AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Language Pathology/Audiology BA Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair: September, 2015
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)
Relation to SJU and SJC mission
 Program focus embodies Catholic and Vincentian mission through teaching others how to provide necessary
educational and medical services to those in need.
 Program is made up of an extremely diverse student body, 40% of which are self-reported bilinguals. This adds
to the metropolitan character of the university.
 Academic Service Learning is an integral part of many classes and has been so for years.
 Faculty have conducted and published research on student-centered teaching practices in the discipline. This is
rare in communication sciences and disorders.
Comparison to similar programs nationally and regionally
 Little data exist with which to compare the undergraduate program in speech-language pathology and audiology
to other regional and national programs.
 From the little data available, this program enrolls more than the average number of students for New York
State. This is largely due to a recent increase in enrollment over the past 3 years.
Program Quality
 Most program goals measured in a given semester are met. These goals will be updated to reflect current
practice and trends in the discipline.
 Student survey suggested student satisfaction with the program.
 The program’s curriculum is very similar to that of regional and national programs.
 It appears that around 80% of the program’s graduates are granted admission to graduate school.
Market/Growth Potential
 Market/growth potential is higher than average. However, the program’s resources are stressed at this time. No
growth can occur without significant investment in laboratory space, technology, and faculty lines.
Student Learning
 Most program goals measured in a given semester are met (goals for student learning).
Self-Study Template 1
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q


Student survey suggested student satisfaction with the program.
Most program students tend to be higher achieving students when compared to the university at large as well as
the college of liberal arts and sciences (based on GPA and SAT averages in this report).
Significant Changes
 Three full-time, tenured faculty members took the VSO in the Spring 2015 semester. Faculty numbers were
down which required the five tenured faculty to carry more responsibility. Two new faculty members were hired
and began in Fall 2015. One line was taken away from the department (of the three who retired) and this further
increases the load on the few tenured faculty members.
 No comments on changes from last program review. The 2009-2010 program review was largely blank and did
not outline goals for the future.
Plans for the Future
1. The UEPC will revise the program’s goals and objectives to match current discipline trends as well as to attempt
to align program goals with university and college goals where possible. Update- this goal was met at the end of
Spring 2015.
2. Student survey instrument will be revised to better map to the program’s new goals. Update- this goal was met
at the end of Spring 2015.
3. The program will continue to request more support from the university and the college in the form of laboratory
space, technology, and faculty lines (the latter if growth continues at current rate).
4. The program faculty will develop a more formal method of tracking student acceptance into post-graduate
education, as this program prepares students for graduate study, not employment.
5. The program faculty will continue to engage students in and outside the classroom through extracurricular
activities as well as undergraduate student involvement in research.
Overall Rating: Enhance. The program cannot grow without significant support from the university in the form of
laboratory space, technology, and faculty lines.
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)
Student and faculty engagement in mission related experiences is arguably one of our undergraduate program’s
greatest strengths. Because the CSD major prepares students for professions that serve individuals with disabilities,
our program naturally attracts compassionate, altruistic individuals who value and share St. John’s Catholic and
Vincentian mission to serve those in need. In a recent paper which examined our undergraduates’ perceptions of
the CSD major (Keshishian & Wiseheart, 2015), over 90% of our students stated that they chose CSD because
they wanted to help others. Academic service-learning is highlighted in our department and our program’s
alignment with St. John’s vision is evidenced by the many mission related activities listed below. Many of these
activities are supported by our very active undergraduate Speech & Hearing Club, currently under the direction of
Dr. Anthea Vivona. In the Spring of 2015, the program’s UEPC voted to require two Academic Service-Learning
Internships for our majors (required activity in CSD 2760 and CSD 2770). The requirement went into effect in the Fall
2015 semester on both the Queens and Staten Island campuses.
The Metropolitan character of the university is reflected in the rich ethnic and linguistic diversity of our students.
Undergraduates in our program represent a very unique demographic in that over 40% of our students are bilingual
Self-Study Template 2
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
and 46% are children of at least one immigrant parent. Based on self-report, 42% of our students reported being
fluent in at least one language other than English. A total of 16 different languages, including Arabic, Russian,
Mandarin, Punjabi, Tagalog, and Hindi, were represented (Keshishian & Wiseheart, 2015). Thus, the ethnic/ racial
distribution of students in our major is more aligned with the diversity of the 2010 U.S. census than with that of our
national organization, the American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association (ASHA) which is 90% Caucasian. This
reflects the diversity of the Queens community but also suggests that students from all backgrounds see our major
as both attractive and accessible. The Metropolitan character of the university is also represented in the multicultural focus of our courses and research. For example, academic service-learning in our department often pairs
our undergraduate students with international students and many of our faculty members are nationally recognized
for their expertise in bilingual communication disabilities. We proudly report Dr. Jose Centeno’s recognition at the
2013 ASHA Convention for Special Contributions in Multicultural Affairs. Faculty members also continue to
disseminate their work on multicultural and bilingual populations to national and international audiences (Drs.
Centeno, Jacobson, Colodny and Walden specifically). Finally, because many of our undergraduates are the first in
their families to attend college, we strive to include them in the vibrant intellectual community that has historically
been associated with NYC.




