AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Rhetoric/Public Address BA Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair: September, 2015
Overview and Program Review Summary:
The B.A. in Rhetoric and Public Address offered by St. John’s College is a small program that undergirds the critical
responsibility of assuring student success in oral communication, one of the “core competencies” that the University has
consistently emphasized over the years. The B.A. in Rhetoric and Public Address is the only program housed in the
Department of Rhetoric, Communication and Theatre, one of the College’s newest departments, organized in 2008. In
addition to the B.A. program, the Department faculty is responsible for instruction in oral communication in the Core
Curriculum and for the administration of the St. John’s University Debate Society. In fact, over the last year, 74% of the
teaching load of the program full-time faculty was in the Common Core Curriculum.
The small number of students enrolled in the Public Address program is a matter of ongoing concern. Incoming
freshmen are almost universally uninformed about majoring in rhetoric and public address. Majors must be recruited
after enrollment and are often made aware of the program through exposure to the Debate Society. At the same time,
students have a positive view of the importance of courses in oral communication. When asked in focus groups,
conducted by the University in 2012, how the core curriculum could be improved, the top student response was, “add
another speech class.” This is consistent with national research. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Humanities Indicator, published in 2014, showed that Communication Studies as a discipline is “. . .posting strong
growth in relation to undergraduate majors, undergraduate degrees awarded, [and] student popularity. . .” (Huffington
Post, 10/22/2014).
In the future, the B.A. program in Public Address at St. John’s has the potential to thrive, provided
 Adequate funding of the success of the Debate Society, currently ranked 191 out of 459 universities worldwide;
 Changes in the Core Curriculum, currently being implemented by the Core Curriculum Council, increase student
exposure to the discipline of rhetorical studies and to the importance of oral communication competency
resulting in increased enrollment in the major and minor;
 Securing an endowment for the Debate Society that includes student scholarships;
 Faculty productivity can be nurtured by finding a single office site where all members can be housed.
Michael J. Hostetler, Chair
March, 2015
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 1
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.
The curriculum in Rhetoric and Public Address both directly and indirectly reflects the Catholic identity of the University.




RCT 3130 Foundations of Rhetorical Theory, the introductory required course in the major, includes the reading
and discussion of Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana.
RCT 3190/THE 3615 Rhetoric of Religion places particular emphasis on the Catholic experience in America
through the study of discourses of exclusion and assimilation in the context of the First Amendment.
RCT 2020 Persuasion and RCT 2060 Argumentation: Inquiry & Advocacy specifically—and other courses
generally—frequently engage issues related to Catholic ethics and social teaching.
The St. John’s University Debate Society, the latest incarnation in a tradition that can be traced to the
disputations of the medieval Catholic universities, by its pursuit of excellence and success in regional, national,
and international tournaments, provides a positive impression of an American Catholic University.
The curriculum in Public Address both directly and indirectly reflects the Vincentian identity of St. John’s University.






RCT 3150 Rhetoric of Social Movements is a designated elective in the Social Justice Minor.
Poverty is a major theme in RCT 1155 Language and Intercultural Communication.
RCT 2020 Persuasion includes units on issues related to marginalized groups.
Recent topics for oral argument in RCT 2060 Argumentation: Inquiry & Advocacy include: U.S. immigration
policy; Illegal trade in transplantable organs; gun control
Faculty in the Department regularly volunteer their participation by teaching in the Vincentian Center for Church
and Society Acculturation Program for foreign-born priests.
The St. John’s University Debate Society has an open membership policy. All students regardless of experience
have the opportunity to practice and train in the art of advocacy. This art develops critical thinking, organization,
listening skills, public speaking, deliberation, and political awareness of the world. It is the only co-curricular
activity on campus that fully embraces and enacts the University mission freely to all students.
The curriculum in Rhetoric and Public Address directly and indirectly reflects the metropolitan identity of St. John’s
University.





RCT 2090 Great Speeches in New York is a designated elective in the Minor in New York Studies.
Group research projects in RCT 1155 Language and Intercultural Communication involve student visits to and
interviews with community members at culturally diverse sites in New York City.
The Rhetoric and Public Address program placed students in internships that worked with government and
business institutions in New York City and Washington, D.C.
The St. John’s University Debate Society collaborates with the King’s College Debate Society and the Adelphi
Debate Society in Long Island. (Professor Stephen Llano helped to found the King’s College Debate Society.) The
Debate Society works with Christo Rey in Brooklyn, the Adelphi Academy in Brooklyn, Wildcat Academy in
Manhattan, and the New World High School in the Bronx.
Members of the Debate Society helped the Urban Debate League run on-campus workshops. Also, members of
the Debate Program help judge UDL tournaments in Manhattan.
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision.
www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission/vision-statement.
The study of rhetoric and public address, by its very nature, requires and encourages freedom of inquiry. By focusing on
classical and modern rhetorical theory – from the study of classical Greek and Roman oratory to contemporary modes of
communication and debate – the curriculum draws from and reflects on the ways human beings interact with one
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 2
another individually and collectively. Because the program is also committed to improving the communication
capabilities of its students, its foundation concerns theory, criticism, history, and performance. With this combination,
students may learn from and criticize the past to engage the present; they may understand what constitutes a good
speech in order to deliver a great speech.
Because the program in Public Address is not focused on a single professional career path, students who have
completed a major or minor in the program have pursued a variety of career paths including the Arts, Law, Education,
Business as well as graduate study in Rhetoric.
Because it competes on an international level, the St. John’s University Debate Society has established relationships with
debate programs in Eastern Europe and Morocco, giving St. John’s students the opportunity to engage students from
these programs and hosting students from these institutions at St. John’s for demonstration debates.
1c.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the
program’s School/College?
