AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Program Reviewed: Theology Catechetic Ministry 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
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
School/College
Average Rate
Regional
Comparison
National
Comparison
The National Overall Average for verbal is 150.6 and a quantitative of 151.9, based on those tested between August 1,
2011 and April 30, 2013.
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 130170(new)
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 2
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.
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
M.A.
M.Div.+Other
2007
2008
2009
45
49
40
42
43
7+10
7+8
3+3
2+5
2+6
62
64
46
49
51
Total
MAJORS
2006
THE2
MA
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
1
3
3
Self-Study Template 3
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
MA
11
12
16
19
9
M.Div.
2
2
1
0
0
Note: there are no students who have graduated from this program in the 10/11 – 12/13 academic years.
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)
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 4
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)
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 5
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
MA+MDiv
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
Students
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
Students
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
6
22.3
28.3
3
21.7
24.7
1.00
18.3
19.3
11
14
Non-Matric
27
# FTE Faculty
3.7
FTEStud/ Fac Ratio
7.3
3.0
9.1
3.0
2.7
2.3
8.2
7.1
10.9
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
P
Total
P
Total
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
1
1
3
Fall 2011
Total
25
FTE MAJORS
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
3
3
Fall 2012
3
Fall 2013
P
Total
P
Total
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
0.333
0.333
1
1
1
1
Self-Study Template 6
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 SJU for all external reporting.
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 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
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%
FT Faculty
%Consumed
by NonMajors
#
Fall 2006
96%
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
97%
97%
98%
97%
Self-Study Template 7
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
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
55
43.7%
63
43.8%
60
42.0%
55
39.9%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
71
56.3%
81
56.3%
83
58.0%
83
60.1%
0.0%
Total
126
100%
0.0%
144
100%
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)
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 8
Departmental Data
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
15
68%
17
46%
Female
7
32%
20
Total
22
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
15
68%
20
56%
54%
27
7
32%
16
37
100%
59
22
100%
0%
1
3%
1
1
1
5%
0
0%
1
Asian
1
5%
2
5%
White
20
91%
32
Unknown
0
0%
Total
22
100%
Tenured
17
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
35
14
70%
25
58%
44%
23
6
30%
18
36
100%
58
20
100%
5%
1
3%
2
1
0
0%
1
3%
1
3
0
0%
1
3%
86%
52
20
91%
32
2
5%
2
1
5%
37
100%
59
22
100%
77%
17
17
4
18%
4
Not Applicable
1
5%
Total
22
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
39
16
70%
25
60%
42%
24
7
30%
17
43
100%
63
23
100%
5%
3
7%
4
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
1
0
0%
2
5%
89%
52
18
90%
36
1
3%
2
1
5%
36
100%
58
20
100%
77%
17
17
3
14%
3
1
2
9%
22
22
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
41
15
68%
24
62%
39
40%
24
7
32%
15
38%
22
42
100%
65
22
100%
39
100%
61
0%
2
5%
2
0
0%
2
5%
2
1
4%
0
0%
1
1
5%
0
0%
1
2
0
0%
2
5%
2
0
0%
4
10%
4
84%
54
21
91%
36
86%
57
20
91%
31
79%
51
2
5%
3
1
4%
2
5%
3
1
5%
2
5%
3
43
100%
63
23
100%
42
100%
65
22
100%
39
100%
61
85%
17
17
74%
17
16
73%
16
1
5%
1
4
17%
4
4
18%
4
2
2
10%
2
2
9%
2
2
9%
2
22
20
100%
20
23
100%
23
22
100%
22
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 9
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
2
5%
6%
2
0%
1
0%
1
0%
2
6%
2
0%
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
1
3%
1
0%
90%
30
83%
48
1
3%
18
2 or More Races
20
6%
2
0%
1
1
5%
3%
1
1
5%
0%
0
31
89%
51
1
3%
5%
Asian
White
2
91%
1
0%
2
5%
2
0%
1
5%
3
0%
0
35
88%
54
1
3%
2
0%
19
86%
0%
2
5%
2
2
10%
1
3%
3
1
5%
2
5%
3
0%
0
0%
0
81%
31
84%
48
1
3%
1
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
17
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
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
21
Self-Study Template 10
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
$ Amount
Funding
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
-
5,000
-
-
Comments (Suggested limit ½ page)
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
Theology
Catechetic
Ministry (Q)
Saint John’s
College
Total Graduate
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
-
-
-
-
-
-
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)
LAS_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 11
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_THE_THE.CATECH.MIN_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 12