AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: English BA SI
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair: September 1, 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)
The overall theme of this program review is that the English Department has not received the same sort of
financial support as it had in the years before the last program review in 2009, but that it has been able to
continue its mission of serving the students of St John’s through the Core; through its majors and minors;
through its teaching of students from the School of Education who concentrate in English; and in its graduate
programs. The successful conversion of our Doctor of Arts degree into a PhD in English is a sure sign of
external recognition of the strengths of this department.
The mission of the BA in English program is to impart certain skills and knowledge bases to its English
majors and minors: the skills are critical reading, persuasive and analytical writing, and the ability to conduct
relevant and extensive research (reading, writing, and research); the knowledge bases are the history of
literature, criticism, and literary theory in English. The skills and knowledge bases of the BA in English
program align with the University’s mission by preparing our graduates with a keen historical sense of the
perennial human struggle for fairness and decency for all members of society, and the critical skills are those
required to become engaged citizens of the world working for social justice. The BA in English program, with
its emphasis on writing and global education, is perhaps unique in the College in combining two of the most
valuable aspects of a humanities education.
The BA in English at St John’s compares favorably not only to peer institutions (Hofstra, Adelphi,
Niagara, DePaul) but also to aspirational institutions (Fordham, Boston College, NYU, Rutgers) both in our
curricular offerings and in the credentials of our faculty. As will be evident below, we have worked hard and
well to redesign and enhance our undergraduate major, and few other English departments have successfully
combined traditional literature courses with more recent developments in global and ethnic literatures, film and
performance studies, writing courses and pedagogy courses. The major maintains an historical introduction to
the history of literature as a base for exploring more recent developments. Other departments will emphasize
one over the other, but our design is distinctive in accommodating both the traditional and the cutting-edge. We
have not had the opportunity to hire many new faculty over the past five years. Instead, we successfully
searched for replacement faculty, both of whom help us maintain a modest racial diversity in our faculty and
both of whom bring exciting new interests and expertise to the department. The production of first-rate
Self-Study Template 1
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
scholarship compares favorably with the best English departments. (We did note that we are smaller than many
departments in comparable institutions.)
As for market growth potential, the English Department in St John’s College was the only unit
designated for market expansion before our last program review in 2009. The department had been singled out
in the Provost’s Office’s High Demand/High Revenue analysis, where Brenda Majeski wrote, “Based on
external demand and medium contribution margin for undergraduate and high external demand and low
contribution for graduate, we identified opportunity to extend this department. We’re seeing ‘push’ demand via
students as well as ‘pull’ demand from employers (added emphasis on communication skills).” While there was
a dramatic increase in the number of students majoring in English in the past ten years before the last program
review, in the past five years our numbers have remained flat, which is still considerably better than the national
trend of declining enrollments in English and the Humanities (the declining College enrollment plays a role in
this “flatness” as well). The numbers indicate that the program is strong in attracting students who find it
rewarding, and the contribution margin in our undergraduate program is still high.
In the report to follow, we repeat some of what went into our last program review: the creation of a
Director for Literature in a Global Context, this time not only to oversee the teaching of E. 1100C in the Core
but to oversee the development of global studies throughout our curriculum and work closely with the Office of
Global Studies; and a Director of Creative Writer, this time not only to develop our undergraduate minor and to
build bridges between departments in the College and English and between other schools and the College, but
also to oversee the development of writing courses throughout our curriculum. We have also projected a series
of hires in a recent three-year plan requested by the provost that would further enhance our offerings and make
us among the strongest departments in the nation. New hires would lead to new courses, further enhancing the
program.
Faculty in recent years have been awarded major grants by outside agencies, including the NEH, and
have published articles and books in leading journals and presses. Our students have been admitted to leading
law schools (Yale, St John’s, Connecticut, U Penn) and PhD programs (Columbia, Brown, Oxford, Maryland,
Indiana U, USC, University of California at Irvine, Rice, Notre Dame). These are some markers of the success
the program has been attaining regularly.
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)
From Medieval Drama, to the study of Chaucer, Renaissance Drama and Poetry, James Joyce and Irish
Literature, many of our courses reflect intense engagement with Catholicism, studying the intersection of
religion and literature over centuries and across borders. The coursework in the English major furthers
Vincentian values: all sections of English 1100c and 2150c engage with themes of social justice, such as
slavery, colonialism, and poverty. Many upper-level courses also explore social justice themes, for instance in
the study of African, Caribbean, and other postcolonial literatures. Many sections of 1100c and 2150c as well as
upper-level English courses incorporate a significant service learning experiences. The English Department’s
BA program is also intensely metropolitan, with visits to poetry readings, museums such as the Metropolitan
Museum of Art and American Museum of Natural History, and attendance at plays at the Brooklyn Academy of
Self-Study Template 2
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Music and elsewhere. The department brings in scholars, writers, artists, and activists from the city to meet and
speak with students throughout the year.
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)
The BA in English empowers diverse learners by imparting literary, cultural, and historical knowledge as well
as crucial skills in critical reading, persuasive and analytical writing, and research. Through innovative teaching,
research and service, we foster rational, spirited inquiry. All our courses are writing intensive, geared toward
teaching our majors and minors how to present clear and articulate arguments. Our student-centered approach is
shaped by a caring, nimble culture. Research is emphasized as a way of showing our students how to fit their
views into a larger context of critical material. Students with a BA in English from St. John’s have the skills for
written and oral communication essential to success in a world increasingly in need of people capable of critical
thinking and analytic writing abilities. Our students emerge with a deep knowledge of issues of poverty and
social justice, gained through a study of literature and culture, giving them a broader sense of the world and of
humanity.
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 BA in English lends students a deep, living knowledge of literature, history, and culture; such knowledge
enables them to participate in a world with some sense of its complex conditions and the history of human
thought. We have broadened the scope of the BA in English beyond a rigorous study of traditional literature to
include courses in film studies, creative writing, composition theory, as well as Caribbean and other
postcolonial literatures. In all of these, and in our more traditional courses, we seek the highest standards of
scholarly inquiry and creative expression. We have broadened and deepened our commitment to making
English 1100c the best way to introduce all St. John’s first-year students to the literary experience. The BA in
English program, with its emphasis on writing and global education, unites the most valuable aspects of a
humanities education.
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Self-Study Template 3
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
2007
2008
High School Average
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
1085
1132
1147
1020
1175
86
90
88
88
89
School/
College
1014
1057
1074
1069
1097
85
87
88
88
88
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
English
Fall 2012
High School
85
Fall 2013
High School
92
SAT Scores
High School
100
89
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
SAT
Intended College Major
English Language and Literature
Test-Takers
Mean Scores
Number Percent (%) Critical Reading
2,072
1.5%
558
Mathematics
Total
512
1070
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
Self-Study Template 4
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2b.
