AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Language Pathology/Audiology BA SI
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.
 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.
 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 fewer than the average number of students for New York State (due to the campus’s
small size).
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.
Self-Study Template1
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Market/Growth Potential
 Market/growth potential is higher than average. However, the program’s resources are stressed at this time due to the financial strains
on the Staten Island campus. The addition of Drs. Gary Martin and Karece Lopez to the faculty is very welcomed and is expected to
increase the visibility of the program.
Student Learning
 Most program goals measured in a given semester are met (goals for student learning).
 Student survey suggested student satisfaction with the program.
 Most program students compare favorably 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
 One full-time, tenured faculty member took the VSO in the Spring 2014 semester. This faculty member’s employment was extended
until Spring 2015. A new faculty member (Dr. Karece Lopez) filled this line in September 2015.
 No comments on changes from last program review. The 2009-2010 program review did not outline goals for the future.
Plans for the Future
 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 was accomplished in Spring 2015
 Student survey instrument will be revised to better map to the program’s new goals.Update, this was accomplished in Spring 2015
 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
 Continued efforts to grow the program will be emphasized
Overall Rating: Enhance. The program has much market potential.
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)
Students are exposed to all aspects of the educational life of children and adolescents in the course of study in speech-language pathology
and audiology. They are required to do observation hours in addition to their internships. Among the programs which cooperate with the
department in this endeavor are: Staten Island Audiology Services, The Department of Education, Bishop Ahern HS, The Speech Zone,
Cribs to Crayons, Integrated Development Center, Our Place School, South Shore Speech Pathology, One Step Beyond, Silver Lake
Self-Study Template2
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Rehabilitation Center, SI University Hospital, and the department of developmental disabilities program of the College of Staten Island.
These centers reflect the multiple resources available to the department through providing access and exposure to the rehabilitation
needs of communicatively handicapped populations.
The metropolitan character of the department is exemplified by the academic profiles of the faculty, one who has practiced throughout
the greater metropolitan region for many years including teaching posts at similar and graduate institutions, and the other faculty
member who is trained and educated in the Southern region of the US and brings fresh perspective and initiative in many areas of
expertise. Between the two faculty and the adjunct colleagues, there are many external relationships. Students have attended programs
to observe and volunteer in all the boroughs and New Jersey. The program encourages these relationships and opportunities for students
to learn and eventually practice in the discipline.
Furthermore, through activities such as writing of research papers, conducting research projects with faculty, and classroom and distancebased educational venues, the students have an opportunity to broaden their multicultural perspectives. Students learn about cross
cultural comparisons and intercultural differences in language and speech. They are instructed in modification of treatment strategies and
diagnostic protocols to serve individuals from different cultures. Increasing the students’ contacts to affiliations within the greater
metropolitan area such as private adult day care programs serving clients from diverse backgrounds is another strategy by which the
faculty encourage exposure. Students are given opportunities to hear lectures at other institutions of higher learning such as the City
University Graduate Center which sponsors international scholars in the field of communication disorders.
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision. www.stjohns.edu/about/outmission/vision-statement. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
A major aspect to the university’s mission is diversity and global awareness: Course work in the program routinely includes aspects of multi- and
bilingualism as well as regional dialects.
Another Key aspect to the university’s mission is quality education and student experience: Experts in Speech and Hearing Sciences make up the
faculty in this program. Students are routinely engaged in and outside of the classroom through social activities as well as undergraduate
research opportunities. The program has an active student speech and hearing club in the Staten Island campus.
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
Self-Study Template3
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI

Dr. Walden (undergraduate coordinator for Queens and Staten Island programs as well as a Staten Island faculty member during the
beginning of the program review reporting period) has conducted research on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as it pertains to
student learning outcomes in a speech acoustics course. 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.
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
None
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
2007
High School Average
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
1030
1045
1114
1136
1130
81
86
89
91
96
School/
College
1014
1057
1074
1069
1097
85
87
88
88
88
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Self-Study Template4
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Computed
speech path
Computed
1,210
Computed
1,085
Computed
1,237
1,112
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
High School
High School
High School
High School
speech pat
91
89
90
93
SAT Scores
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - SI
1079
1113
1097
1104
87
88
88
90
Total
University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
Intended college major for 2012 college-bound seniors
SAT
Intended College Major
English Language and Literature
Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies
Test-Takers
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.