Many of our students are involved in Catholic Student Ministries
Faculty research focused on speech and language disabilities in school-aged children is often conducted in
local Catholic Schools
Members of the Undergraduate Speech & Hearing Club participate in University Service Day, Relay for Life,
and hold fundraisers including a fundraiser for an orphanage in Guatemala
Over the past four years, undergraduate students in our major clocked an average of 170 hours/year of
Academic Service-Learning
Academic Year



Number of Service-Learning Hours
2010-2011
245
2011-2012
103
2012-2013
50
2013-2014
285
Five full time faculty members have completed AS-L certification training (Drs. Colodny, Geffner, Jacobson,
Thompson, Wiseheart)
Dr. Jacobson is a Vincentian Scholar
Dr. Colodny received the Louise De Marillac Service Award (2014) for her service work with orphans in
Guatemala
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)
Self-Study Template 3
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
A major aspect to the university’s mission is diversity and global awareness:
Diversity/Globalization






AS-L projects in Dr. Wagner and Dr. Wiseheart’s courses partner students with the Language Connection and the
English Language Institute at St. John’s, serving English Language Learners from around the world
AS-L projects in Dr. Jacobson’s courses serve bilingual children at a local Catholic school
Six faculty members (Drs. Centeno, Colodny, Jacobson, Walden, Wagner, & Wiseheart) conduct research related
to bilingualism, and many of these studies are conducted with the help of undergraduate research assistants.
Faculty members publish papers in international journals and present at international professional conferences
(e.g., International Workshop on Developmental Dyslexia in San Sebastian, Spain among others)
In 2013, Dr. Wiseheart earned CTL’s Global Certification
In 2013 Dr. Centeno was awarded ASHA’s Certificate of Recognition for Special Contributions in Multicultural
Affairs
Another Key aspect to the university’s mission is quality education and student experience:
Activities Supporting Quality Education and Student Experience





Several members of our faculty are CUNY alumni and their strong ties with the CUNY Graduate Center have
allowed both students and faculty research opportunities that would otherwise not have been available. Dr.
Wagner conducts electrophysiological research with several undergraduate research assistants in the CUNY
Graduate Center’s Developmental Neurolinguistics Lab.
Many of our undergraduates participate in student research symposiums in both NYC and Long Island
An increasing number of our students have been supported by the McNair Scholars Program, which provides
mentoring and financial support for first generation college students
Many of our faculty members have served as McNair Mentors and in 2014, Dr. Wiseheart was honored as
McNair Mentor of the Year
In 2012, we began hosting an annual Career Fair for our undergraduates. This event brings CSD professionals
working in NYC and Long Island together with undergraduate students in our major for a meet and
greet/question and answer session about working as an SLP or Audiologist in the NYC area
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)
The mission/vision of St. John’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences involves a focus on student-centered teaching that
includes aspects of social diversity in a modern educational environment.
Evidence of program’s embodiment of the college’s mission/vision
 Dr. Walden has conducted research on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as it pertains to student
learning outcomes in speech acoustics. This research has led to student-centered, experience-based teaching
methods in CSD 1750: Speech Science, a historically difficult course for Speech-Language Pathology and
Audiology students.
 In the Fall of 2013, Dr. Walden began offering a laryngeal dissection lab for undergraduate students in CSD 1720:
Anatomy and Physiology of the Speech Mechanism. This activity allowed students a first-hand view of the actual
laryngeal anatomy rather than relying on pictures from a textbook to learn. A proposal to create a new course
that included this laboratory activity was submitted to the LAFC’s curriculum committee. The curriculum
Self-Study Template 4
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
committee voiced that the experience should be made available to all program students rather than offering a
different course that includes the laboratory activity. Currently, it is not possible to require all instructors of CSD
1720 to offer the dissection experience- not all instructors (adjunct or full-time) feel comfortable leading this
learning opportunity. Yet, this item serves to evidence departmental efforts to enhance student-centered
teaching in a modern educational environment.
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
It is clear from the above narratives that the BA program in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology reflects and
supports the general university’s mission and vision as well as those of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
High School Average
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
1077
1049
1182
1264
1114
88
90
88
94
91
School/
College
1104
1099
1085
1093
1093
88
88
88
88
89
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Computed
Speech Pathology
Fall 2011
Computed
1179
Fall 2012
Computed
1191
Fall 2013
Computed
1129
1196
Self-Study Template 5
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
Speech Pathology
Fall 2012
High School
91
Fall 2013
High School
91
High School
91
94
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
Intended college major for 2012 college-bound seniors
TestTakers
SAT
Intended College Major
English Language and Literature
Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies
Mean Scores
Number
Percent
(%)
Critical
Reading
Mathematics
Total
2,072
1.5%
558
512
1070
380
0.3%
568
582
1150
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
Self-Study Template 6
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
Program
85
83
79
94
100
10
9
90%
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
2010
Total Returned
SPE
7
DNR
#
%
#
%
5
71%
2
29%
2011
Total Returned
14
DNR
#
%
#
%
13
93%
1
7%
2012
Total Returned
9
#
%
9
100%
DNR
#
Total
%
26
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
24
92%
2
8%
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
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Self-Study Template 7
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Program
71%
78%
75%
75%
77%
School/
College
Average Rate
61%
59%
58%
60%
57%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
SPE
Fall 2004 cohort
Total Graduated
12 10
83%
Fall 2005 cohort
Total
Graduated
14 7
50%
Fall 2006 cohort
Total Graduated
17 15
88%
Fall 2007 cohort
Total Graduated
9 8
89%
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
This item was not provided by institutional research and the department does not currently have access to graduating
student’s GRE scores unless students choose to apply to the Master of Arts Program in Speech-Language Pathology or
students casually mention GRE scores to their departmental academic advisors. Based on these anecdotal sources, it is
estimated that our program majors score in the 30th-70th percentile range with most students around 40th percentile on
both the quantitative and verbal portions of the GRE. Writing is usually less than or equal to 3.5 (out of a possible 5.0).