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
Program
80%
100%
75%
83%
100%
2
2
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
2010
Total Returned
ENG
4
DNR
#
%
#
3
75% 1
2011
Total Returned
%
25%
5
DNR
#
%
#
3
60% 2
Total
%
40%
2
2012
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
2
100%
Total
%
1
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
1
100%
%
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - SI
85%
71%
85%
53
45
85%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
Self-Study Template 5
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Program
50%
40%
100%
School/
College
Average Rate
74%
65%
60%
69%
58%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
2004
Total
ENG
2005
Graduated
#
%
2
40%
5
80%
Total
2006
Graduated
4
#
%
2
50%
Total
6
2007
Graduated
#
%
3
50%
Total
3
Graduated
#
%
1
33%
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
Comments: Refer to Charts 2a – 2d in your response. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
The English Department at St. John’s University Staten Island Campus offers a B.A. that compares favorably
with our peer as well as aspirational institutions. We both offer a curriculum that reflects the standards that the
field has evolved as well as additional course offerings that reflect new developments in the discipline. In
making the gateway to the major a Core class, English 1100 Global Literature, and staffing it largely with fulltime tenured faculty, we offer a cutting-edge curriculum. In requiring distribution requirements—four courses
that reflect the four major historical periods in the field of English and American literature—as well as a theory
class and an introduction to the major, the B.A. English program at St. John’s conforms to a rigorous curriculum
Self-Study Template 6
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
that is shared by demanding English programs across the country. We also ask that our students take an
additional four classes of their choice, and they do so, taking advantage of the wide variety of academic
specialties represented by the department. In addition to the traditional historically-defined fields of the
discipline, we’re also a department that can field courses in Post-Colonial literature, Film, interdisciplinary
topics, Ethnic American literature, and creative writing.
Perhaps the way our department compares most favorably to our aspirational institutions is in our capstone
course, which is the senior seminar; the very best liberal-arts colleges and research universities dedicate at least
one of their courses to this format. Limited to fifteen students (and often smaller in Staten Island), our senior
seminars are demanding: students meet in a seminar format and eventually write a fifteen to twenty-page
research paper. For those undergraduate students who have shown particular talent and motivation, as well as
those who have achieved at a very high level (3.7 and above), we also offer a combined five-year B.A./M.A.
program; this allows juniors and seniors to take one graduate class in each semester of their last two years,
allowing them to complete their undergraduate work while simultaneously preparing them for a full-time M.A.
load in their fifth and final years. Students are enthusiastic about the additional challenges this option offers as
well as the way it accelerates (and makes more affordable) the acquisition of a graduate degree.
Our SAT scores compare favorably with peer institutions, and are well above the College and University scores.
Our graduation and retention rates are also high, suggesting that students are highly satisfied with their
experience on the SI campus. (The sample size is small, so numbers are not necessarily significant.)
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)
NA
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
45
52
43
35
30
Minors
5
7
5
6
1
Total
50
59
48
41
31
Self-Study Template 7
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Majors
MAJORS
ENG
BA
Majors
Majors
27
17
20
20
1
2
3
2
28
19
23
22
BA/MA
Total
Majors
Fall 2010 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Minors
MINORS
English
Minors
1
Minors
1
1
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Total
Total
2h.
Total
29
Total
19
Total
24
23
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
13
13
15
12
12
SJC-UG-SI ENG
English
BA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
12
4
9
Self-Study Template 8
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS
website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 23-English Language and
Literature/Letters.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Bachelors
Local
944
978
906
National
53,231
52,744
53,767
1
Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national
patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
While the number of English majors has declined slightly, this decrease is attributable to the overall drop in the
Staten Island student body. English has actually maintained strong numbers despite the decreases in enrollment
on the campus (especially within St. John’s College). Indeed, we continue to attract and retain the strongest
students despite a nationwide decline in the number of students who choose to major in English: "with the
exception of the single year 2001, the number of bachelor's degrees in English per 100 bachelor's degrees
overall has decreased slightly every year since 1992" ("Trends in Bachelor's Degree Awards, 1989-90 to 200506" ADE p. 3 http://www.ade.org/ADE_143_3-7.pdf <http://www.ade.org/ADE_143_3-7.pdf> ). Our dedicated
and outstanding department continues to be a draw for many students on the Staten Island campus.
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 scale of the Staten Island campus gives our department a real advantage in this area; we know our
majors/minors/concentrators personally, and they know us. We focus closely on the advising process of our
majors and minors, emailing letters of invitation to English majors and Adolescent Education/English majors to
meet with their advisor before the official registration period. Alone among programs in St. John’s College, the
English program on the Staten Island campus also develops and distributes a pamphlet that gives detailed and
enticing descriptions of our course offerings for the semester, thus allowing students to take full advantage of
the strengths of our diverse and dedicated faculty. With this pamphlet, the faculty is able to offer personalized
advising to each of our majors and minors. As a result, they feel extremely well served as a group. We also
target students that we may label “at risk” by first identifying those students whose major GPAs are under 2.5 or
whose overall GPAs are under 2.0. This allows their faculty advisors and those in the respective college offices
Self-Study Template 9
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
to take extra care in advising and counseling. We are planning to hold advising meetings for such students and
help them develop strategies for dealing with issues in English courses, as the program is increasingly attracting
students from outside the major and even the college in its College Core classes. The close working
relationship between the English faculty and the Assistant and Associate Deans of St. John’s College, the
College of Professional Studies, the Tobin College of Business, and the School of Education are all part of the
incredibly effective advising environment on the Staten Island campus and a chief reason for its high retention
rate.
One of the challenges facing students as they complete their degree is the current job market, which has
everyone nervous about future employment. To encourage our students to remain optimistic and to ensure them
of the vocational value of their degree, we periodically hold “Practical Professions in English” panel discussions
in partnership with the Career Center, ensuring that students will enter the last years of their studies secure in a
career direction and able to focus on excellence in their academic pursuits.
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)
Our students continue to be successful in job searches and in professional and graduate school admissions, even
in the current challenging economy. Many of our undergraduates have continued in the master’s degree
program, and we anticipate that approval of our Ph.D. program will continue to strengthen the overall program
in English studies.
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)
Our majors are a tight knit and intellectually outstanding group, consistently outperforming both college and
university SAT and high school averages. They are extremely active on campus in both academic and extracurricular pursuits, including the writing center, the literary magazine, the student newspaper, and many service
organizations. Although our program, like our campus, is small in relation to programs on the Queens campus,
we send a significant number of our students onto our own Queens-based BA/MA program, as well as to highly
successful post-college education and careers. Many of these graduates return to advise current students on the
value of their English major. The department encourages and supports student involvement in internships and
campus activities, partnering with the Career Center, the Office of Student Services, the Multicultural Affairs
Committee and the Office of the Vice Provost to fully integrate curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular
aspects of the St. John’s University experience. One recent SI English graduate was even awarded a Fulbright
scholarship to pursue her studies in Norway, and others have gone on to law school, other graduate programs,
and full time employment in fields not traditionally supported by humanities programs. The program takes
great pride in placing its graduates in both non-profit management fields and in human service professions,
areas that indicate our success in embedding the Vincentian mission of the University in our study of the
humanities.
Self-Study Template 10
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and
School/College planning, direction, and priorities.
3a.
How does your program’s strategic goal/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s strategic
plan? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/leadership/strategic-planning
The Staten Island English program is more essential than ever to the academic strategic plan of St. John’s
University when considered in light of the 2011-2014 “Repositioning the Strategic Plan.” In that document are
named several factors that are essential to the growth of the university, and which the SI English program
continues to address. First is the volatility of the economy and the need for student job preparedness. While
other programs might target their educational outcomes too narrowly, the SI English program identifies
precisely the outcomes that are most in demand by employers, including the ability to write, to research, and to
communicate critical problems; to think critically and engage the ideas of others in a productive fashion; to
demonstrate ethical judgment and integrity; to develop intercultural communication skills; and to foster the
capacity for continued new learning. These skills unfold every day in the classrooms of the SI English
program, and they are taught and reinforced by a program that names these learning goals: 1. Demonstrate
highly developed critical reading and writing skills; 2.Demonstrate understanding of the basics of literary
research; 3. Demonstrate familiarity with major schools of literary criticism and cultural theory; 4. Demonstrate
knowledge of the historical frameworks of literary production; 5. Articulate and develop appropriate and
Self-Study Template 11
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
relevant contexts for the study of literature beyond historical contexts; 6. Demonstrate knowledge of literary
study at its most advanced levels. Together, these define the conduct and bearing of the educated person who is
able to rise above his or her own specialization and/or experience and demonstrate leadership in addressing
issues from multiple perspectives. Within the SI English program, the advantages of critical thinking are
multiplied by graduates’ success in demonstrating high levels of writing and oral communication.
