AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Theology and Religious Studies MA 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.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
Not Applicable.
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Not Applicable.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Not Applicable.
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
School/College
Average Rate
Regional
Comparison
National
Comparison
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
Test-Takers
Mean Score (Verbal)
Mean Score (Quantitative)
Religion and Theology*
1,038
157
151
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
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
new
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
585
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
566
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)
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
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
M.A.
M.Div.+Other
2h.
THE
2008
2009
45
49
40
42
43
7+10
7+8
3+3
2+5
2+6
62
64
46
49
51
Total
MAJORS
2007
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Majors
Majors
MA
37
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
44
Majors
37
39
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
11
12
16
19
9
2
2
1
0
0
MA
M.Div.
SJC-GR
THE
Theology
MA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
10
19
14
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 39-Theology and Religious Vocations.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Master's
Local
41
48
44
National
12,824
13,191
13,396
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 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)
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)
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.
Please complete the table below; provide additional information in 4e if that helps to explain the pattern of this ratio.
Fall 2005
# Majors/
FT Faculty
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
5+0
40+7
52
6+0
43+7
56
3+0
47+3
53
1+0
48+3
52
11+0
32+2
45
0
19
19
0
17
17
0
15
15
0
4
4
0
8
8
Total
Students
5
66
71
6
67
73
3
65
68
1
55
56
11
42
53
# FTE
Students
5
22
27
6
22.3
28.3
3
21.7
24.7
1.00
18.3
19.3
11
14
25
MA+MDiv
Students
Non-Matric
Students
# FTE Faculty
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.3
FTEStud/ Fac
Ratio
7.3
9.1
8.2
7.1
10.9
Fall 2010
F
Majors
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
17
FTE MAJORS
Fall 2013
P
20
37
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
12
32
Fall 2011
44
14
23
Fall 2012
37
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
17
6.667 23.667
12
10.667 22.667
14
7.667 21.667
16
7.667 23.667
16
23
39
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned to the
program
FTE Student/FTE Faculty Ratio
Important Notes: This methodology is used by STJ for all external reporting.
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
If your department provides service instruction to support the core curriculum, please explain in the context of
student credit hours taught, 4c, and courses taught, 4d, and 4e below.
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.
The following chart, provided by St. John’s Office of Institutional Research, offers an overall picture of the number of
credit hours our Department has delivered at the University.
Credit Hours
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
FT Faculty
5307
45%
4965
42%
4659
39%
5394
41%
5619
45%
PT Faculty
6504
55%
6798
58%
7329
61%
7722
59%
6828
55%
Total
11811
100%
11763
100%
11988
100%
13116
100%
12447
100%
% consumed by
NonMajors/Minors
96%
97%
97%
98%
97%
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
F-T Faculty
5,046
42%
5,736
44%
4,887
42%
4,752
39.0%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
6,852
58%
7,443
56%
6,870
58%
7,445
61.0%
0.0%
Total
11,898
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
100%
11,598
97.5%
0.0%
13,179
100%
12,894
97.8%
Percent
0.0%
11,757
100%
11,400
97.0%
0.0%
12,197
100%
11,935
97.9%
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
FT Faculty
58
46%
63
48%
55
40%
63
43%
62
44%
PT Faculty
69
54%
68
52%
81
60%
85
57%
78
56%
Total
127
100%
131
100%
136
100%
148
100%
140
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Percent
Number
Percent
55
43.7%
63
43.8%
56.3%
81
56.3%
71
0.0%
Total
Fall 2012
Number
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
Fall 2011
126
100%
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
60
42.0%
55
39.9%
83
58.0%
83
60.1%
0.0%
144
100%
Fall 2013
0.0%
143
100%
0.0%
138
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
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Gender
Male
Female
15
7
68%
32%
17
20
46%
54%
Total
22
100%
37
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
White
Unknown
Total
0
1
1
20
0
22
0%
5%
5%
91%
0%
100%
1
0
2
32
2
37
Tenure Status
Tenured
Tenure-Track
Not Applicable
17
4
1
Total
22
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
27
15
7
68%
32%
20
16
56%
44%
100%
59
22
100%
36
3%
0%
5%
86%
5%
100%
1
1
3
52
2
59
1
0
0
20
1
22
5%
0%
0%
91%
5%
100%
1
1
1
32
1
36
77%
18%
5%
17
4
1
17
3
2
100%
22
22
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
35
23
14
6
70%
30%
25
18
58%
42%
100%
58
20
100%
43
3%
3%
3%
89%
3%
100%
2
1
1
52
2
58
1
0
0
18
1
20
5%
0%
0%
90%
5%
100%
3
0
2
36
2
43
77%
14%
9%
17
3
2
17
1
2
100%
22
20
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
39
24
16
7
70%
30%
25
17
60%
40%
100%
63
23
100%
42
7%
0%
5%
84%
5%
100%
4
0
2
54
3
63
0
1
0
21
1
23
0%
4%
0%
91%
4%
100%
2
0
2
36
2
42
85%
5%
10%
17
1
2
17
4
2
100%
20
23
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
41
24
15
7
68%
32%
24
15
62%
38%
39
22
100%
65
22
100%
39
100%
61
5%
0%
5%
86%
5%
100%
2
1
2
57
3
65
0
1
0
20
1
22
0%
5%
0%
91%
5%
100%
2
0
4
31
2
39
5%
0%
10%
79%
5%
100%
2
1
4
51
3
61
74%
17%
9%
17
4
2
16
4
2
73%
18%
9%
16
4
2
100%
23
22
100%
22
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
15
75%
24
67%
Female
5
25%
12
33%
Total
20
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
39
16
73%
22
63%
17
6
27%
13
37%
56
22
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
38
16
73%
23
58%
19
6
27%
17
43%
57
22
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
39
16
76%
22
59%
38
23
5
24%
15
41%
20
62
21
Gender
36
35
40
37
58
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
0%
1
Asian
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
White
5%
0%
18
2
2
6%
2
0%
1
6%
2
0%
1
3%
1
90%
30
83%
48
1
3%
2 or More Races
0%
1
2
5%
0%
91%
2
0%
0%
1
1
5%
1
3%
1
1
5%
0%
0
31
89%
51
19
86%
1
3%
0%
20
6%
2
5%
2
0%
2
5%
2
0%
1
2
10%
1
3%
3
2
5%
3
1
5%
2
5%
3
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
35
88%
54
17
81%
31
84%
48
1
3%
1
3%
1
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
0%
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
1
Total
20
5%
0%
36
1
1
56
22
5%
0%
35
1
1
57
22
5%
0%
40
1
1
62
21
5%
37
58
Tenure Status
Tenured
15
75%
15
16
73%
16
16
73%
16
14
67%
14
Tenure-Track
4
20%
4
4
18%
4
5
23%
5
5
24%
5
Not Applicable
1
5%
1
2
9%
2
1
5%
1
2
10%
2
Total
20
20
22
22
22
22
21
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
$ Amount
Program
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
14,780
11,180
26,900
11,900
19,850
$ Amount
Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
LAS_THE_THEO_MA_Q
-
5,000
-
-
Self-Study Template 11
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)
Theology &
Religious
Studies (Q)
Saint John’s
College
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.68
4.71
4.38
4.61
4.66
4.66
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).
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)
LAS_THE_THEO_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 12
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_THE_THEO_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 13