All students in St. John’s College are introduced to the program in Rhetoric and Public Address through the introductory
public speaking course that is part of the Common Core. Routinely, full-time faculty member in the Department of
Rhetoric, Communication, and Theatre teach public speaking because we know that rhetorical competency is essential
in a person’s developing “a critical consciousness and ethical perspective” and essential for a life of “service and
leadership roles” that we expect of our graduates. When a student elects to take an additional course or a minor or
major in Public Address that individual embarks on a rewarding inquiry into the beauty and power of successful human
communication and is, in turn, empowered to assume and succeed in fulfilling the responsibilities of service and
leadership throughout her/his life.
Standard 1. (Additional Comments)
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
Program
1110
1060
School/
College
1104
1099
University
1068
1075
2007
High School Average
2008
2009
2005
2006
1440
1390
75
94
1085
1093
1093
88
88
1075
1087
1092
86
87
2007
2008
2009
97
92
88
88
89
87
87
88
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2011
Computed
Speech
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
1,010
Self-Study Template 3
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2011
High School
Speech
91
SAT Scores
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
1089
1077
1087
1098
88
88
88
88
Total University 1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
School/
College - Q
SAT
Test-Takers
Intended College Major
Number
Mean Scores
Communication, Journalism and Related Programs 4,002
Percent (%)
Critical Reading
Mathematics
Total
3.0%
503
487
990
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
Fall
2003
2004*
Program
2005
2006
0
100
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
1
1
100%
School/
College
77%
79%
77%
77%
73%
1005
768
76%
University
78%
78%
78%
79%
76%
3268
2557
78%
Note* The % of students started in Fall 2004 and returned to the program in Fall 2005
** The % of students started in Fall 2008 and returned to the program in Fall 2009
2009
2010
Total Returned
SPE1
1
#
%
1
100%
DNR
#
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
%
Total
2011
Returned
DNR
#
#
%
2012
Total Returned
%
1
#
%
1
100%
DNR
#
%
Total Returned
#
%
DNR
#
%
Self-Study Template 4
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012*
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - Q
76%
74%
72%
905
683
76%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
* The % of students started in Fall 2012 and returned to the program in Fall 2013
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Program
100%
School/
College
Average Rate
61%
59%
58%
60%
57%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
Fall 2004 cohort
Total
Fall 2005 cohort
Graduated Total
SPE1
Fall 2006 cohort
Graduated Total
1
0%
1
Fall 2007 cohort
Graduated Total
1
Graduated
100%
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - Q
57%
57%
57%
51%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 5
Programs at other area institutions often focus on mass communication, public relations, and other technical or career—
oriented approaches rather than Rhetoric and Public Address as a liberal art. Internally, because the College of
Professional Studies is identified with specific career-oriented communication programs, students are often directed to
that unit of the University rather than to St. John’s College. Our strength is that we place rhetoric in its traditional place
at the center of the Liberal Arts with virtually unlimited career options. For students who are seeking a more
professionally oriented but rhetorically based curriculum, we offer minors in Religious Communication and Business
Communication, and are developing additional curriculum in Interpersonal and Public Communication. For students
interested in the study of Law, the minor in Public Address is particularly attractive because of its emphasis on legal
argumentation and advocacy. Finally, the St. John’s Debate Society has attracted better students to possibilities in the
fields of rhetoric and communication.
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.
N/A
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number
Students
of
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
7
7
6
8
12
Minors
8
9
6
8
11
Total
15
16
12
16
23
MAJORS
2h.
SPE1
BA
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
12
12
9
6
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Degrees
Academic Year
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 6
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
BA
0
1
4
2
0
10/11
SJC -UG-Q SPE1
Speech(Public
Add.,Gen.Speech)
BA
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Degrees
Conferred Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
2
2
6
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?
The data in 2g and 2h in the Self-Study Template are based upon the CIP Code of 23-English language and
Literature/Letters includes references to written rhetoric rather than Public Address so a comparison would be
misleading. A review of the websites of New York area colleges and universities identified as local bench mark schools
suggests that somewhat comparable programs exist at Hofstra University, Manhattan College and Seton Hall University
although they are more broadly inclusive of other areas of Communication Studies. CUNY Queens College discontinued
its Rhetoric program some years ago.
The National Communication Association has reported recently that, “the current job market is quite healthy compared
to just a few years ago. The total number of positions in Communication advertised by institutions of higher education
has more than doubled from 2009 to 2013.” See NCA, 2013 Academic Job Listings in Communication Report.
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)
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 7
The Chair of the Department and a senior faculty member conducts formal academic advisement in preparation for
registration. A file is maintained in the Department office for copies of the advisement materials for each student in the
major. In addition to the formal process, student initiated informal academic advisement is provided by all members of
the faculty based upon the student’s academic and career interests.
Assessment of student progress is implemented using Assessment Portfolios. Portfolios are maintained in the
Department office for each student in the major and include samples of each student’s work from various courses.
Portfolio contents consist of exams, papers, recorded speeches or debates and other materials indicated in the syllabi of
the various courses. At the end of each academic year, a committee of the whole faculty reviews the portfolios of
graduating seniors.
2j.
If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or
attending graduate school.
Currently, the Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Theatre is working with Institutional Research to provide a
detailed institutional memory for the program. While the Department does not possess a full institutional memory of its
students, the Department has tracked, albeit informally, the career paths of students who have worked with the
program since 2008. Through our informal tracking, the Department knows that of the 32 majors who enrolled in the
program:
 Sixteen students have attended or plan on attending graduate school to study Rhetoric or Law. Currently,
two students attend top Ph.D. programs (University of Illinois; University of Pittsburgh) for the study of
Rhetoric. One student will begin at a top MA level program (Syracuse) in the Fall of 2015; one student is
attending USC to study Strategic Public Relations; one student attends the University of Chicago’s Booth
School of Business; and finally, three students have continued their education at Harvard Law School,
Hofstra Law School, and Rutgers Law School.