By pursuing these program goals with such rigor and specificity, the SI English program has embraced another
goal of the Repositioning Strategic Plan, that of determining and measuring student achievement, which is
conducive to both academic excellence and career preparation.
Another key link between the program goals of the English major and the Repositioning Plan is its dedication to
providing writing and communication skills to a fast diversifying student body for whom English may not be
the first language. The program supports the efforts of a demographically changing student body by working
closely with the Writing Center to support and enhance writing excellence. At the same time, the SI English
program embraces the worldliness of the student body of St. John’s University through the curriculum of its
Core English class, “Literature in a Global Context,” which reinforces the experiences of those students who do
not originate from the United States and expands the global knowledge of those students who do. The SI
English program also embraces the Global Passport program as an integral part of the program’s and
University’s plans for a student’s global education.
The SI English program has made major strides in adopting uses of technology, including Blackboard,
Digication, and WordPress as new platforms for student writing. In recognizing the momentous shifts in
technology toward digital platforms, the program is keeping pace with an important issue addressed in
“Repositioning the Strategic Plan.” Finally, the SI English program is unique in its opportunities for service
and engaged learning activities. Students taking courses in the program have had the opportunity to perform
service and apply their learning in areas of food justice, sustainability, public history, and urban design. In
providing these opportunities, the SI English program is determined to create graduates who are ready and eager
to apply both the value of literature and program goals to problems in society.
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 Staten Island English program closely monitors the environment internally and externally that determines
its success. Through regular, dedicated advising and sharing information about student experience, the SI
English program determined that its small size posed a challenge for students who required more classes and
exposure to a larger and more diverse group of students. The program was original and inventive in addressing
this challenge. First, the faculty intentionally recruited students who might be suitable for the programs
combined degree BA MA program, which gave advanced students a conduit to the larger faculty in Queens.
The transit between the Queens and Staten Island campuses has been a strength of the SI English program and a
source of great satisfaction among its graduates. The second way that the SI English program addressed the
potential problem of its size and smaller number of course offerings was to expand the number of courses
offered through cross-listing. This was accomplished through the Staten Island Alliance for Interdisciplinary
Studies, but the opportunities for cross-listing courses were most eagerly embraced by the SI English program
Self-Study Template 12
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
because it added qualified and engaged professors who pursued literary studies as a mode for teaching their
content area to the English course roster for a semester. This selective process immeasurably expanded the
experience of students in the SI English program by providing them with courses they did not have the
opportunity to take before. Even more critically, the cross-listing of faculty from other departments in the
English program was eloquent testimony to the universal, cross-disciplinary value of literary study, and of its
importance to all fields that utilize texts. The SI English program welcomes the addition of new faculty from
other departments through the Staten Island Alliance for Interdisciplinary Studies as a way to expand its
program and also to demonstrate the extent of its skill set among faculty in the University.
The SI English major also addresses the external threat to the health of the English major in addressing the
widely circulated belief that it is not conducive to career preparation or applied learning. All it took was for one
student to say, “What can I do with an English major if I don’t want to teach school,” for the program to
increase its efforts to offer a variety of engaged learning and career building activites. These engaged learning
opportunities can be found in the area of digital publishing and eportfolio design, which many professors have
embraced as an empowerment of students; and in the area of service learning and community based research,
which many students now regard as an extension of the program skills they receive in the classroom. The
students who have used their literary study to engage meaningfully in areas of public history, food justice, urban
design, community development, and secondary education support are not just demonstrating the value of the
program to address real world issues but working in areas that are at the forefront of social change and public
policy in the US. As English programs around the country determine strategies for preserving the humanities
in an era of austerity and STEM focused educational policy, the SI English program prepares its students to
apply the humanities, reinventing them in the process.
For those students who participate in the BA MA degree or who desire to pursue advanced study in graduate
school, the SI English program has developed an extremely effective network for mentoring, advising, and
helping to place them in institutions outside St. John’s. Though the SI English program is staffed by a small
department, its members are so devoted to the excellence and advancement of its students that two and
sometimes three professors participate in successful placement activities, leading to positive results for students
and an effective response to an internal threat that would otherwise bar student success. The SI English
program makes sure that the graduate of its program is available to mentor and help future graduates follow in
his or her footsteps by hosting forums and alumni panels that advise current students on career potential.
Enlisting past students to coach and advise students into the workplace has proved to be an extremely effective
strategy that the SI English program has used to maintain extremely high satisfaction among its majors and to
expand their perspective on the value of their degree. In creating this network, the SI English program has also
created a pathway for English majors to seek help and career advice in the workplace.
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.
In an information-based economy, the writing intensive English program on Staten Island delivers many
benefits to students as future job seekers. Over a four year career, the SI English major will write critical
papers, creative assignments, research papers, and reports across a wide variety of platforms from print to
digital. The superior writing outcomes of the English major prepare the SI graduate not only for traditional
writing vocations in publishing but the entire spectrum of writing intensive careers in media, social media,
business, and government. In each of these fields, the SI English major is in strong demand, as evidenced by
the number of placements of graduates in traditional media, government, and new media fields, with many
Self-Study Template 13
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
students using their writing skills to fashion entrepreneurial, web-based businesses. Other evidence of the
strong market demand for the writing intensive SI English major is found in the BLS recorded fast growth in the
Market Research Analysis and Marketing Specialists, such as evidenced by this report. These fields are
expected to enjoy a 32% growth rate over 10 years ending in 2022, leading to increased demand for English
majors in the SI English program. The market demand in this area is especially strong in New York City, home
to a high density of educational and non-profit institutions that utilize market research and marketing. Another
layer of market demand for market research and other writing and research intensive skills is represented by the
growing number of non-profit consultancies that work closely with education and government to maximize
outcomes and coordinate resources. Still more evidence of sustained robust demand for the SI English major is
the healthy growth projected by BLS in the educational services sector, measured by 2%/annum increases over
twenty years. The health of this sector, which seeks and employs employees with strong writing and research
skills, is an important measure of the value of the English major both to our society and its educational
aspirations. Students in the SI English program derive further benefits from study in the major by
participating as tutors in grant funded local programs to increase college readiness among high school students.
This essential area of work, combining educational policy and community development, multiplies the
opportunities for students trained in the SI English program.
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
Writers and Authors
6%
9,500
Proofreaders and Copy Markers
6%
4,100
Editors
1%
800
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Writers and Authors
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
6%
9,500
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much slower than average – Increase 1 to 6%
Percent
Numeric
Writers and Authors
6%
9,500
Proofreaders and Copy Markers
6%
4,100
Editors
1%
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)
Since the last Program Review, The SI English Program has embraced the changes already documented in that
report and adapted itself not only to market demand but to new opportunities for engaging the humanities. In
Self-Study Template 14
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
doing so, it has created an extremely effective atmosphere of student faculty engagement that reflects the great
concern of faculty for the development and success of every student and close attention to trends and
developments in higher education. For instance, the SI English program brings digital literary practices to
classroom activities because its faculty understand that writing takes places on this platform, not on paper
exchanged between individuals. Using eportfolios, students acquire the skill and the responsibility for
presenting the research and writing that reflects the impact of the English program to a wide audience.
