876
100%
Total
3,972
100%
4,302
100%
3,708
100%
% Consumed
by Non-Majors
3,864
97.3%
4,239
98.5%
3,648
98.4%
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
98%
3,861
99.6%
Self-Study Template 11
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%
41
35%
30
36%
29
42%
FT Faculty
43
43%
PT Faculty
58
57%
63
58%
75
65%
53
64%
40
58%
Total
101
100%
108
100%
116
100%
83
100%
69
100%
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Percent
Fall 2012
Number
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
24
32.4% 31
35.6% 25
35.2% 29
39.2%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
50
67.6% 56
64.4% 46
64.8% 45
60.8%
0.0%
Total
74
100% 87
0.0%
100% 71
0.0%
100% 74
0.0%
100%
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 Data
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 12
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
7
41%
13
38%
Female
10
59%
21
Total
17
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
9
50%
16
42%
62%
31
9
50%
22
34
100%
51
18
100%
0%
1
3%
1
1
1
6%
0
0%
1
Asian
1
6%
0
0%
White
14
82%
32
Unknown
1
6%
Total
17
100%
Tenured
10
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
25
8
40%
15
38%
58%
31
12
60%
25
38
100%
56
20
100%
6%
1
3%
2
0
0
0%
2
5%
2
1
2
11%
0
0%
94%
46
15
83%
34
1
3%
2
0
0%
34
100%
51
18
100%
59%
10
12
6
35%
6
Not Applicable
1
6%
Total
17
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
23
8
66%
13
54%
63%
37
4
34%
11
40
100%
60
12
100%
0%
2
5%
2
0
3
15%
0
0%
3
2
1
5%
0
0%
89%
49
16
80%
36
1
3%
1
0
0%
38
100%
56
20
100%
67%
12
12
3
17%
3
1
3
17%
17
18
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
10
7
64%
12
60%
19
46%
15
4
36%
8
40%
12
24
100%
25
11
100%
20
100%
31
0%
2
8%
0
0
0%
2
10%
2
1
8%
0
0%
1
1
9%
0
0%
1
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
5%
1
90%
52
10
84%
20
84%
21
9
82%
17
85%
26
2
5%
2
1
8%
2
8%
3
1
9%
0
0%
1
40
100%
60
12
100%
24
100%
25
11
100%
20
100%
31
60%
12
5
42%
5
5
100%
5
6
30%
6
4
34%
4
0
0%
0
3
2
10%
2
3
24%
2
0
0%
0
18
20
100%
20
12
100%
11
5
100%
5
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 13
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
6
67%
11
46%
Female
3
33%
13
54%
Total
9
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
17
6
67%
10
38%
16
3
33%
16
62%
33
9
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
16
6
67%
10
48%
19
3
33%
11
52%
35
9
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
16
6
60%
10
53%
16
14
4
40%
9
47%
13
30
10
Gender
24
26
21
19
29
Ethnicity
Black
0%
2
11%
2
1
10%
1
5%
2
1
10%
0
0%
1
0%
0
0%
0
70%
16
84%
23
2 or More Races
0
0%
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
0
0%
0
0%
Hispanic
0%
1
11%
Asian
0%
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
White
7
Unknown
1
Total
9
2
78%
11%
1
20
1
24
8%
2
0%
1
1
4%
1
1
0%
0
83%
27
4%
0%
6
2
1
33
9
8%
2
11%
0%
1
1
11%
0%
1
1
0%
0%
0
88%
29
67%
11%
2
23
1
26
4%
0%
6
2
1
35
9
10%
2
11%
0%
1
11%
0%
1
0%
0%
0
86%
24
67%
11%
2
18
1
21
5%
7
2
1
30
10
10%
19
1
29
Tenure Status
Tenured
5
56%
5
4
44%
4
4
44%
4
7
70%
7
Tenure-Track
4
44%
4
4
44%
4
4
44%
4
2
20%
2
0%
0
1
11%
1
1
11%
1
1
10%
1
9
9
9
9
9
10
Not Applicable
Total
9
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
10
Self-Study Template 14
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
82,500
408,686
107,225
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
22,000
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.
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
-
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
-
-
-
Self-Study Template 15
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
Rhetoric/
Public Address
(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)
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 16
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_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 17