Student performance on the GRE is an area in which the program would like to improve. Since 2013, students are
advised to take courses in linguistics (LIN 1320) and pre-calculus (MTH 1050) to help with GRE preparation. The UEPC
also accepted a proposal from Dr. Wiseheart for a class specific to professional writing. The UEPC voted to accept the
course and make it a requirement for all program majors. The LAFC approved the new required writing course and all
new undergraduate majors in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology are required to complete this course beginning
in Fall 2015.
Comments: Refer to Charts 2a – 2d in your response. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
None
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Self-Study Template 8
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) is the accrediting body for graduate programs in speechlanguage pathology and audiology. ASHA provides little-to-no information on undergraduate programs, least of all for
areas of academic and standardized testing achievement. Of the few data available on communication science and
disorders (CSD) programs at the undergraduate level, it appears that there are 28 universities in New York State which
offer the undergraduate degree in speech-language pathology and audiology (CAPCSD & ASHA, 2013). Of these 28
programs, 17 reported a total of 1,843 undergraduate majors. If the 17 reporting institutions are similar to the
remaining 11 institutions who did not contribute to CAPCSD and ASHA’s survey, each program would have
approximately 108 total undergraduate students enrolled. Our program has well above that number (currently, 147
majors which is up from 109 in Fall 2010).
Further, upon comparing our students’ SAT and GPAs, students in speech-language pathology and audiology tend to be
higher achieving students when compared to the college at-large. Last, the BA program in speech-language pathology
and audiology on the Queens campus tends to be well above the college average for retention, often 90% or above. This
is an area of strength for our program.
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)
Undergraduate majors in speech-language pathology and audiology do not take licensure or professional certification
exams, as the entry level to the CSD fields is a graduate degree.
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
138
148
114
116
112
Minors
1
1
4
1
0
139
149
118
117
112
Total
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Self-Study Template 9
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Majors
MAJORS
MINORS
SPE
BA
109
Majors
115
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Speech Pathology & Audiology
4
4
3
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Total
Total
Total
Total
119
147
3
Fall 2010
113
Majors
141
Fall 2010
Total
2h.
Majors
144
150
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
25
40
55
36
39
SJC -UG-Q SPE
Speech Pathology & Audiology BA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
35
35
34
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 51-Health Professions and Related
Programs.
2009-
2010-
2011-
Self-Study Template 10
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
2010
2011
2012
Bachelor's
Local
2,261
National 129,634
2,238
2,591
143,430
163,440
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)
Local comparisons were provided in item 2e above. National patterns cannot be addressed, as data are not available.
The chart above (with data from CIP code 51 with local and national data) contains too many disciplines to adequately
compare our program. “Health Professions and Related Programs” can be anything from physical or occupational
therapy to nursing and physician’s assistant programs. Therefore, the numbers provided do not lend themselves to any
meaningful comparison to our program in speech-language pathology and audiology.
At the institutional level, the number of speech-language pathology/majors has grown from 109 in 2010 to 147 in 2013.
Of recent, extra sessions of required undergraduate coursework were necessitated to accommodate the growth of our
program. Dr. Walden has taught an overload for the past two academic semesters due to the increase in demand and
the difficulty with finding large numbers of adjunct faculty with the requisite expertise in the field and in educational
practices (face-to-face and online).
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)
The undergraduate program coordinator, Dr. Walden, coordinates student academic advisement for the department.
Each major in our program is assigned to Drs. Walden, Wagner, or Thompson (full-time faculty). We attempt to allow
each student to keep the same advisor throughout their completion of the program. Each major’s progress toward
completion of the program is tracked each semester by one of the undergraduate advisors previously listed. Any
difficulties the majors may have that are not related to our specific program are referred to the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences’ staff.
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)
The only data we have available to determine how many of our program’s students are granted admission into graduate
degree programs were made available through the career center’s survey. The career center reported data from
students graduating from our undergraduate program beginning in 2010 and ending in 2013. During this time, 121
graduates completed the survey. Of the 121 graduates, 25 (20%) reported they were not granted admission into a
graduate program or did not respond to the question. Changes to recommended courses for our program’s students
Self-Study Template 11
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
were made through the UEPC to attempt to increase the number of students accepted for graduate study after
completion of our program. These changes include: 1) completion of LIN 1320 to increase GRE verbal score and 2)
completion of MTH 1050 to increase GRE quantitative score. It is too early to attempt to draw any conclusions as to
whether these changes will increase GRE scores and, thus, increase the chance of acceptance into graduate programs.