The SI English program has also adapted to market demand by diversifying its course offerings through
interdisciplinary collaboration. The tenet of the SI English program is the wide applicability of English major
program skills to all areas of student learning, which makes the program a “big tent” for accepting other faculty
members as teachers in its department. Members of the Philosophy and Sociology departments have had their
courses co-listed in English program, bringing a cross-disciplinary approach to the foundational skill of reading
and investigating texts and making the SI English program a significant hub for other departments. The last
Program Review indeed called for a “humanities center” to facilitate collaboration of this kind between
professors of the humanities, but in pioneering this cross-disciplinary teaching approach, the SI English
program has planted the seeds for a broad based study of the humanities that will help students understand the
wide impact of literature and literature studies on liberal education. In doing so, the SI English program has
also modeled the second principle of a “humanities center” and demonstrated the extent to which literary study
addresses complex issues in society whose solution call for students versed in research, writing, critical
thinking, and oral presentations. The “applied learning” settings found in the areas of sustainability, food
justice, urban design, public history have helped to make the SI English program a demonstration project of a
“public humanities” initiative that many English programs across the country have adopted to enhance the
training and impact of their graduates and to steer the study of literature ever more directly into the nation’s
educational curricula and institutions.
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
In 2006, the MLA responded to the Teagle Foundation’s invitation to disciplinary associations to
formulate more clearly the relationship between “the goals and objectives” of undergraduate majors and the
general aims of a liberal arts education. Their response, contained in the so-called “Teagle Report,” is the most
recent attempt by the MLA to establish disciplinary standards for university majors in English literature and
other modern languages. In addition to affirming that having the tools of literacy are integral to full participation
in “the social, political, economic, literary and cultural life of the twenty-first century,” the MLA report affirms
the “centrality of literature and reading to the undergraduate education,” going on to recommend four basic
elements in the baccalaureate degree program in English and other modern languages: a coherent program of
study, collaborative teamwork among faculty members, interdepartmental cooperative teaching, and the
Self-Study Template 15
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
adoption of outcome measurements. 1 Authors of the MLA report write that at the center of a major in English
literature are the great literary works themselves, “which offer their readers a rich and challenging—and
therefore rewarding—object of study.”2 According to the authors, departments should focus on three objectives:
“an articulate sense of the scope of knowledge and kinds of inquiries characteristic of language and literature;
competencies in well-defined, measurable skill sets; and structures that support a satisfying awareness of
progression in knowledge and skill from earlier to more advanced parts of the program.” Their report goes on to
recommend that the experience of students majoring in English should be “structured,” based on an “integrated,
progressive course of study with articulated goals for each course,” in which undergraduate study moves from
less to more complex analysis, that builds on “the knowledge and skills [students] have already acquired.” 3
Finally, the report recommends that the English major include instruction in disciplinary methods or scholarly
debates within the field, the study of a foreign language including, if possible, the experience of studying
abroad, and an interdisciplinary component, so that majors develop an understanding of how the discipline
relates to other disciplines within the humanities.
The structure of the English major on the Staten Island campus conforms to the basic standards outlined
in the MLA’s “Teagle Report”, based as it is on two introductory level courses, 2200 Introduction to English
Studies and 2300 Introduction to Literary Theory. As the MLA report recommends, these two courses are
intended to provide students with a basic understanding of the contours of the discipline, and in the case of
2300, to introduce students to the primary methodologies and approaches employed in the field. Students are
expected to use what they have learned in these two introductory courses in subsequent upper-level courses,
which are based on historical periodization, which itself constitutes a progressive structure in which students
acquire knowledge about how the various literary periods relate to one another. The divisional courses on
historical periodization in turn should prepare them for the capstone in the discipline, the Senior Seminar.
Recently, Robert Fanuzzi and Brian C. Lockey have created a program in which students enjoy the opportunity
of choosing some of their electives and upper-level courses from a selection of interdisciplinary courses taught
by faculty in English, Philosophy, and History. In addition, St. John’s College expects all students enrolled in
the College of Arts and Sciences to take a minimum of two semesters of a foreign language. While the writers
of the MLA report seem to have in mind a more in-depth program of study of both English linguistics and
philology and a foreign language and almost certainly have in mind more options in terms of languages than the
current offerings on the Staten Island campus, it should be noted that in general, the Staten Island English major
does conform to the basic contours of the standards set out by the MLA in the Teagle Report.
There are a number of places where improvements might be made. The most obvious problem with the
current design of the English major is that students frequently take their upper-level divisional courses before
they take the two introductory courses, and furthermore, they often take their Senior Seminar before they
complete their divisional courses. When this occurs, the progressive structure of the major is undermined, to the
extent that some students in upper-level courses will have knowledge of methodological and disciplinary
approaches of which some other students will not be cognizant. Additionally, the Teagle Report recommends
that English department foster a social community “that provides continuous support and leads to a progressive
understanding of the particularities of” the English literary tradition.4 In recent years, English department
faculty members have given and hosted lectures, including the popular Conversations Series of interviews on
1
“Report to the Teagle Foundation on the Undergraduate Major in Language and Literature,” Modern Languages Association, Web
Publication, February 2009, Executive Summary.
2
Ibid. 4.
3
Ibid. 5.
4
Ibid. 5.
Self-Study Template 16
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
campus, but nothing can make up for the dramatic decline in enrollment on the Staten Island campus that has
affected all the humanities programs sponsored there. Without a larger enrollment in the College of Arts and
Sciences, it will be difficult to create such a community of engaged students, pursuing the collective goal of
greater knowledge in the field of literary studies. Finally, while St. John’s University has wonderful studyabroad campuses and programs in Italy, France, and Spain, it has no corresponding program for study in the
United Kingdom or Ireland. Such a program, based in London that would allow students to attend Shakespeare
plays in the Globe Theater, visit monuments like the National Gallery, the Inns of Court and the Tower of
London, or do research in the British Library would dramatically improve opportunities for our majors.
Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy,
and study abroad experiences.
Curriculum Integrity and Coherence
In the above section, we have described the basic contours of the English major, but here we provide
more details. The English major consists of the following course: 1100 Literature in the Global Context; two
introductory courses, 2200 Introduction to English Studies, and 2300 Introduction to Literary Studies; four
divisional period courses devoted respectively to Medieval/ Early Modern literature, 18th- and 19th-century
literature, American literature until 1900, and 20th- and 21st-century literature. Majors can also choose four
electives (12 credits) during their course of study, which is capped by the Senior Seminar, in which students
apply the knowledge acquired during their introductory and period courses to a particular research topic chosen
by a faculty member. As one can see, the structure of the English major has a great deal of integrity and
coherence, in that the introductory courses prepare students for the rigor of the period courses, which in turn
prepare the students for the completion of a longer research project during the Senior Seminar. In addition, the
major progression and the courses themselves are designed to provide our students with methodological,
theoretical, and historical knowledge, which students are encouraged to apply to their readings and written
work. In this respect, the program has a methodological coherence in that the curriculum is expressly
constructed such that students must apply the methods and theories that they acquire in earlier courses within
the later division or period courses. Finally, the English program has integrity from the standpoint of broader
student outcomes. While the aim of a liberal arts degree is not to prepare our students to be effective employees
but rather to be productive citizens, it is clear that the writing, verbal, and analytical skills gained during
completion of the English major are critical to the complex analytical, verbal, and written skills that will be
expected for our students’ future employment prospects.
Academic Internships and Service Learning
Since the last Program Review, numerous English majors on the Staten Island campus have participated
in academic internships. According to Valora Blackson the former Director of Career Services on the Staten
Island campus, however, it has been difficult for the campus to track the precise number of Staten Island
students that have participated in outside internships since the last Program Review (2009-10). As a result, we
do not have the exact number of Staten Island campus English majors that have completed outside internships.