Self-Study Template5
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2b.
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
Program
50
100
0
100
80
5
5
100%
School/
College
76%
70%
79%
83%
77%
102
86
84%
University
78%
78%
78%
79%
76%
3268
2557
78%
Note* The % of students started in Fall 2004 and returned to the program in Fall 2005
** The % of students started in Fall 2008 and returned to the program in Fall 2009
2009
Total
Returned
#
SPE
3
3
%
2010
DNR
#
Total
Returned
%
100%
#
4
%
4
2011
DNR
#
Total
Returned
%
100%
2012
3
DNR
#
%
#
%
2
67%
1
33%
Total
Returned
#
4
%
4
DNR
#
%
100%
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012**
# Fresh
School/
College - SI
85%
71%
85%
53
# Ret
45
%
85%
Self-Study Template6
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Total University
2c.
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Program
71%
75%
100%
100%
25%
School/
College
Average Rate
74%
65%
60%
69%
58%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
2004
Total
Graduated
#
SPE
2005
2 2
Total
Graduated
%
#
100%
2006
1
Total
%
0%
10
2007
Graduated
#
%
7
70%
Total
5
Graduated
#
%
3
60%
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - SI
56%
74%
65%
58%
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
Self-Study Template7
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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. 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 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 also approved the course
and it is now required for all new program majors 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)
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) is the accrediting body for graduate programs in speech-language 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 that there were a total of 1,843 undergraduate majors. If the 17 reporting institutions are like the
other 11 institutions who did not contribute to CAPCSD and ASHA’s survey, each program would have around 108 total undergraduate students
enrolled. Our program has well below that number but the Staten Island campus is smaller than most institutions in the area (around 50 majors).
Therefore, that can be expected.
Further, upon comparing our students’ SAT and GPAs, students in speech-language pathology and audiology tend to be comparable to the
college at-large. Last, the BA program in speech-language pathology and audiology on the Staten Island campus tends to be well above the
college average for retention, often 90% or above. This is an area of strength for our program (although the population numbers are small, so
percentages are misleading).
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.
Self-Study Template8
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Fall
Number of
Students
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
30
44
54
56
64
Minors
1
3
3
5
2
Total
31
47
57
61
66
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Majors
MAJORS
SPE
BA
Majors
63
58
Majors
51
Majors
53
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Minors
MINORS
Speech Pathology & Audiology
Minors
1
Minors
2
Minors
4
3
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Total
Total
2h.
Total
64
Total
60
55
Total
56
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Self-Study Template9
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
BA
16
7
10
15
15
SJC-UG-SI SPE
Speech Pathology & Audiology BA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
21
26
16
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.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Master's
Local
1,985
2,237
2,406
National
69,084
75,579
83,893
Self-Study Template10
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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)
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) is the accrediting body for graduate programs in speech-language 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 that there were a total of 1,843 undergraduate majors. If the 17 reporting institutions are like the
other 11 institutions who did not contribute to CAPCSD and ASHA’s survey, each program would have around 108 total undergraduate students
enrolled. Our program has well below that number but the Staten Island campus is smaller than most institutions in the area (around 50 majors).
Therefore, that can be expected.
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 on the Staten Island campus has dropped from 63 in 2010 to 53 in
2013.
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)
Drs. Martin and Lopez (full-time faculty) advise program majors each semester. The program faculty 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)
Self-Study Template11
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
There are no data on the success of program graduates’ post-graduate success. This is an area of weakness for the program (lack of data). It is
estimated that around 80% of program graduates gain entry into a graduate program in the professions (or a related discipline). Changes to
recommended courses for our program’s students 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)
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
Based on the data presented above, students in our program typically have higher GPAs than the college/university average overall.
Self-Study Template12
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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 expressed
concern that the goals and objectives for the program need to be updated and streamlined. As written, the goals and objectives are disciplinespecific and set to prepare students to apply to graduate programs in speech-language pathology or audiology. The goals mapped 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 preliminary findings 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 updated goals and objectives effort. Four new goals and objectives were created for the
program in the Spring 2015 semester. 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
 Internships- Students in the program with a 3.5 GPA and higher have the opportunity to complete a one semester internship specific to
clinical practice in communication sciences and disorders.