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)
Based on the data presented above, students in our program typically have higher GPAs than the college/university
average overall. This is not surprising given that our students come into the university with higher high school GPAs and
SAT scores.
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
The undergraduate program in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology began to anonymously survey students (all
four years) in the Spring of 2013. The Spring 2014results included that 72% of the 49 student participants reported that
faculty have a positive effect on learning. Seventy percent reported being satisfied with the program so far.
The program also uses student assignments and grades to measure program goals. The undergraduate program
coordinator, Dr. Walden, enters these data each semester into WEAVE.
Self-Study Template 12
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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
The undergraduate program in speech-language pathology and audiology had 6 program goals and 9 objectives. UEPC
members have expressed concern that the goals and objectives for the program need to be updated and streamlined. As
written, the goals and objectives are discipline-specific and set to prepare students to apply to graduate programs in
speech-language pathology or audiology. The goals map to the university’s strategic plan (repositioned) in the area of
career placement and furthering education. The program’s goals and objectives were reworked based on the findings of
the initial completion of this program review (in the Spring 2015 semester) to better reflect discipline-specific trends as
well as updated university and college of liberal arts and sciences priorities to the extent possible. As the undergraduate
program coordinator, Dr. Patrick Walden was responsible for leading the UEPC’s updating of the goals and objectives.
The program now has four goals and four objectives which have also been mapped to the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences Assessment Goals.
Below is a list of University and College strategic plan areas and what this program contributes to those areas.
University’s Strategic Plan
Defining Value of St. John’s Education
 Retention- the program has had a good retention rate for the past five years.
 Graduation Rates- the program has had good graduation rates for the past six years.
 Student/Alumni Perceptions- Students in the program are surveyed (anonymously) once a year to discern
student perceptions of the program in terms of quality and engagement.
 Rankings- This program is not ranked.
 Licensure- This program does not lead to licensure.
 Accreditation- This program does not hold accreditation other than that held by the university.
Career Placement and Furthering Education
 Job Placement/Furthering Education- Job placement is not the goal of this program. Instead, students are
expected to apply for a graduate degree in speech-language pathology, audiology, or a related profession
(education/psychology). Based on career center data, circa 80% of students gain access into a graduate program.
Because students may not gain employment in the professions without a graduate degree, we strongly opine
that an 80% admissions rate is too low. The number of students admitted to graduate programs could be greatly
improved simply by raising the minimum GPA required for the major. However, on two separate occasions,
efforts to require students to keep a minimum GPA of 3.0 in the major were rejected by the LAFC’s curriculum
committee. Therefore, lower achieving students continue to be allowed to complete the major with no real
chance of being accepted into a graduate program in communication sciences and disorders. Program advisors
will continue to attempt to counsel lower achieving students into areas where they may be more successful
academically and professionally. This way, the program can try to avoid graduating students with a degree that
does not help the student secure employment after graduation or otherwise facilitate students’ attainment of
professional goals.
Self-Study Template 13
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Mission
 Academic Service Learning- The program provides several ASL projects as part of coursework. These have been
in place for years. As of Fall 2015, all new program majors are required to complete two AS-L Internships (as part
of CSD 2760 and CSD 2770).
 Vibrant Faith Community- The program does not overtly contribute to a vibrant faith community.
 Student/Alumni Perceptions- Please see above.
 Third Party Endorsements- The program has no third party endorsements.
Diversity and Global Awareness
 Study Abroad- Academic advisors work with the student and the office of global studies to insure students have
the opportunity to study abroad without falling behind in coursework. Drs. Colodny and Walden are currently
working with the study abroad office to create written guidelines to help all program majors who wish to study
abroad do so without falling behind in coursework.
 International Students- The program does not have a significant number of international students. However, Dr.
Patrick Walden supervises an AS-L project in which Speech-Language Pathology students provide accent
modification training for students who are part of the Language Connection.
 Diversity Rankings- Diversity was described above (see Standard 1)
College-level
Academic Service Learning
Academic service learning was described above (see Standard 1). The program has a very active line of AS-L projects.
Student Engagement
The program provides many opportunities for student engagement. Drs. Jacobson, Wiseheart, Walden and Wagner
frequently provide undergraduate research opportunities to students. These opportunities are above and beyond the
assigned coursework/teaching load. Many social events are planned with clinic and academic faculty throughout the
academic year with the student speech club. Many faculty take students into the community to experience the field
outside the classroom. For instance, Dr. Walden has included a visit to CUNY’s Graduate Center for CSD 1750: Speech
Science students to learn how speech science is used for research as well as to learn about doctoral work in speech
science. Faculty course evaluation data are at or above the data from the college and university overall.
Global Awareness
Diversity of human communication is covered in most courses in the curriculum. Given the diverse nature of our student
body, issues in bilingualism are discussed across the curriculum. Differences in communication versus a disorder of
communication are foci of much of the coursework in the program.
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?