It is the opinion of both the Director of Career Services and the English department that the university in
general and the Staten Island campus must do a better job of tracking the internships that students have
completed.
Self-Study Template 17
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Over the past five years, the English faculty on Staten Island have sponsored a number of courses with a
service learning component. In particular, Dr. Fanuzzi’s recent service learning components (integrated into his
sections of 2100 Literature and Culture) have had to do with literature and food (food cultivation, production,
and distribution; local food system sustainability; public health; and general food policy). Dr. Fanuzzi has had
students complete service learning projects with the New York City based charity City Harvest, and he has also
had students enrolled in his spring 2100 Literature and Culture sections maintain a garden on campus and report
on its progress. More recently, Dr. Fanuzzi has incorporated service learning projects on the immigrant
experience in his American literature and Literature and Culture courses. Finally, Dr. Fanuzzi and Dr. Brian C.
Lockey have worked to organized lectures by both St. John’s faculty and outside speakers that speak to the
connections between literary studies and the larger metropolitan community. While not Academic Internships,
such Service Learning projects and attendance at lectures on interdisciplinary- and community-centered topics
have been crucial for helping our students to make connections between their academic work and the world
outside of academia.
Teaching Excellence and Vibrancy
During a period of dramatically declining enrollments on the Staten Island campus, English courses
remain among the most popular in the College of Arts and Sciences. English faculty-members on the Staten
Island campus continue to offer the complete list of introductory courses, required divisional courses, and
electives so that students are able to complete their degrees on the Staten Island campus, while St. John’s
College majors in other disciplines are often forced to complete their course of study on the Queen’s campus. In
addition, faculty members in the English department utilize in their courses a wide array of multi-media,
service-learning and interdisciplinary teaching strategies, as well as taking advantage of the proximity of the
New York metropolitan area. As I have noted, Dr. Fanuzzi regularly integrates service-learning components
into his courses, while Dr. Lockey frequently takes his Shakespeare students to Manhattan to view Shakespeare
plays. Dr. Melissa Mowry frequently uses the Early English Books Online database in order to teach students
about the relationship between history and literature. Drs. Rachel Hollander, Melissa Mowry, and Brian Lockey
have all taught cross-listed courses on literature and philosophy, while Dr. Fanuzzi has taught a course crosslisted between history and American literature. It is worth noting that Dr. Fanuzzi was awarded the St. Vincent
Teacher Scholar Award in 2006 and the Vincentian Institute for Social Action Academic Service Learning
Award for 2012.
Study-abroad experiences
With campuses in Paris, Rome, and a strong program in Seville, Spain, St. John’s College students enjoy
a variety of exceptional opportunities in terms of studying abroad, and English majors on the Staten Island
campus frequently take advantage of these programs, both during the academic year and during the summer.
The Office of Global Studies reports that from fall 2010 to the present, ten (10) English majors from the Staten
Island campus have done summer-or semester-long stints at one of the abroad programs offered by St. John’s
University. Significantly, however, none of our English majors completed their study abroad program in the
U.K. This may be a measure of our students’ interest in the study of foreign languages, but it also may reflect
the fact that student options for study abroad in the U.K. are not as attractive as some of the other programs.
Although our students do have the opportunity to participate in exchange programs at the University of Leeds
and at the University of Leicester, St. John’s University lacks its own Study Abroad program in the United
Kingdom. As I have noted above, there are particular advantages to English majors studying in London, given
all of the resources that the city of London provides, and it would be enormously beneficial for our students to
Self-Study Template 18
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
have a London option in addition to the Leeds and Leicester options. The English department as well as the
Office of Global Studies should consider exploring additional options for our students in the coming years.
The University Core Competencies
The English department insures that its students excel in four of the five University Core Competencies,
namely that students “demonstrate the ability to think critically,” “demonstrate proficiency in information
literacy,” “demonstrate the ability to write skillfully,” and “demonstrate skill in oral presentation.” The program
in English literature on Staten Island insures that St. John’s students can do critical analysis based on evidence
gleaned from a complex literary text or work of art and construct an analytical argument in response to
prompted and open-ending writing assignments. Secondarily, the English department excels at insuring its
students are adept at doing effective oral presentations and that they are literate readers of both literary classics
and other sources of knowledge and information within their media-saturated environment. As the university
implies in its Core Competencies, it is crucial that students develop excellent critical analytical and writing
skills in order to succeed in the workplace. Thus, the English department on the Staten Island Campus is crucial
to St. John’s fulfilling its goal of insuring that students can think and express themselves critical by written and
oral means.
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
The syllabi for courses within the English Department at both the undergraduate and graduate levels,
adhere to and often exceed the suggested elements of the syllabus as suggested by St. John’s University Center
for Teaching and Learning. The syllabi are clearly written, areas of competency and assessment are clearly
delineated, and coursework and expectations are succinctly stated. Students are given both learning goals and
course outcomes, which helps them to measure what they were intended to learn with what they actually
learned. The English Department does an excellent job of incorporating the suggested elements of the syllabus.
The English department regularly does peer-review of all department syllabi, including those from adjuncts and
graduate students. In fall 2014, the department performed a comprehensive updating of all course outlines and
syllabi for Middle States review. We devote a department meeting at the beginning of each semester to review
all syllabi and we use these discussions to drive our assessment meetings.
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)
Program assessment is carried out each year, culminating in our annual retreat in May. Each year we assess
one or more goals and outcomes, devising a method for collecting materials and performing the assessment as a
group.
Assessment of student writing was conducted by the English department for its undergraduate programs in
Queens and Staten Island. (We do not separate out the goals and outcomes by campus.)
In May 2014, the particular learning objectives that were assessed in the first case (English 2200
Introduction to English Studies) were the extent to which students could write in effective critical expository
Self-Study Template 19
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
prose and could conduct library research, and in the second instance (English 2100 and 3490), the extent to
which students could do research, integrate their research into a coherent argument, and write a final research
paper based on their work. See below for the full reports on these assessment activities. The first assessment
exercise, involving English 2200 Introduction to English Studies, showed that in general, 80% of the students
scored a Very Good or Excellent on the end-of-the-semester Assessment Exercise with no more than 10%
scoring as Poor ( 90% did Excellent or Very Good on the Research component and 80% doing Excellent or
Very Good on the Writing component). In the second assessment exercise, 100% of the students met the
requirements for Rubric 1 (Finding appropriate and relevant research materials), while 50% met the
requirements for Rubric 2 (Integration of secondary sources into student’s original argument). In the first
Assessment Exercise (done in May 2013), the Department resolved to emphasize further the research
component of the course and “to invite the research librarian to our 3000-level” divisional courses, “to assess
the syllabi in those courses,” and finally to assess “the proposals and the final research papers in the [3000level] courses.” In the second Assessment Exercise (done in spring 2014), the Department resolved to continue
to review what “research” consists of in such courses, given developments in the digital humanities and to
continue to evaluate how the department can strengthen the writing, analytical, and argumentative skills of our
students.
I.
Assessment: Intro to English Major
(English 2200)
UEPC
May 2013
Learning objectives to be assessed:
1. Write papers that show strong skills in critical expository prose: narration, description,
summary, paraphrase, and quotation; thesis, argument, evidence, inference, tone, irony,
connotation, denotation, and metaphor.
2. Conduct library research and use reference material in different media: hardbound,
microfilm, and computer.
Materials assessed:
Final Research proposals: 5 from each section (10 total)
Final research proposals: 5 from each section (10 total)
Target: 80% of students Very Good (3) or Excellent (4); no more than 10% Poor (1)
Objective #2: Research skills
Research Proposal Assignment:
 4 proposals received a score of 4; 5 received a score of 3; 1 received a score of 2; none
received a score of 1.