 Nine students have sought or will seek employment after graduation. Most students remain in the New
York City area. Two current students possess internships in with government offices in Washington, D.C.,
which is highlighted by Najaah Daniels’s internship in the Office of the Vice President of the United States
(2015) and Donya Nasser’s internship with the White House Office of Legislative Affairs (2015). Furthermore,
Yvonne Grillo’s interned with the Queens County District Attorney’s Office (2013), and Joseph Mazza’s
interned with the Office of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (2011).
 Eight students have transferred or withdrawn from St. John’s University.
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your response using data provided
below and any other data available.
As evidenced by the strength of our students’ GPAs, as well as their placement into Graduate Programs throughout the
country, our students’ academic achievements are in line with the achievements of other students in St. John’s College
and at St. John’s University. Our students maintain a high GPA, which is in line with national trends as many top
programs cap enrollment in Communication/ Rhetorical Studies by requiring students to maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 8
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed:
On average, students who major in Public Address meet expectations, and at times, exceed expectations, for student
academic readiness. Students in the program possess SAT scores and GPAs that are within 5% of the University average.
More importantly, students who enroll as a Public Address Major find success after graduation, especially in graduate
school.
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 goals of the program in Rhetoric and Public Address are consistent with the Disciplinary standards as discussed by
the National Communication Association (NCA). These standards include: connecting the curriculum with the goals of
the program and the University; developing courses that balances theory, research, and practice; creating a curriculum
that progresses students from basics, through advanced courses, leading to a capstone course; offering courses
frequently enough to allow students to graduate; providing students with opportunities, such as the St. John’s Debate
Society, for extra-curricular activities; working with students on research projects; helping students find internships; and
maintaining appropriate class size to enhance performance, writing, and research courses.
With these goals in mind, the Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Theatre fulfills the University’s and St. John’s
College strategic plan through its:

Faculty and Student Engagement: Faculty and students interact through the St. John’s Debate Society, the
Department’s Student & Faculty Symposiums, independent studies, and collaborative research projects.
Furthermore, the Department has helped students find internships in New York City and Washington D.C.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 9



Global Education: Each year, members of the St. John’s Debate Society travel overseas to attend
tournaments and conferences. Further, in the past few years, the Department of Rhetoric, Communication
& Theatre and the St. John’s Debate Society established a relationship and exchange program with students
in Morocco. Further, the St. John’s Debate Society brings debaters from England and Ireland to compete
here on the Queens campus.
Faculty Research: Members of the Department are active scholars, especially in relation to attending the
field’s most important academic conferences (National Communication Association’s annual conference; the
Rhetoric Society of America’s bi-annual conference; the Eastern Communication Association’s annual
conference); the bi-annual Alta Conference on Argumentation; and the International Communication
Associations annual conference. Also, Faculty members contribute to the development of knowledge in the
fields of Communication and Rhetorical Studies by developing research articles for the field’s academic
journals (See 5E).
Interdisciplinary Education: The Department has a working relationship with interdisciplinary minors such
as Social Justice as well as cross-listing classes with Classics, English, History, Sociology, and Theology.
It will be our continued mission to grow the Department, by continuing our close-working relationship between faculty
and students.
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?
It is common knowledge that “Communication” in all of its forms constitutes one of the most popular undergraduate
majors in the United States. More specifically, “Communication Studies/Speech Communication and Rhetoric” is ranked
eighth on the Princeton Review’s “Top Ten Majors” website (http://www.princetonreview.com/college/top-tenmajors.aspx; last accessed December 1, 2014). Internally, the number of rhetoric majors at STJ has tripled in the last
several years to fifteen students. This surge in interest is directly attributable to the rebirth of the Debate Society, the
hiring of three new rhetoric professors in the fall of 2007, and the creation of the Department of Rhetoric,
Communication and Theatre in 2008.
Programs in communication at other area institutions often focus on mass communication, public relations, and other
specifically career oriented approaches. Our program’s strength is that we place rhetoric in its traditional place at the
center of the Liberal Arts with unlimited career options. The symbiotic relationship of the degree program with the
debate program is another plus. One reinforces the other. Furthermore, our minor programs in religious and business
communication as well as courses we offer connected to the study of law serve to satisfy the desire of some students for
a more specific career path.
Furthermore, an internal issue with the program is the historical and continuing division of the communication
disciplines in SJC and CPS. Duplication of courses and student confusion about what constitutes “communication” often
result. A more coherent and efficient structure, and one commonly adopted at other institutions, would be a freestanding communication academic unit, a School of Communication, for example, where all the branches of
communication are housed. At the very least, St. John’s University should reorganize the Departments in St. John’s
College and CPS into two separate departments. In St. John’s College, the Department of Rhetoric, Communication &
Theatre should focus on the study of communicative practices (i.e. rhetoric, argumentation, organizational
communication, interpersonal communication, intercultural communication). In CPS, the program of Communication
Arts should be renamed to focus on the study of communications, which studies the technical production of information
(i.e. telecommunication via radio, television, and film) and public relations.
Finally, external threats to the program arise from overall economic conditions that might result in the inability to hire
faculty when needed, the curtailment of faculty research through lack of travel funds and research reductions, and the
burden of the considerable expenses of intercollegiate debate. In light of these threats, the program maintains an active
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 10
relationship with the University’s development office in an effort to endow the debate program. In addition, faculty
have continued high levels of scholarship and participation in the discipline at their own expense.
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.