 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,
80% of students gain access into a graduate program. Because students may not gain employment in the professions without a
graduate degree, we strongly feel that an 80% admissions rate is too low. The number of students admitted to graduate programs could
Self-Study Template13
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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.
Mission
 Academic Service Learning- The program provides several AS-L projects as part of coursework. These have been in place for years. As of
the Fall 2015 semester, 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.
 International Students- The program does not have a significant number of international students.
 Diversity Rankings- Diversity was described above (see Standard 1)
College-level
Academic Service Learning
Academic service learning was described above (see Standard 1).
Student Engagement
The program provides many opportunities for student engagement. Dr. Martin provides undergraduate research opportunities to students each
semester. These opportunities are above and beyond the coursework. Many social events are planned with clinic and academic faculty
throughout the academic year with the student speech club. 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.
Self-Study Template14
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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 (Queens faculty member) 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 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 the hiring of new faculty (granting of new
faculty lines). This shows the popularity of the program within the university. 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
Audiologist
Speech Language Pathologists
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
37%
4,800
23%
28,800
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)
Self-Study Template15
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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
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. 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-Language-Hearing 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 their 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
Self-Study Template16
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
on another. It is highly discouraged to provide students permission to take coursework out of sequence. Internships are part of the program and
are elective for students. Only students with a 3.5 GPA in the major may complete an internship, as the internship requires direct delivery of
clinical services. Teaching excellence and vibrancy are described elsewhere in this self-study (see Standard 5). 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 must 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 researchbased 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.
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 looks for 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 in 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. Further, the anonymous student survey was revised to match the new program goals and objectives in
the Spring 2015 semester.
Self-Study Template17
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality has the program received?
For reference, WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com (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 UEPC.
Self-Study Template18
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Majors
29
1
Minors
1
Majors
& Minors
Combined
30
1
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
30.00
0.33
Fall 2006
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2007
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2008
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2009
Total
FT
PT
Total
30
44
44
51
3
54
54
2
56
62
2
64
1
3
3
2
1
3
4
1
5
1
1
2
31
47
0
47
53
4
57
58
3
61
63
3
66
30.33
47.00
0.00
47.00
53.00
1.33
54.33
58.00
1.00
59.00
63.00
1.00
64.00
1
3
2
3
2
3
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned to
the
program
Not
Avail
Not
Avail
FTE
Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
Not
Avail
Not
Avail
4
27.17
5
19.67
5
21.33
Self-Study Template19
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Fall 2010
F
P
Majors
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Total
P
Total
F
61
F
2
63
56
2
Fall 2011
Total
Minors
Total
F
Total
58
51
Fall 2012
F
F
Total
1
1
2
2
4
F
F
P
4
F
P
2
64
58
2
Majors
Majors
51
2
3
3
Fall 2012
Total
60
53
Minors
Fall 2011
Total
Total
Total
Total Total Total Total Total Total
MAJORS/MINORS 62
51
P
Fall 2013
Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2013
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
Fall 2010
MINORS
F
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
P
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
55
55
54
2
56
Self-Study Template20
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Fall 2010
Total
FTE MAJORS
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
55
55
54
0.667
54.667
62
0.667 62.667
Fall 2010
58
Fall 2011
0.667 58.667
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)
Self-Study Template21
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
This methodology is used by STJ for all external reporting. Majors include first and second majors.
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
Credit Hrs
62%
Fall 2010
63%
Fall 2011
62%
Fall 2012
22%
%
0%
0
0%
Fall 2013
Self-Study Template22
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Taught
Number Percent
Number
Percent
Number
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%
0.0%
100% 2,610
100%
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.
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty (including
administrators).