Results: 90% of students Very Good or Excellent; none Poor; 40% Excellent.
Objective #1: Writing skills
Research papers:
 5 received a score of 4; 3 received a score of 3; 2 received a score of 2; none received a score
of 1.
Self-Study Template 20
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Results: 80% of students Very Good or Excellent; 20% Fair; none Poor.
Targets met in both sets of materials.
Action Plan: Though we are preparing students well to write research papers, we want to emphasize this
aspect of our programs more explicitly and directly. We plan to invite the research librarian to our
3000-level electives, and to assess the syllabi in those courses, as well as the proposals and the final
research papers in the courses.
II.
Degree Program Assessed: BA English (Spring 2014)
Learning Outcome(s) to be Measured: #3 Research
Target Course #(s) and Instructor(s) to Conduct Measurement:
E 2100 Sicari
E 3490 Sicari
Instructor Section
Type of Assignment(s) for Learning Outcome Measurement:
Final papers (Random sample of six from each course)
Rubric for Measurement:
1) Appropriate and relevant research materials: 1) Excellent, 2) good,3) fair, 4) poor
2) Integration of secondary sources into student’s original argument:
1) Excellent, 2) good, 3) fair,
4) poor
Target: 90% of students will score 1 or 2.)
Findings:
Target was met
1) 100% of students found appropriate and relevant materials research materials; ie., scored a 1
2) six of twelve (50%) received an aggregate score of 1 on integration. Five of six received score of 2.
One received a 4.
In May 2015, we assessed both sections of E. 2200 and both senior seminars. The following were the results:
BA in English assessment:
We chose to assess goals #1 and #2 this year:
I.
Demonstrate highly developed critical reading and writing skills.
Self-Study Template 21
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
II.
Demonstrate understanding of the basics of research.
We did this through assessment of random student samples from two sections of English 2200 (Introduction to
the English Major) and two sections of the senior seminar. Dr Sicari and Dr Rice taught 2200, and Dr Tsou and
Dr Ganter taught the seminars. For English 2200, each professor chose ten papers randomly from his/her class;
for the seminars, five papers were selected by each professor to be assessed.
The UEPC devised rubrics for these two goals:
1 = superior 2 = good 3 = fair 4 = poor NA = not applicable
Goal #1:
Did the student have a clear and significant thesis for his /her paper?
Did the student develop an organized argument moving in clear progression toward a meaningful goal?
Goal #2:
Did the student find valid and relevant sources for research?
Did the student integrate that research into his/her own argument?
English 2200:
For Goal #1, we projected for the Introduction to English Studies course that 80 % of the students would receive
scores 1 or 2, and that there would be no more than 10% scoring a 4. For Goal #2, we projected that at least
70% of the students would get a score of 1 or 2, and that no more than 10% would receive a 4.
The results:
For Goal #1, question #1: 8 students received 1; 9 students received 2; 3 students received 3. Therefore, 17 out
of 20 received 1 or 2 (85%), and no student received a 4. Target met. Action plan: continue to monitor.
For Goal #1, question #2: 9 students received 1; 8 students received 2; 3 students received 3. Therefore, 17 out
of 20 received 1 or 2 (85%), and no student received a 4. Target met. Action plan: continue to monitor.
Senior seminars:
For Goal #1, we projected for the seminars that 90 % of the students would receive scores 1 or 2, and that no
student would receive a 4. For Goal #2, we projected that at least 80% of the students would get a score of 1 or
2, and that none would receive a 4.
The results:
For Goal #1, question 1: 8 students received 1, 2 students received 2. Therefore, 100 % of the students received
1 0r 2. Target met. ACTION Plan: continue to monitor.
For Goal #1, question #2: 4 students received 1; 4 students received 2; 2 students received 3. Therefore, 80 %
of the students received 1 0r 2. Target met. ACTION Plan: continue to monitor.
Self-Study Template 22
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
For Goal #2, question #1: 8 students received 1; 2 students received 2. Therefore, 100 % of the students
received 1 0r 2. Target met. ACTION Plan: continue to monitor.
For Goal #2, question #2: 7 students received 1; 2 students received 2; 1 student received 3. Therefore, 90 % of
the students received 1 0r 2. Target met. ACTION Plan: continue to monitor.
Overall assessment: while we met targets, we want to continue to emphasize research from the first course
through to the capstone, and will continue to hold departmental meetings to discuss this goal.
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)
Dr. Melissa Mowry
James L. Clifford Award for the Best Article in Eighteenth-Century Studies
NA
Standard 4.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 5. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals.
5a.
Below you will find the number of students enrolled as majors and minors in the program. Please complete the
table by adding the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program. Then calculate the student to full-time faculty
ratio.
#
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Majors/
FT
Faculty
FT
PT Total
FT
PT Total
FT
PT Total
FT
PT Total
FT
PT Total
Majors
42
3
Minors
5
Majors
& Minors
Combine
d
47
3
# of FTE
Students
(Majors
&
Minors)
47.0
0
1.0
0
45
50
5
7
50
57
48.0
0
57.0
0
2
52
42
1
43
31
4
35
26
4
30
7
4
1
5
5
1
6
1
2
59
46
2
48
36
5
41
27
4
31
0.6
7
57.6
7
46.0
0
0.6
7
46.6
7
36.0
0
1.6
7
37.6
7
27.0
0
1.3
3
28.3
3
1
Self-Study Template 23
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Fall 2010
F
P
Majors
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Total
P
2
Fall 2010
F
Total
Minors
31
18
1
F
F
Total
Total
Fall 2013
F
F
Total
25
25
22
22
Total
Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors
1
MAJORS/MINORS
19
Fall 2012
1
2
2
2
Fall 2010
Total
Total
Fall 2013
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
29
MINORS
F
Fall 2012
2
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
30
2
32
18
1
19
27
27
24
24
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Self-Study Template 24
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Total
FTE MAJORS
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
27
27
24
24
30
0.667 30.667
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
18
0.333 18.333
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by STJ for all external reporting.
The figure for majors includes first and any 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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
486
27%
957
55%
657
39%
456
51%
594
72
1347
73%
792
45%
1032
61%
438
49%
234
28%
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Total
% consumed by
1833 100% 1749 100% 1689 100% 894 100% 828 100%
Non-Majors
86%
82%
86%
80%
n/a
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 include English Composition.
Self-Study Template 25
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Credit Hrs
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
2,622
56.0% 2,631
57.4% 2,580
48.2% 2,451
47.9%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
2,058
44.0% 1,956
42.6% 2,775
51.8% 2,661
52.1%
Total
% Consumed
by NonMajors
4,680
2,838
0.0%
0.0%
100% 4,587
100%
60.6% 2,826
61.6% 3,711
5,355
0.0%
0.0%
100% 5,112
100%
69.3% 3,579
70.0%
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Taught
#
%
FT Faculty
9
26%
PT Faculty
25
74%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
19
58%
14
40%
10
48%
12
71%
14
42%
21
60%
11
52%
5
24%
Self-Study Template 26
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Total
34
100%
33
100%
35
100%
21
100%
17
100%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 include English Composition.