According to an October 2014 article on The Huffington Post, the field of Communication Studies exists as one of the
most vibrant disciplines within the humanities. Citing a study conducted by the Academy of Arts and Sciences
Humanities Indicator assessment, the field of Communication Studies outperforms other humanities disciplines and,
furthermore, is well positioned to maintain future growth at the University (See Jason Schmitt, “Communication Studies
Rise to Relevance,” The Huffington Post 22 October 2014: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasonschmitt/communication-studies-ris_b_6025038.html?utm_hp_ref=tw# ). Schmitt argues that the discipline is wellpositioned with the rise of, “the digital economy, social networking and the move toward media creation rises to
prominence.” Because of its theoretical contributions and the necessity of public advocacy, the program Rhetoric and
Public Address will equip students with the intellectual tools they will need for life after the University.
Schmitt’s assessment of the discipline is of no surprise. For example, Dr. Debra Humphries, the Vice President for Policy
and Public Engagement at the Association of American Colleges and Universities, has long advocated for a humanities
education because of the way in which it provides students with strong skills in critical thinking, as well as oral and
written communication (See Humphries, Making the Case for a Liberal Arts Education (2006); Available at
http://archive.aacu.org/leap/documents/LEAP_MakingtheCase_Final.pdf). As the business community desires students
who possess exceptional skills in critical thinking, and oral and written communication, the Public Address program will
continue to play a vital role for students at St. John’s University.
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:
1. Standards within the discipline:
Faculty members are qualified and in line with the accreditation standards of the university and the field as a whole. In
the Program, faculty members have expertise in particular aspects of the field that represent the field of rhetoric and
communication studies as a whole. These perspectives include Argumentation & Debate, Argumentation Theory,
Instructional Communication, Intercultural Communication, Interpersonal Communication, Legal Rhetoric, Organization
Communication, Persuasion, Political Communication, Rhetoric of Pop Culture, Religious Communication, Rhetorical
Criticism, Rhetorical Theory, and Theatre. Faculty members provide specialization in all of the program goals: rhetorical
theory, history, criticism, and performance. In addition, three faculty members specialize in the related area of
communication studies covering interpersonal, organizational, intercultural, and nonverbal communication. One faculty
member is a CTL fellow and two have recently received Fulbright Teaching Fellowships. As the number of majors and
minors continues to expand, more faculty will be needed to meet the growing demand for advanced courses.
2. Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and study
abroad experiences.
Classes offered within the Rhetoric and Public Address program speak to one another. The program requires that
students take courses in the criticism, history, performance, and theory of rhetoric. This enables students to learn the
major issues in the field of rhetoric and understand theories of communication and persuasion. By studying the history
and theory of rhetoric, students will develop skills in the rhetorical criticism of important artifacts and in their own
rhetorical performances. In turn, by increasing skill in rhetorical criticism and performance, students will increase their
knowledge in the history and theory of rhetoric and communication.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 11
Furthermore, our recently tenured faculty continue to introduce new classes and contemporary readings for the
students. The post-tenure teaching reviews within our department both achieved excellent reviews. Finally, our faculty
continue to engage with the students on one-to-one levels of interaction that lead to solid undergraduate scholarship
and promising post-graduate opportunities for our students.
Finally, outside of the classroom, our Debate Society continues to attract vibrant students who are interested in
exceeding academically, traveling internationally, and teaching the fundamentals of argumentation and rhetoric to other
students (both at secondary and primary levels).
3. The University Core competencies
The practice and performance of public speaking is the lifeblood of a university and any working civic body. Our
continued attention to teaching public speaking keeps the students of St. John’s engaged with each other as well as the
long, historical tradition of Rhetorical Studies as the core of a Liberal Arts degree. Currently, we have re-opened a new
line of focus for our graduates: Business Communication. On the horizon, we are working to establish certificate
programs in Argumentation and Public Advocacy, so that our students, both majors and non-majors, will be able to
engage the theoretical practices of Rhetorical Studies with the material practices of the political, social, and business
worlds in which they function.
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.
http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
The syllabi for our courses range from specific, day-to-day organizational structures for reading and discussion
(“Speaking for the College Student” and “Modern Rhetorical Theory”) to wide-open subject lines for analysis and
synthesis (“Senior Seminar in Research Methods,” “Debate Practicum,” and “Rhetoric of Popular Culture.”) The wide
array of syllabi styles speaks to the various educational goals offered by our department’s Learning Outcomes, as well as
our expectations of students graduating with a degree in Public Address.
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
Currently, faculty members meet twice a year to assess the portfolios of our graduating majors. Over the course of the
year, faculty place student projects (critical papers, exams, speeches, and other assignments) into the individual
portfolios. At the end of the academic year, faculty assess the level of achievement met by each assignment, evaluate
them based on our expected Learning Outcomes and Program Goals. After discussing our conclusions and observations,
faculty members plan our following semester/year accordingly. Each year shows some improvement, as we continue to
evolve our expectations of a graduating Rhetoric and Public Address major.
Faculty members assess the Rhetoric and Public Address students by the following Program Goals and Learning
Outcomes:
Program Goal 1. Demonstrate the ability to analyze, evaluate, and critique rhetorical messages.
Learning Outcomes:
I. 1. Analyze a rhetorical message taking into account its context, purpose or genre, source credibility, content,
structure and style.
I. 2. Evaluate the efficacy of the message as to both its intrinsic artfulness and extrinsic effects.
Program Goal 2: Demonstrate understanding of rhetorical history.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 12
Learning Outcomes:
2. 1. Demonstrate knowledge of the classical roots of rhetorical practice and its development in European
culture.
2.2. Identify both the major periods and important figures in the rhetorical tradition.
2.3. Identify significant American rhetorical artifacts.
2.4 Identify American rhetorical movements.
2.5. Identify recurring rhetorical forms and themes.
Program Goal 3: Demonstrate understanding of rhetorical theory.