The UEPC for the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders meets regularly during the academic year to
discuss the program, student evaluations, and to recommend changes to the program as needs arise and new areas of
interest are identified. For instance, Dr. Rebecca Wiseheart has developed a proposal for a discipline-specific writing
course as a result of program assessment data. In addition to student learning assessment each semester, students in
the program are asked to anonymously complete a survey focusing on student perceptions and experiences of program
Self-Study Template 14
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
strengths and weaknesses. These data are presented yearly at a UEPC meeting and potential program changes are
discussed based on the survey findings.
In terms of the program’s competiveness, the program is currently at maximum capacity without hiring of new faculty
and investment in laboratory space and updated, state-of-the art instrumentation. This demonstrates the popularity of
the program within the university as well as the need for investment in the program for our students to get hands-on
experience with 21st century instrumentation (e.g. video stroboscopy for laryngeal visualization, equipment for
aerodynamic speech measures, and flexible endoscopy for evaluation of swallowing function to name a few). Further,
the program regularly admits external and internal transfers. The program’s leadership has worked to make a
streamlined process for completion for those students who transfer into the program later in their academic
coursework.
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.
Both speech-language pathology and audiology will continue to grow as professions as the U.S. population ages and lives
longer in older age (see data below). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that speech-language pathology has a
“faster than average” job outlook. Audiology was reported to have a “much faster than average” job outlook. Therefore,
future market potential for the program is excellent.
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
37%
4,800
23%
28,800
Audiologist
Speech Language Pathologists
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Speech Language
Pathologists
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
23%
28,800
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 21% or more
Percent
Numeric
Audiologist
37%
4,800
Speech Language Pathologists
23%
28,800
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
None.
Self-Study Template 15
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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
Item 1: The program curriculum is made up of a set of required courses, elective courses, and recommended courses.
Required coursework includes basic studies in normal human communication as well as introduction to disorders of
human communication, their assessment and their management/treatment. Elective coursework includes more focused
study of normal and disordered communication in humans. Recommended coursework is in place to support student
learning in science and mathematics. Students who complete the program as well as the recommended courses may
apply to any graduate program in the country without the need for extra coursework before being accepted into the
program. The program also includes recommendations for coursework required by the American Speech-LanguageHearing Association for eventual certification in a practice area (coursework in biology, physics/chemistry, statistics, and
behavioral sciences). Further, recommended coursework in linguistics as well as mathematics is in place to help students
improve Graduate Record Examination scores to improve chances of acceptance into a graduate program of study.
Overall, the current program meets or exceeds expected offerings in the disciplines.
Item 2: Though the term “curriculum integrity” is not clearly defined, most, if not all, undergraduate courses are taught
by full-time or adjunct faculty members who have expertise in the specific areas of instruction; that is, faculty members
are not routinely requested to teach “out of area.” All of our faculty members also maintain national certification
through the American Speech Language and Hearing Association (ASHA) which requires triennial completion of 30
continuing education credits. This ensures that our faculty is up to date on the latest findings in the field. Our
undergraduate curriculum is also designed according to ASHA recommendations. The curriculum is indeed coherent, as
all but a few basic courses require prerequisites and the sequence of the coursework throughout the student’s study is
prescribed so that each course builds on another. It is highly discouraged to provide students permission to take
coursework out of sequence. Academic Service-Learning Internships are now a required part of the program. Teaching
excellence and vibrancy are described elsewhere in this self-study (see Standard 5)s. Study abroad experiences are not
provided specifically for students in this program. However, many of our students study abroad and they are carefully
advised so as to be able to complete the study abroad experience without falling behind in the program.
Item 3: All of the university’s core competencies are addressed in the teaching and assessment methods employed
throughout the program’s curriculum. One way critical thinking is addressed is through students’ participation in
internship experiences in which the theory addressed in their courses may be put into practice in a clinical setting.
Information literacy, skillful writing, and oral presentation skills are part of almost every course taught in the program.
Students in this program have multiple opportunities to use the library and its databases to access research-based
evidence for clinical problem-solving as well as research papers. Research papers using the American Psychological
Association’s Style Manual (5th ed.) are required in upper level courses, and graded oral presentations are part of these
courses as well. Quantitative reasoning is addressed through interpretation of research findings in upper-level courses.
Further, all students in our program are advised to take the course in statistics provided through the Psychology
department or the Math department.
Self-Study Template 16
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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
All departmental course outlines and syllabi for all programs (UG and Graduate) are available on the university’s drive as
well as in digication. All course outlines/syllabi contain, at a minimum, that suggested by the university.
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)
Currently, the coordinator of this program, Dr. Patrick Walden, assesses student learning each semester. A limited
number of goals and objectives are chosen each semester and Dr. Walden identifies academic activities across
difference courses/faculty to measure student performance in the goal/objective areas. Dr. Walden reports this
information in WEAVE. Further, students in the program complete an anonymous survey during the Spring semester
regarding perceptions and experiences with the program. These data, when related, are also reported as part of the
assessment data in WEAVE. Program goals/objectives were revised by the program UEPC in the Spring 2015 semester as
described earlier in this report. Further, the anonymous student survey students complete each Spring was revised to
match the new program goals and objectives in the Spring 2015 semester.
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)
None
Standard 4.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Assessment of student learning is a work in progress for the program. Yet, it is a priority for the undergraduate program
coordinator, Dr. Walden, as well as the members of the program’s UEPC.
Self-Study Template 17
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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.