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
40
56.3% 54
78.3% 44
50.0% 47
54.0%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
31
43.7% 15
21.7% 44
50.0% 40
46.0%
Total
71
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100% 69
100% 88
100%
0.0%
87
100%
Self-Study Template 27
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental information on next
page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Departmental Plan
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
11
58%
19
43%
Female
8
42%
25
Total
19
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
30
17
46%
12
46%
57%
33
20
54%
14
44
100%
63
37
100%
0%
3
7%
3
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
1
5%
1
2%
White
15
79%
38
Unknown
3
16%
Total
19
100%
Tenured
9
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
29
19
42%
8
36%
54%
34
26
58%
14
26
100%
63
45
100%
5%
2
8%
4
2
1
3%
0
0%
1
2
3
8%
1
4%
86%
53
31
84%
21
2
5%
5
0
0%
44
100%
63
37
100%
47%
9
10
10
53%
10
Not Applicable
0
0%
Total
19
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
27
13
52%
7
32%
64%
40
12
48%
15
22
100%
67
25
100%
4%
0
0%
2
1
2
4%
0
0%
2
4
3
7%
2
9%
81%
52
34
76%
15
2
8%
2
4
9%
26
100%
63
45
100%
27%
10
12
12
32%
12
0
15
41%
19
37
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
13
52%
3
25%
16
68%
27
12
48%
9
75%
21
22
100%
47
25
100%
12
100%
37
4%
2
9%
3
1
4%
1
8%
2
0
0%
1
5%
1
0
0%
1
8%
1
5
2
8%
2
9%
4
2
8%
1
8%
3
68%
49
20
80%
16
73%
36
20
80%
9
75%
29
5
23%
9
2
8%
1
5%
3
2
8%
0
0%
2
22
100%
67
25
100%
22
100%
47
25
100%
12
100%
37
27%
12
14
56%
14
15
60%
15
12
27%
12
11
44%
11
10
40%
10
15
21
47%
21
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
37
45
100%
45
25
100%
25
25
100%
25
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
Self-Study Template 28
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
12
48%
8
47%
Female
13
52%
9
53%
Total
25
1
17
1
4%
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
12
50%
3
30%
22
12
50%
7
70%
42
24
0%
1
1
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
15
12
50%
7
39%
19
12
50%
11
61%
34
24
0%
1
1
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
13
54%
11
52%
24
23
11
46%
10
48%
21
42
24
Gender
10
18
21
45
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
2
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
1
6%
1
8%
1
6%
3
0%
0%
4%
0%
1
10%
1
1
4%
1
10%
2
0
1
4%
0%
4%
0%
1
0%
1
5%
1
0%
3
14%
3
0%
2
11%
2
1
4%
2
11%
3
2
8%
2
10%
4
1
1
4%
0%
1
1
4%
0
0%
1
White
21
84%
12
71%
33
20
83%
6
60%
26
20
83%
12
67%
32
20
83%
13
62%
33
2 or More Races
1
4%
1
6%
2
1
4%
1
10%
2
1
4%
1
6%
2
1
4%
1
5%
2
0
0%
0
1
5%
1
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
Total
0%
25
2
17
12%
2
0%
42
24
1
10
10%
1
0%
34
24
1
18
6%
1
0%
42
24
21
45
Tenure Status
Tenured
16
64%
16
18
75%
18
20
83%
20
22
92%
22
Tenure-Track
9
36%
9
6
25%
6
4
17%
4
2
8%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Not Applicable
Total
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
Self-Study Template 29
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
The English faculty membership has been relatively stable in terms of racial diversity and gender equity over the past five years. In
terms of gender equity, departmental data shows that gender ratios are about 50% for full timers; the adjunct pool of faculty
fluctuates from year to year but has generally had a significant majority of women, recently about 75%.
In terms of racial diversity, the department faculty still does not yet match the diversity of student body but its membership has
been stable in the past 5 years. Our adjunct pool is more racially diverse than out full-time faculty, and our doctoral students, who
teach many sections of E. 1100C, are a racially diverse body, with at least 1/3 of our doctoral students who teach being people of
color.
Tenure is not broken down here in terms of gender or racial data.
Self-Study Template 30
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 31
LAS_ENG_ENG_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)
SI English faculty continuously demonstrate their work as active teacher-scholars at the individual, classroom,
departmental, sub-disciplinary, and disciplinary levels. Through ongoing departmental assessment activities,
faculty share and discuss syllabi and thus pedagogical goals. In recent years, faculty have been assessing
together what constitutes student research within our undergraduate teaching, including types of research
products, teaching students how to conduct research, online and paper research projects. The department’s
faculty have also worked to reflect on the requirements and curriculum of the undergraduate course sequences,
utilizing institutional data as well as data from benchmark programs. Drs. Fanuzzi and Lockey have been
instrumental in facilitating the cross-listing of English courses on SI.
SI English faculty have served as CTL fellows, been invited speakers at national fora on the shape of English
Studies and published articles on new pedagogy, as well as participated in CTL workshops on digital resources
for the humanities and participated Digital Humanities training. Additionally, SI faculty have published at least
three books in their specialties and numerous articles in journals like ELN, ESQ, ELH, HUNTINGTON
LIBRARY QUARTERLY, and Journal of Modern Literature.
Faculty have also regularly given international, national, and regional conference presentations on teaching and
learning in English, in addition to presentations in their specialties. Many of the department’s faculty are
known nationally via professional organizations for their important contributions to sub-disciplinary
conversations about teaching and learning in English. Some faculty in English are scholars with teaching
responsibilities and explicit research interests and agendas in teaching and learning in English, literature and
creative writing, composition and literacy studies, writing program administration, and writing across the
curriculum.
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)
Although the department was marked for enhancement during the 2009 program review cycle, reduced
university finances have noticeably curtailed the hiring of faculty in areas of need and the SI faculty, in
particular, have suffered from meager University support. Despite significant productivity and departmental
support, SI faculty have received a disproportionately low number of research reductions. Nonetheless, as in
Queens, with very little funding, over the past two years the SI program has sought to develop faculty expertise
in digital learning, initiated a colloquium series, and inaugurated an American Studies program.
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
Self-Study Template 32
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
External
Funding
136,000
Fiscal Year
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
7,500
3,333
103,500
-
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)
English (SI)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.02
4.12
3.75
-
4.14
-
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).
Self-Study Template 33
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
Teaching continues to be one of the great strengths of the English department. Both our overall evaluation
scores and our “vibrancy” scores exceed or are consistent with those across the college. These numbers confirm
anecdotal student comments that the English faculty are among the most dynamic teachers in the university.
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)
100% of the full-time faculty have terminal degrees (PhD) from elite institutions across the United States.
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 continued to foster a stable, high quality major (24 students) at a time of precipitously
declining enrollments on SI and a leaching away of institutional resources from this campus. As in Queens, the
SI faculty performs great service to the university (approximately 60% of its students are non-majors). Further,
each year the program typically supports 7-12 majors in Education, who also major in English, for which it
receives little acknowledgement from the university. As a group, the fulltime faculty are among the most
distinguished researchers on the SI campus. The SI English faculty publish both creative work and scholarship
in some of the most prestigious journals in the field and routinely win external funding for their work from
major research libraries like the Folger Shakespeare Library and the Newberry Library.
In general, the SI faculty do a heroic job of delivering high quality courses to our majors and non-majors alike.
However, we are under-resourced in terms of research support from the university, with the exception of
Faculty whose teaching load is reduced for Administrative assignments, we routinely teach a 3/3 load. In
addition to a disproportionate teaching load, SI faculty and students are further disadvantaged by the
University’s choices to centralize library holdings and strip us of our Writing Center (we only recently gained
permission to offer tutors a physical meeting place for their appointments).
Moreover, at a time when the University seeks to redouble its commitment to serving first-generation college
students, we remain an entirely white and majority male faculty.
Although Standard 5 seems to be asking for data about "the faculty" understood as a "resource," the academic
resources needed to support the extraordinary research output of the faculty include significant improvements in
travel and research budgets; IT support for digital humanities; and improved library book and database
acquisitions (ie: see Standard 6).
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it is cost-effective.