Learning Outcomes:
3. 1. Demonstrate knowledge of theoretical perspectives, including both classical (Aristotelian, Ciceronian) and
contemporary approaches (Burke, postmodern, feminist).
3. 2. Identify and order the central principles of rhetoric.
3. 3. Apply appropriate theoretical concepts to the understanding of particular rhetorical messages.
Program Goal 4: Demonstrate skill and development in rhetorical performance.
Learning Outcomes:
4. 1. Prepare and present rhetorical messages appropriate to particular audiences.
4. 2. Demonstrate the ability to analyze an audience.
4. 3. Select methods and materials appropriate to influencing particular audiences.
Some future goals of this assessment program include, as mentioned above: the inclusion and elaboration of Certificate
Programs in Argumentation and Public Advocacy. Over the next few years, we also plan to add more courses in the
specialties of our various faculties to engage some of the newer pedagogical theory coming out in the field. We continue
to harbor an acclaimed Debate Society (which brings the theory and practice of Rhetoric and Argumentation to the lives
of St. John’s students from all areas). Furthermore, the Department is changing its process of assessment by:
 Transitioning it to a digital process where faculty and students may upload files to Dropbox;
 Using the Senior Seminar as a class in which majors will create their student portfolios that cover their SJU
careers;
 Determining whether the Department will create an Assessment Committee.
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality
has the program received?
The program has not received any formal external validations. However, when looking at the work of some of our recent
graduates, many of our graduates have received Graduate Assistantships (Syracuse, Pittsburg, Illinois) and scholarships
to attend law school (Harvard, Hofstra, Rutgers).
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.
The data in these charts is misleading. Each semester, faculty from the Department of Rhetoric, Communication &
Theatre service university core courses in public speaking and interpersonal communication for pharmacists, which are
not the subject of this review. The program (BA in Rhetoric and Public Address) is taught almost exclusively by full time
faculty. (The only exception is the occasionally offered RCT 2110 Oral Interpretation).
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 13
Furthermore, though a few faculty members have been listed as full-time faculty members of the program, they have
worked in administrative positions.
#
Majors/
FT
Faculty
Fall 2005
FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total FT
PT
Total
FT
PT
Total
FT
Majors
7
0
7
7
0
7
6
0
6
8
0
8
12
12
Minors
7
1
8
8
1
9
5
1
6
8
8
11
11
Majors
& Minors
Combine
d
14
1
15
15
1
16
11
1
12
16
0
16
23
0
23
# of FTE
Students
(Majors
&
14.0
Minors)
0
0.3
3
14.33
15.0
0
0.3
3
15.3
3
11.0
0
0.3
3
11.33
16.0
0
0.0
0
16.00
23.0
0
0.0
0
23.00
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
11
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to
the
program
9
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
Fall 2006
1.66:
1
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
1.09:
1
1.6:1
Fall 2010
1.33:
1
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
F
F
F
Total
Majors
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Total
Total
Fall 2009
PT
Total
11
2.09:
1
Total
Self-Study Template 14
MAJORS
14
14
15
Fall 2010
MINORS
Total
Total
15
10
10
7
7
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
F
F
F
Total
Minors
Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors
4
4
MAJORS/MINORS
FTE MAJORS
Total
5
5
4
Total
4
Total
2
2
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
18
18
20
20
14
14
9
9
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
18
18
20
20
14
14
9
9
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
10
10
10
10
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
2:1
1.41
.9:1
1.8:1
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by STJ for all external reporting.
Majors include first and second majors.
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
Fall 2005
Taught
#
Fall 2006
%
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
#
Fall 2007
%
#
Fall 2008
%
#
Fall 2009
%
#
%
Self-Study Template 15
2571
43%
2638
40%
2545
37%
1455
34%
1506
40%
PT Faculty
3467
57%
3936
60%
4295
63%
2802
66%
2283
60%
Total
6038
100%
6574
100%
6840
100%
4257
100%
3789
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
Non-Majors
Credit
Taught
62%
63%
62%
99%
98%
Hrs
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Number Percent Number
Percent Number
Percent Number Percent
1,257
31.6%
1,314
30.5%
1,149
31.0%
1,446
37.3%
P-T
Faculty
(inc Admin)
2,715
68.4%
2,988
69.5%
2,559
69.0%
2,430
62.7%
Total
100%
4,302
100%
97.3%
4,239
98.5%
F-T Faculty
3,972
% Consumed
by
NonMajors
3,864
3,708
3,648
100%
3,876
98.4%
100%
3,861
99.6%
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Fall 2005
Taught
#
FT Faculty
43
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
45
42%
41
35%
30
36%
29
42%
43%
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 16
PT Faculty
58
57%
63
58%
75
65%
53
64%
40
58%
Total
101
100%
108
100%
116
100%
83
100%
69
100%
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Number Percent Number
Percent Number
Percent Number Percent
24
32.4%
31
35.6%
25
35.2%
29
39.2%
P-T
Faculty
(inc Admin)
50
67.6%
56
64.4%
46
64.8%
45
60.8%
F-T Faculty
0.0%
Total
74
100%
0.0%
87
100%
0.0%
71
100%
0.0%
74
100%
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity?