#
Majors/
FT
Faculty
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
Majors
134
4
138
142
6
148
109
5
114
112
4
116
111
1
112
Minors
1
0
1
1
0
1
4
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
135
4
139
143
6
149
113
5
118
113
4
117
111
1
112
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
135.00
1.33
136.33
143.00
2.00
145.00
113.00
1.67
114.67
113.00
1.33
114.33
111.00
0.33
111.33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned to
the
program
7
7
14
5
9
14
5
8
13
8
9
17
7
8
15
FTE
Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
19.29
0.19
9.74
28.60
0.22
10.36
22.60
0.21
8.82
14.13
0.15
6.73
15.86
0.04
7.42
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2010
F
MAJORS
Fall 2011
P
Majors
Fall 2008
Total
F
P
Fall 2009
Fall 2012
Total
F
Total
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
110
1
111
112
4
116
143
143
143
4
147
Self-Study Template 18
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
F
Total
Minors
MINORS
F
P
Total
4
MAJORS/MINORS
4
2
2
FTE MAJORS
F
F
4
Total
3
3
Fall 2011
Total
3
3
Fall 2012
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
114
1
115
114
6
120
146
146
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2013
Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2013
F
P
Total Total
146
Fall 2012
4
Total
Total
150
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
2
116
146
146
146
114
Fall 2010
0.333 114.333 114
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
1.333 147.333
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
Self-Study Template 19
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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%
1756
59%
Not
available
as of yet
PT Faculty
3467
57%
3936
60%
4295
63%
1231
41%
Total
6038
100%
6574
100%
6840
100%
2987
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
Non-Majors
62%
Credit Hrs
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
0%
63%
62%
22%
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
0
0%
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
1,555
56.4% 1,503
57.6% 1,643
61.2% 1,496
55.8%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
1,201
43.6% 1,107
42.4% 1,040
38.8% 1,185
44.2%
Total
% Consumed
by NonMajors
2,756
413
0.0%
0.0%
100% 2,610
100%
0.0%
15.0% 417
16.0% 261
2,683
%
100%
0.0%
2,681
9.7% 348
100%
13.0%
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. Figures from Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 reflect the department at
that time and fall 2008 represents the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders.
Self-Study Template 20
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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%
15
37%
21
50%
#
Not
available
as of yet
FT Faculty
43
43%
PT Faculty
58
57%
63
58%
26
63%
21
50%
Total
101
100%
108
100%
41
100%
42
100%
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
0%
0
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
25
59.5% 32
55.2% 27
62.8% 23
54.8%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
17
40.5% 26
44.8% 16
37.2% 19
45.2%
Total
42
%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100% 58
100% 43
100%
0.0%
42
100%
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. Figures from Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 reflect the department at
that time and fall 2008 represents the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
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)
As noted in the table below, most faculty (full- and part-time) are female. This is expected given that communication
sciences and disorders is a female-dominated career path (around 97% of professionals in CSD are female). All full-time
faculty have completed the terminal degree (Ph.D.) and all have published in national and international journals in CSD.
Racial/ethnic diversity is low (mostly self-identified Caucasian). However, self-identification of race/ethnicity speaks little
to the cultural competence and global knowledge of the faculty. Three faculty members have worked as bilingual
clinicians and have completed research in bilingual clinical populations. While racial and ethnic diversity is desirable, a
nationwide shortage of individuals with terminal degrees in the professions makes finding any faculty member,
Self-Study Template 21
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
regardless of race/ethnicity, more challenging. Due to three faculty members taking the VSO in the Spring 2014
semester, the program currently has five tenured faculty members and four untenured, tenure-track faculty members
(as of Fall 2015, the program has five tenured faculty members and six untenured faculty members). Two new tenuretrack Assistant Professors were hired as of Fall 2015 to replace two who left under the VSO. One faculty line was taken
away from the program despite its continued growth and revenue contribution to the College/University. The Speech
and Hearing Center has undergone major changes since Spring 2015. Dr. Donna Geffner was removed from her
appointed Director position at the center. In August 2015, Ms. Anne-Marie Maher was appointed Acting Clinic Director.
Two clinical supervisors at the Speech and Hearing Center resigned as of the Summer of 2015. One of these has been
replaced as of September 2015. An open search for a supervisor of Audiology is currently underway. The faculty are
currently working at maximum potential with one faculty member teaching an overload for two (as of Fall 2015, three)
consecutive semesters to cover coursework. While new faculty have been hired, first year tenure-track faculty get an
automatic course reduction, leaving courses in need of coverage.