Self-Study Template 34
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
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)
Technology. English faculty continued to receive some resources that support research and teaching: research
reductions, research leaves, summer grants, travel money; this last remains inadequate, insufficient to cover
even one national conference per faculty member. There was a decline in research reductions in FY 2009 and
2010, but this support has returned in the past two years. Such support has encouraged the development of an
outstanding research and teaching faculty.
Inadequate library, research, and teaching resources continue to hamper the development of the
education of the BA student. Library database subscription is still insufficient for conducting research and for
assigning research to students, especially in upper-level courses and senior seminars that require secondary
research. Undergraduate skills in research and writing is hampered as a consequence of this. Students need both
book and digital resources to conduct research and to engage meaningfully with texts in the classroom.
Students wishing to take specialized independent studies or conduct primary research continue to have virtually
no resources. Currently, we have a partial subscription to Project Muse and JSTOR, but we need a full
subscription to both. Also, students and faculty doing archival research need access to two online databases:
America’s Historical Newspapers and America’s Historical Imprints. Subscriptions in British literature
databases is stronger (EEBO and ECCO); all fields should be represented in subscriptions.
In addition to lagging research support, there are inadequate technologies and conditions for teaching.
There is no surefire way in the smart classroom to show film/video clips with audio
It is also essential that students be able to view films independently in a scholarly environment on
campus, that they be able to re-watch portions of these films during lecture and discussion (in exactly the same
way that students are asked to bring to class their “texts” in a regular literature course so that the professor can
refer meaningfully to moments in those texts), and that they are able to access a number of supplemental films
through either a university or department library. In addition, BA students engaged in film research need to be
able to view films on campus. A small room, in addition the screening room, with two televisions hooked up to
DVDs, and equipped with headphones, would allow and encourage our students to view films not available off
campus.
Faculty technological needs are not fully met. Though the move to Mac computers across campus was
beneficial, the 6-7 year revolving cycle of faculty laptop replacement is less effective than one might imagine,
because technologies become obsolete in 3 years and machines stagnate. Faculty should have, as most research
universities do, computer budgets so that we can choose machines that meet our needs; and there should be
reimbursement for programs and cloud storage we currently incur at our own expense. We need more scanning
technology for online teaching and the still-emerging field of digital humanities. Students would benefit from
film screening capabilities, and the laptop program does not keep pace with instructional and research needs.
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)
Self-Study Template 35
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
On Staten Island, a large percentage of the classrooms (particularly in Lavelle and Mahoney Halls), chars are
locked in place and instructors cannot form circles. Except for several in need of repair, podiums work well
throughout campus and students have laptops, which is particularly useful in writing-intensive classes. The
classrooms in DaSilva Hall have a kind of WHITE window shade that blocks little light and makes it impossible
to have film classes there in the daytime or effectively use the podium screen. It is difficult for students to get
back and forth from Queens campus. Shuttle service should be restored to allow students and faculty full
participation in Queens classes, meetings, and activities. We need webcam teleconference capabilities to allow
attendance and full participation in departmental meetings, which are held on the Queens campus.
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)
NA
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)
The BA in English on SI has a healthy contribution margin of over 117 thousand dollars. For a campus that has
seen its share of losses, we believe that this positive number should be attributed to the strength of the program
and faculty English has on SI.
We are confident that there is significant room for growth, especially through our minors. If there is a new Core
Curriculum that requires fewer credit hours to finish, there will be more room for minors throughout the
University, and English is always a popular minor, especially as writing skills are more and more valued by
employers. As more students from other departments and colleges take classes in our minors, our cost
effectiveness should only increase.
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program review and plans have
been initiated for the future.
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
Since the last program review, the faculty of the English department on SI has not changed in numbers, but the
five members of the department have continued to produce scholarship and research that makes them a
distinguished unit on the campus. They are a dedicated group of teachers who have worked hard to develop
new kinds of courses that may attract students not just to the English department there but to the University.
Their commitment to interdisciplinary courses, to global literature, and to internship opportunities has kept the
undergraduate major steady and stable. Drs Fanuzzi and Lockey have worked and and well to develop
Self-Study Template 36
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
interdisciplinary courses that attract students to the College and the major, and Dr Hollander has been Director
of the Honors program on SI, giving her and the department a central role in the culture of liberal education on
the campus.
Our commitment in the next few years, in our undergraduate program on both SI and Queens, is to continue to
attract as many students as possible to the major but also to bring more students to our minors. If the new Core
is smaller (as is planned), that should allow all departments more opportunity to develop their minors and attract
new students. We believe that English minors are going to become very popular, as critical thinking, and
communication and writing skills are always at the top of employers’ list of what they look for in college
graduates. Our focus on globalization and writing should make our major and minors ever more attractive.
The approval of the new PhD program in the English department, while not directly affecting the undergraduate
degree, will have indirect affect and residual benefits. Our faculty, committed to doctoral education as it is, is
also committed to our undergraduate programs. The bringing of the expertise from such faculty to
undergraduate education is one of the great benefits a student has when she is in a program taught by PhD
caliber faculty. This is particularly pertinent to SI, where qualified majors can matriculate in the BA/MA
program and start taking courses in our graduate program on Queens: this has been a draw to the major on both
campuses, and particularly helps our students on SI feel connected to something larger and more robust.
The external reviewers for our PhD proposal described our faculty as follows:
“We are very impressed with the caliber of the full time faculty of the English Department. Their CVs reveal
that they are comparable to the faculty of an English Department in an R1 university. Their background,
credentials and achievements are impressive, especially in the sheer number of books published at prestigious
presses and articles placed in refereed journals. The faculty is younger than that at many similar programs,
suggesting to us that some canny and excellent hiring has been conducted over the past decade and that this
faculty knows well the shape of the contemporary field. We commend them for their desire to innovate rather
than replicate, to create a future-looking program rather than simply institute a PhD similar to the programs that
trained them. Several faculty already possess a national and even international reputation. Many more soon will,
considering the impressiveness of their records. An elected faculty personnel committee decides eligibility for
graduate teaching based on scholarship and research productivity, and we take it as an indicator of the
department’s general excellence that 24 of the 26 faculty qualify to teach graduate courses. All in all we would
describe the faculty as excellent and of burgeoning fame. If this trajectory holds in the decade ahead St John’s
will become more widely known for the outstanding quality of its English Department.”
This is how we intend to grow our faculty, by hiring teachers who are also active scholars and who are
committed to their teaching of both graduate and undergraduate students. While we have pursued the
intellectual and pedagogical benefits of our active research portfolios, we have not neglected our assessment
practices. The department has been actively reshaping its practices as a result of ongoing assessment and reassessment in many areas, as this report documents. We have assessed our programs rigorously, and have made
small but substantial changes in them as a result of our assessment. We are also more aware of the need to
prepared students for the workplace. The needs of the global workplace increasingly require high level
analytical and linguistic skills, especially advanced writing, reading, and conceptual analysis, and in this new
climate the skills that we teach our English majors have become even more valuable. Our workshops on
employment, plus the close ties we have built with career center, have helped our students become more aware
of the value of their education. We have also become more aggressive in helping our students receive
internships.
Self-Study Template 37
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI
In the last program review, we requested a Director for Creative Writing, a Director for Symposia, and a
Director for Global Studies. These were never filled. This time, we will be requesting two additional directors:
a Director for Writing, and a Director for Global Studies. These positions will not be for undergraduate
programs only, but for the MA and PhD programs as well. A director (with a course reduction and a stipend) to
oversee the development writing courses across all our programs, and a director to oversee the development of
global courses and programs offered through the department, would enhance our ability to grow and develop.
Self-Study Template 38
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_SI