departmental information on next page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
(See
The Rhetoric and Public Address program is taught almost exclusively by full-time faculty. (The only exception is the
occasionally offered RCT 2110 Oral Interpretation). The Program faculty includes nine full-time faculty and one lecturer
on the Staten Island campus. Of the nine full-time faculty, two are Full Professors, six are Associate Professors, one is an
Assistant Professor, and one is a lecturer. Four of our faculty are women; two were born outside the U.S. Eight of the
ten faculty members are tenured; one faculty member will apply for tenure in the Fall of 2015 while the other faculty
member serves as a lecturer on a year-by-year contract.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 17
2005
FT
2006
Tot
al
PT
#
%
#
%
Male
7
41%
1
3
38%
Female
1
0
59%
2
1
62%
Total
1
7
100
%
3
4
Black
0
0%
Hispanic
1
Asian
1
FT
2007
Tot
al
PT
#
%
#
%
20
9
50%
1
6
42%
31
9
50%
2
2
58%
100
%
51
1
8
100
%
3
8
1
3%
1
1
6%
6%
0
0%
1
0
6%
0
0%
1
2
White
1
4
82%
3
2
94%
Unknown
1
6%
1
3%
FT
2008
Tot
al
PT
#
%
#
%
25
8
40%
1
5
38%
31
1
2
60%
2
5
63%
100
%
56
2
0
100
%
4
0
1
3%
2
0
0%
0%
2
5%
2
3
11%
0
0%
2
1
46
1
5
83%
3
4
89%
2
0
0%
1
3%
FT
2009
Tot
al
PT
#
%
#
%
23
8
66%
1
3
54%
37
4
34%
1
1
46%
100
%
60
1
2
100
%
2
4
100
%
2
5%
2
0
0%
2
15%
0
0%
3
1
8%
5%
0
0%
1
0
49
1
6
80%
3
6
90%
1
0
0%
2
5%
FT
Tot
al
PT
#
%
#
%
10
7
64
%
1
2
60
%
19
15
4
36
%
8
40
%
12
25
11
100 2
%
0
100
%
31
8%
0
0
0%
2
10
%
2
0
0%
1
1
9%
0
0%
1
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
5%
1
52
1
0
84%
2
0
84%
21
9
82
%
1
7
85
%
26
2
1
8%
2
8%
3
1
9%
0
0%
1
Gender
Ethnicity
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 18
1
7
Total
100
%
3
4
100
%
51
1
8
100
%
3
8
100
%
56
2
0
100
%
4
0
100
%
67%
12
1
2
60%
12
5
42%
60
1
2
100
%
2
4
100
%
11
100 2
%
0
5
5
100
%
5
25
100
%
31
Tenure
Status
Tenured
1
0
59%
10
1
2
TenureTrack
6
35%
6
3
17%
3
6
30%
6
4
34%
4
0
0%
0
Not
Applicable
1
6%
1
3
17%
3
2
10%
2
3
24%
2
0
0%
0
Total
1
7
100
%
17
1
8
100
%
18
2
0
100
%
20
1
2
100
%
11
5
100
%
5
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 19
2010
2011
FT
PT
Total
# %
#
Male
6 67%
11 46%
Female
3 33%
Total
9
2012
FT
PT
# %
#
17
6 67%
10 38%
13 54%
16
3 33%
24
33
9
%
Total
2013
FT
PT
# %
#
16
6 67%
10 48%
16 62%
19
3 33%
26
35
9
%
Total
%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
16
6
60%
10 53%
16
11 52%
14
4
40%
9
13
21
30
10
Gender
47%
19
29
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
0%
1 11%
Asian
0%
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
White
2
7 78%
1
8%
2
0%
1
4%
1
0%
0
20 83%
27
0%
2
8%
2
1 11%
0%
1
1 11%
0%
1
0%
0
0%
6 67%
23 88%
29
0%
2
10%
2
1 11%
0%
1
1 11%
0%
1
0%
0
0%
6 67%
18 86%
24
0%
2
11%
2
1
10%
1
5%
2
1
10%
0
0%
1
0%
0
0%
0
70%
16 84%
7
2 or More Races
0
0%
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
0
0%
0
0%
Unknown
1 11%
1
Total
9
24
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
4%
2
1 11%
1
33
9
26
4%
2
1 11%
1
35
9
21
5%
2
1
30
10
10%
19
23
1
29
Self-Study Template 20
Tenure Status
Tenured
5 56%
5
4 44%
4
4 44%
4
7
70%
7
Tenure-Track
4 44%
4
4 44%
4
4 44%
4
2
20%
2
0
1 11%
1
1 11%
1
1
10%
1
9
9
9
9
9
10
Not Applicable
Total
0%
9
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
10
Self-Study Template 21
5e.
What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and
scholarship on teaching and/or learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit 1/2
page)
According to the Department Chair’s summary of the AFAR reports, since the 2009 – 2010
Department Self-Study, nearly all members of the program have been active in terms of
research and scholarship. Of the nine full-time, tenured faculty, eight regularly attend
conferences and publish scholarly work. The lone exception to this group, Professor John Greg,
serves as the institutional memory of St. John’s College as well as serving on a number of vital
institutional committees. According to the AFAR reports since 2009 - 2010, faculty from the
program have contributed to 47 scholarly publications/ plays produced; produced 133
conference presentations/ performances; 2 grants awarded; and, members have received seven
awards. In the Fall of 2014, Prof. Kelly DelGaizo received a research leave. In the Spring of 2015,
Professor John Greg received a Core Faculty Teaching Award. During the 2013 – 2014 Academic
Year, the Department’s AFAR report states that six faculty members produced 13 publications;
seven faculty members produced 28 conference appearances; two faculty members received
awards (Top Paper for the Communication & Law Division at the National Conference and
Teacher of the Year Award by Student Government at the Staten Island Campus); and six
members of the Department were involved in Professional Activities (e.g. reviewers, editorial
boards).
5f.
What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty
development in support of the program?
During the past five years, the Department has engaged in formal and informal mentoring to
promote faculty development in support of the program. For example, the Department Chair
has worked with faculty members to develop a grant for the study of debate in Morocco as well
as participated in a student exchange program between the United States and Morocco. The
Department has encouraged faculty members to attend developmental programs on campus,
such as CTL programs and/or present material as part of the junior faculty research group.