Self-Study Template 22
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
2005
FT
#
2006
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
2007
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
2008
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
2009
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
PT
%
#
Total
%
Not
available
as of yet
Gender
Male
7
41%
13
38%
20
9
50%
16
42%
25
8
40%
15
38%
23
7
64%
3
21%
10
0
Female
10
59%
21
62%
31
9
50%
22
58%
31
12
60%
25
63%
37
4
36%
11
79%
15
0
Total
17
100%
34
100%
51
18
100%
38
100%
56
20
100%
40
100%
60
11
100%
14
100%
25
0
Black
0
0%
1
3%
1
1
6%
1
3%
2
0
0%
2
5%
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
Hispanic
1
6%
0
0%
1
0
0%
2
5%
2
3
15%
0
0%
3
1
9%
0
0%
1
0
Asian
1
6%
0
0%
1
2
11%
0
0%
2
1
5%
0
0%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
White
14
82%
32
94%
46
15
83%
34
89%
49
16
80%
36
90%
52
9
82%
12
86%
21
0
Unknown
1
6%
1
3%
2
0
0%
1
3%
1
0
0%
2
5%
2
1
9%
2
14%
3
0
Total
17
100%
34
100%
51
18
100%
38
100%
56
20
100%
40
100%
60
11
100%
14
100%
25
0
Tenured
10
59%
10
12
67%
12
12
60%
12
5
45%
5
0
Tenure-Track
6
35%
6
3
17%
3
6
30%
6
4
36%
4
0
Not Applicable
1
6%
1
3
17%
3
2
10%
2
2
18%
2
0
Total
17
100%
17
18
100%
18
20
100%
20
11
100%
11
0
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. Figures from Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 reflect the department at that time and fall 2008
represents the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
Self-Study Template 23
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
3
27%
1
6%
Female
8
73%
16
94%
Total
11
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
4
3
27%
1
6%
24
8
73%
15
94%
28
11
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
4
3
25%
3
20%
23
9
75%
12
80%
27
12
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
6
2
18%
2
13%
4
21
9
82%
14
88%
23
27
11
Gender
17
16
15
16
27
Ethnicity
Black
0%
Hispanic
2
18%
1
0%
0
6%
3
0%
2
18%
1
0%
0
6%
3
0%
2
17%
1
0%
0
7%
3
2
0%
0
0%
0
18%
1
6%
3
Asian
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
American Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
88%
23
88%
22
11
73%
20
82%
14
88%
23
1
7%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
1
6%
1
White
8
73%
15
8
73%
14
9
75%
2 or More Races
9
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
1
Total
11
9%
1
6%
17
2
1
28
11
9%
1
16
6%
2
1
27
12
8%
2
15
13%
3
0%
27
11
16
27
Tenure Status
Tenured
6
55%
6
6
55%
6
6
50%
6
8
73%
8
Tenure-Track
5
45%
5
5
45%
5
5
42%
5
3
27%
3
0%
0
0%
0
1
8%
1
0%
0
11
12
Not Applicable
Total
11
11
11
12
11
11
Self-Study Template 24
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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)
Dr. Patrick Walden has completed several studies on the scholarship of teaching and learning, especially in the speech
sciences over the last 6 years. Three papers have been published in regional and national journals in the professions. Dr.
Wiseheart is also involved in an ongoing cross-disciplinary pedagogical research project which seeks to determine which
types of writing and learning activities contribute most to student achievement, self-efficacy, and the development of
professional identity. Preliminary findings from this research were presented at an international conference and most
recently at a CTL meeting. All full-time program faculty engage in discipline-specific research and have published in
national and international journals in communication sciences and disorders. Full-time program faculty also regularly
present at regional, national, and international professional conferences. These accomplishments are communicated
to the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences on a yearly basis through completion of the AFAR. Research on
teaching and learning is a new concept in the communication sciences and disorders, as research on clinical populations
is expected in doctoral programs in speech and hearing sciences. It is rare that faculty who are currently engaged in
research with clinical populations have the time and/or interest to also engage in research in teaching and learning.
Therefore, Dr. Walden’s and Dr. Wiseheart’s research in teaching and learning makes the program unique compared to
others regionally and nationally.
There is abundant evidence that faculty have engaged in scholarship and learning in the professions through attendance
at scholarly meetings of learned societies, publishing in scholarly tier one journals and books, sitting on committees of
learned societies and research. IT IS A TESTIMATE TO THE FACULTY’S DEDICATION THAT WE ACCOMPLISH AS MUCH AS
WE DO WITHOUT A RESEARCH LABORATORY.
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)
All but two current full-time program faculty hold the Certificate of Clinical Competence from the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association. Therefore, all but two faculty complete 30 hours of continuing education in the
professions every three years. New York State licenses in the professions also require these continuing education hours
(all faculty save two also carry New York State Licensure).
Drs. Colodny, Walden, Centeno, Wagner and Wiseheart have participated in university-sponsored continuing education
for program assessment which directly relates to supporting the program.
Dr. Walden has continued to complete university-sponsored continuing education to improve online coursework for the
program, including SLOAN-C (Online Learning Consortium) coursework.
While faculty have consistently asked for laboratory space or new equipment, requests have been denied. Faculty
members do not have laboratory space to conduct research studies; computers are shared in the departmental lounge
which are dedicated strictly to student teaching. Without laboratory space, faculty are restricted in eligibility for grant
awards, students are unable to participate as often in supported research and are often unable to benefit from research
experiences. Being a director of a lab, which requires a physical space and demonstrating University support of research
(which requires facility space) is essential for many grant awards, which have the potential to bring money into the
University. Software currently available has limited application for research analysis and publication. There is a lack of
state-of-the-art instrumentation for the assessment, management, treatment, and research of communication and its
disorders in the program. Instrumentation in voice and speech production as well as swallowing (deglutition) is greatly
needed to teach and perform research using the most up-to-date methods. The data below highlight the difficulty
getting grants without research facilities.