Self-Study Template23
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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%
%
0%
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
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
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%
100% 58
100%
0.0%
43
100%
0.0%
42
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)
Self-Study Template24
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
Currently, there are two full-time faculty members in the program. One faculty member (who left the program after Spring 2015 due to VSO but
is being replaced by a self-identified African American female in Fall 2015) is female and self-identifies as of Hispanic origin. A new faculty
member (as of Fall 2014) is a male who self-identifies as Caucasian. All full-time faculty have completed the terminal degree (Ph.D.) and one has
published in national and international journals in CSD. Racial/ethnic diversity is high in this program (given that there are only two faculty
members of two different races and genders). However, self-identification of race/ethnicity speaks little to the cultural competence and global
knowledge of the faculty. While racial and ethnic diversity is desirable, a nationwide shortage of individuals with terminal degrees in the
professions makes finding any faculty member, regardless of race/ethnicity, more challenging.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Self-Study Template25
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
FT
#
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
PT
%
#
Total
%
FT
#
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
2010
2011
2012
2013
Self-Study Template26
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
3
27%
1
6%
Female
8
73%
16
94%
Total
11
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
4
3
27%
1
6%
24
8
73%
15
94%
28
11
FT
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
Hispanic
0%
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 Template27
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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 (formerly part of the SI program during the beginning of this reporting period) has publishing in
national journals on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in speech acoustics.
Dr. Gary Martin, new to STJ as of Fall 2014, has completed extensive research in speech-language pathology and
published in national and international journals. He also frequently presents at national and international conferences.
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)
Dr. Martin and Dr. Carozza (retired via VSO) hold the Certificate of Clinical Competence from the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association. Therefore, they 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.
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
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
Fiscal Year
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$1500*
4,000
14,345
17,500
-
*Dr. Patrick Walden received a $1500.00 grant from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. He was a
full-time faculty member on the SI campus at that time.
Self-Study Template28
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
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
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Speech
Language
4.17
4.34
4.37
4.35
Pathology/
Audiology (SI)
Saint John’s
3.95
4.01
4.00
4.28
4.33
4.33
College
Total
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Undergraduate
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).
The SI program in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology demonstrates course evaluations and the instructional
vibrancy measure at or above that for St. John’s College and the University at-large.
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.)
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)
The program has the resources necessary to meet its current (non-growth) mission and goals. The Staten Island campus
has a laboratory for speech-language pathology and audiology that is being put into heavy use for research and teaching
by Dr. Gary Martin.
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
None.
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 industrystandards 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)
Classrooms have the necessary PCs, software programs, and projector technology for conducting lectures, although
greater accessibility to whiteboards (vs. chalkboards) would enhance lectures that rely heavily on board-writing (e.g.,
phonetic transcription). Similarly, lectures would be enhanced by wall- or ceiling-mounted speakers, versus portable
speakers plugged into the PC. Library space and searchable research databases are available to students to conduct
literature reviews for course papers and presentations. The speech-language pathology laboratory includes a soundSelf-Study Template29
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI
treated room available for student projects and research of faculty members. Dr. Martin, with the help of IT, is in the
process of purchasing with start-up funds additional computers and software for the lab space to support student
involvement in research.
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)
Classroom size, lighting, and acoustics are adequate (but see point raised about speakers in 6a). However, classrooms
can become hot in the spring, and faculty offices can become cold in the summer months. Staff have been extremely
helpful in providing Dr. Martin (new to St. John’s in 2014) with necessary storage units to keep research data locked and
secured in his office. Having access to the speech-language pathology lab and its sound-treated room for teaching has
been extremely valuable.
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)
 Minimal renovation of the Speech-Language-Hearing Laboratory (unsure as to any real expenditure for the lab)
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. (Suggested limit 1 page)
For Fiscal Year 2014, the BA (Staten) program in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology enrolled 55 students and a
total of 1,616 credit hours were billed. Net revenue for the program was $1,970,707 resulting in a profit (contribution) of
$710,756 after costs were deducted. The Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology program is cost-effective and
provides significant support for other university expenses (administrative and facilities).
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
None.
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. No action plan was created for the 2009-2010 program review.
Plans based on findings of this 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 was
accomplished in Spring 2015
2. Student survey instrument will be revised to better map to the program’s new goals.Update, this was accomplished in Spring 2015
3. 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
4. Continued efforts to grow the program will be emphasized
Self-Study Template30
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_BA_SI