Further, the Department has support faculty members with money for travel to local, regional,
national, and international conferences. Finally, the Department developed a student-faculty
symposium, which provides students and faculty members the opportunity to develop research
together.
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
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 22
$
Amount 22,000
Department
82,500
408,686 107,225
Note: In 2008, the Department of Speech, Communication Sciences, and Theatre reorganized
into two separate Departments, the Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Theatre and the
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders. Most of the figures above reflect the
department before reorganization. FY 2008 includes figures from both departments.
External
Funding
Fiscal Year
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
-
-
-
-
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
Rhetoric/
Public Address 4.11
(Q)
Saint
John’s
3.95
College
Total
4.01
Undergraduate
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.27
4.08
4.42
4.53
4.40
4.01
4.00
4.28
4.33
4.33
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
According to the Student Evaluations, faculty members who teach courses for the Rhetoric and
Public Address program receive strong evaluations in relation to their overall evaluations and
instructional vibrancy. Reports from our students show that faculty members within the
program exceed in their ratings when compared to St. John’s College and the total
undergraduate responses.
Furthermore, according to the results of a focus group conducted by the UCCC, students
reported that they believed their public speaking course would help them after college and,
furthermore, that a second public speaking course should be added to the Core. These
comments reflect the strength of the faculty from Public Address major.
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,
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 23
and assignments/grading. All course evaluation questions range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree).
5i.
What percentage of full time faculty assigned to this program have terminal degrees
or industry certifications renewed within the past 2 years? Comment.
90% -- All faculty members of the Rhetoric and Public Address program possess terminal
degrees (PhDs and EdDs) while the remaining 10% possess M.A.’s.
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)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Prof. Greg is coauthor of a textbook on group communication.
Prof. Hickey has served as Chair for the Communication and Law Division for the
National Communication Association; he is serving on the editorial boards of
Communication Law Review and First Amendment Studies.
Prof. Hickey has served worked as a Writing Fellow for the Institute for Core Studies.
Prof. Hostetler coauthored a textbook, Advanced Public Speaking.
Prof. Hostetler received a Fulbright in 2006.
Prof. Hostetler served as Speaking Workshop Leader for the SJU Student Chapter of the
American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, on March 12, 2015.
Prof. Hostetler was named a Distinguished Teaching Fellow of the Eastern
Communication Association in 2009.
Prof. Keshishian has conducted published research in the area of the pedagogy of
pharmacy students. She has received a Fulbright in 2008. Also, she has received
research leave in 2012.
Prof. Llano worked as a Center for Teaching & Learning Fellow.
Prof. DelGaizo has an ongoing research program in the area of communication
pedagogy. She received a research leave in the Fall of 2014. She received the
Outstanding Achievement Award in the Spring of 2015.
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it
is cost effective.
6a.
Narrative/Supportive Technological Environment - Comment on classrooms and labs
meeting industry-standards for quality and availability of hardware, software, and
peripherals; library space, holdings and services; science laboratories, TV studios,
art/computer graphic labs; etc.
First, generally speaking, members the Department teach the majority of their courses in
Marillac and St. John Hall. The equipment in these rooms may be considered adequate but, in
reality, it is outdated. The computer technology in these rooms often does not work correctly;
by mid-semester, the projectors may not display the visual aspects of a presentation as well as
they should. In some classrooms, the audio systems do not work because the speakers do not
work or are missing. Furthermore, far too often the speaking podiums are either missing from
the rooms or, if present, they are cracked or broken. These problems create a negative impact
on our students’ education.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 24
Second, the St. John’s Debate Room needs additional technology. If the University were to
invest in a printer, a dedicated phone line, and a photocopier, the students on the St. John’s
Debate Society will receive additional help in their practice and preparation. By investing in the
Debate Program, the students will be able to further invest in St. John’s University.
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)
First, as we discussed in the 2010 Self Study and in an April 2013 Memo to Dean Jeffrey Fagen
and Provost Robert Mangione, the Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Thearte exists in
an inconvenient and unprofessional environment for faculty and students. Currently, the faculty
of the Department of Rhetoric, Communication, & Theatre reside in two separate locations in St.
John’s Hall. By having faculty reside in two separate, numerous problems develop:







It is inconvenient for students who are trying to find our offices and particularly for
students who visit us hoping to be able to see more than one faculty member. The
separation sends a message to the students that the program does not receive the full
support of the University.
It hinders faculty communication, especially the informal conversations and exchanges
that make up the bulk of faculty interactions.
It creates an artificial psychological division between the faculty “upstairs” near the
Chair and Secretary who have private offices and those relegated to “the basement”
who occupy low wall cubicles.
It separates senior, more experienced faculty members from junior faculty, thus
hindering informal mentoring encounters.
It greatly limits face-to-face interactions between the Department Chair and Secretary
with remotely located faculty members.
Further, the faculty who reside in cubicles face constant noise distractions, which
diminishes productivity and hinders faculty and student interactions. Providing private
offices would increase the time faculty would be on campus as well as increasing
productivity while on campus.
It makes it that much more difficult for the Chair to keep his/her “finger on the pulse”
regarding faculty concerns and needs.
Until the Department possesses space in which all faculty members may reside in one location,
the Department will not be as strong as it could be.