Self-Study Template 25
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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
22,000
82,500
408,686 107,225
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.
External
Funding
Fiscal Year
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
4,000
14,345
17,500
-
If available, please provide the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program
under review. (Program dollar amounts are only available through departmental records.)
Two full-time faculty have secured some external funding for research. Four faculty have attempted to secure NIH, NSF,
and other professional funding for research (two of whom was successful) over the past five years. It is extremely
difficult to secure large amounts of funding with no research infrastructure to support funded activities. This is an area
in which the program needs enhancement form the college/university to keep up with expectations of funding agencies.
Self-Study Template 26
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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)
Speech
Language
Pathology/
Audiology (Q)
Saint John’s
College
Total
Undergraduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.28
4.25
4.19
4.50
4.46
4.33
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).
Course evaluations for faculty are consistently at or above those for the college and the university overall.
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)
All current full-time academic faculty have terminal degrees (Ph.D.) and all but two renew the Certificate of Clinical
Competence from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association annually. New York State licenses in the
disciplines are renewed every three years (all but two carry NYS licensure in the area of practice).
All clinical faculty have, at a minimum, the entry level degree for the professions (M.A. for Speech-Language Pathology
and Au.D. for Audiology) as well as the Certificate of Clinical Competence in the profession of practice from the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Clinic faculty also hold New York State licenses in the area of practice.
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)
Faculty numbers are down due to three faculty members taking the VSO in the Spring 2015 semester (does not show in
tables above). Two of these vacancies were filled in Fall 2015. One faculty line was taken away from the program despite
continued program growth and revenue contribution to the college/university. One clinical supervisor at the Speech and
Hearing Center is also open due to supervisor resignation. This line is currently being filled. Even if the faculty line which
was taken away were re-instated, the program would continue to need enhancement through faculty hires as well as
financial investment in the program in order to meet college and university goals and mission. The current full-time
faculty are talented individuals with complementary areas of interest which support a program with both breadth and
depth to prepare students for graduate, entry-level degree applications.
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
None.
Self-Study Template 27
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
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)
The CSD program lacks requisite equipment and space to hold said equipment both of which are necessary to
demonstrate current practices and research in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. For example, tools for
assessment of swallowing and feeding (Dr. Colodny’s area of research) and lab space for equipment to demonstrate
assessment of voice disorders (Dr. Walden’s areas of research) are unavailable. Laboratory space, equipment and
software programs to engage students in research are unavailable and prevent a first class learning environment.
Without laboratory facilities, student experiences are limited. Drs. Jose Centeno and Monica Wagner engage in
neuroscience/neurolinguistic research and publish in international and national peer-reviewed publications. Necessary
equipment to grow in these areas is not available to the faculty. Equipment, computer software and laboratory space
are not available for members of the CSD program as has been provided to faculty conducting similar research within
other departments within the college. This deficiency limits student experiences and learning pertaining to the latest
trends within the professional field and prevents our students from producing publications. The lack of space,
equipment, and infrastructure for the CSD program faculty also creates a significant burden for the faculty to look for
field sites where non-instrumental research may be conducted or to partner with other universities that have the
requisite research infrastructure to conduct research using cutting-edge technologies.
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)
Overall, the physical environment (for teaching- not research) is adequate for the program. There are particular
classrooms with consistently dirty whiteboards, extremely low speaker volumes, and no screen for the projector- thus
difficulty teaching with dirty white boards- (particularly STJ Hall, 307).
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)
 None
6d.
If external data that describe 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)
For Fiscal Year 2014, the BA (Queens) program in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology enrolled 151 students and
a total of 4,715 credit hours were billed. Net revenue for the program was $5,633,965 resulting in a profit (contribution)
of $1,804,546 after costs were deducted. Considering a general lack of investment in laboratory space and research
equipment for the program, the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology program is extremely cost-effective and
provides significant support for other university expenses (administrative and facilities).
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Given the significant financial contribution the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology program makes to the
university, it is unfortunate that some of these funds are not directed to improving the research capacity of the
program, including allocation of space for faculty/student research, purchase of state-of-the-art equipment for research
Self-Study Template 28
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q
and teaching, and more travel money for faculty and students to present research at National and International
conferences.
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)
It is not possible to comment on what actions, if any, have been taken as a result of the findings of the last program
review. Many areas of the program review template were left blank for the 2009-2010 program review. Further, no
action plan was created for the 2009-2010 program review.
1. The UEPC will revise the program’s goals and objectives to match current discipline trends as well as to attempt
to align program goals with university and college goals where possible. Update- this goal was met at the end of
Spring 2015.
2. Student survey instrument will be revised to better map to the program’s new goals. Update- this goal was met
at the end of Spring 2015.
3. The program will continue to request more support from the university and the college in the form of laboratory
space, technology, and faculty lines (the latter if growth continues at current rate).
4. The program faculty will develop a more formal method of tracking student acceptance into post-graduate
education, as this program prepares students for graduate study, not employment.
5. The program faculty will continue to engage students in and outside the classroom through extracurricular
activities as well as undergraduate student involvement in research.
6. A more formal method of tracking student acceptance into graduate study will be developed and implemented
in the Spring 2015 semester.
Self-Study Template 29
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_Q