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)
In the 2010 – 2011 Academic Year, the Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Theatre
received funding for a Debate Room for the St. John’s University Debate Society. The Debate
Room provides students with an opportunity to conduct two weekly practices, impromptu and
informal practices, as well as serving as a place to congregate and share ideas. Furthermore, the
Debate Room provides the RCT Faculty with a dedicated space to hold meetings and to provide
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 25
greater access to students. In the Fall Semester of 2012, Fall 2014, and Spring 2015 semesters,
the Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Theatre held three very successful student and
faculty symposiums. In the Fall of 2014, the Department held a symposium on Gender Equality,
which brought over 40 faculty and students together. In the Spring of 2015, the Department
held a symposium on “Net Neutrality as a Public Good,” in which over 30 students and faculty
attended. In the Fall of 2016, the Department held an Open House for the program, drawing
over 20 students and faculty.
6d.
If external data that describes the cost effectiveness of the program has been
provided by your School/College Dean, please comment on the program’s cost-effectiveness.
(Suggest limit 1 page)
In regards to the cost effectiveness of the program, there are two points that need to be
addressed. First, according to the numbers for FY14, the program is economically viable for the
St. John’s College and the University. Even though this is a young program, we expect the
Program to grow and, along with it, to increase its financial viability.
Second, faculty members involved with the Rhetoric and Public Address program not only
contribute to the program but also to the Core (Public Speaking; Interpersonal for Pharmacists).
In order to fully determine the viability of the program and the faculty in the program, research
must be completed to understand the ways in which the faculty contribute to the viability of the
Core courses.
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program
review and plans have been initiated for the future.
At the time of the 2009 – 2019 Program Review, St. John’s College invested in the
Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Theatre as the College hired new faculty members
and reconstituted its intercollegiate debate program. This investment continues to pay off for St.
John’s University.
In the 2009 – 2010 Program review, the Department of Rhetoric, Communication &
Theatre developed seven recommendations. Of those seven recommendations:
Three recommendations concerned the programs ability to build on the current momentum to
grow the SJU Debate Society:
 Hiring an Assistant Director on a tenure-track line.
 Securing a dedicated space for practice and office.
 Securing a $1 million endowment.
Four recommendations concerned the strength of the program by developing the Department
of Rhetoric, Communication & Theatre:
 Enhancing faculty communication and exceptional student service by consolidating
faculty into one suite of offices.
 Strengthening program outreach to undecided majors by conducting at least one
outreach activity each semester and producing an information video for SPE 1000c
classes.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 26


Maintaining and enhance faculty dynamism and diversity by replacing retiring and
expiring faculty lines.
Creating a unified space to house all members of the Department.
In light of the 2009 – 2010 Program Study, the Department has worked on developing its
program. The strength of the Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Theatre resides in the
diversity and expertise of our faculty members. Currently, the Department boasts eight tenured
Faculty members, with a ninth member of the Department going up for tenure in 2015, and a
lecturer who teaches on the Staten Island Campus. Because of the diversity of our faculty, the
Department not only serves the Core Curriculum but, also, works with Honors Program,
Pharmacy, Classics, English, History, Theology, and Sociology. The development of our Business
Communication Minor has led to the recruitment of more students into the major and minor.
Furthermore, members of our faculty have used their knowledge to serve the broader academic
community of St. John’s University as Assistant Professor Stephen Llano has served as a Center
for Teaching and Learning Fellow and Associate Professor Jeremiah Hickey has worked as a
Writing Fellow for the Institute of Core Studies.
Furthermore, in light of the 2009 – 2010 Program Study, the Department has worked on
promoting its program. In 2011, the Department developed a promotional video to help recruit
students; however, with the impending retirement of Prof. Hostetler as Chair, the RPA Program
will need additional funds to produce another video. Further, since the last program review, the
Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Theatre initiated a series of Department
Symposiums in order to have students collaborate with faculty members. Each semester the
Department and the Debate program participate in the Student Activities Fair and the Open
Houses. In the Fall of 2012, the Department held its first Undergraduate Symposium, which
allowed students to submit papers to workshop before they submitted them to Eastern
Communication Association’s Student Conference. In the Fall of 2014, our second Symposium
allowed students and professors the opportunity to debate the meaning of gender equality.
While our first symposium saw modest participation from students, over 40 faculty and students
participated in the Department’s 2014 Symposium. In the Spring of 2015, Prof. Hickey worked
with students in the Senior Seminar (RCT 4990) to develop a symposium on “Net Neutrality as a
Public Good.” Over 30 students and faculty attended this event. Because of the success of this
event, the Department will continue to connect the Senior Seminar with a Spring Symposium so
that the faculty responsible for teaching the course will work with students to plan one of the
symposium sessions.
Of course, while the Department has had success with student recruitment, the Public
Address program has not been able to fully enhance faculty communication and exceptional
student service as the members of the program reside in separate areas of St. Johns Hall (See
Standard 6). Furthermore, the program will need to maintain and enhance faculty dynamism
and diversity by receiving replacement lines for retiring faculty members.
In addition to the development faculty, the St. John’s Debate Society continues to
strengthen the Rhetoric and Public Address program. Since its inception in 2007, the Debate
Society has found success at local, regional, national, and international tournaments. Under the
mentorship of Prof. Stephen Llano, an internationally recognized expert in all forms of college
debate, the Debate Society works with over 50 undergraduates per year. At St. John’s
University, the Debate Society works to involve students in the intercollegiate debate world, at
St. John’s University, and in the larger New York City community. Since January of 2011, the
members have attended 31 debate tournaments. For students of St. John’s University, it has
hosted on-campus events with the St. John’s Management Society, the Pharmacy Honors
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 27
Society, and the Theology Department; it has mentored undergraduates in the study of debate.
Finally, for the larger St. John’s and NYC community, the Debate Society has hosted the British
National Championship Debating Team, the Irish National Championship Debating Team, the
World Champion debaters from Australia, and debaters from the Moroccan Debate Exchange.
Further, the Debate Society has partnered with the New York City urban Debate League,
conducted debate outreach with PS156 Laurelton School in Queens, and hosted a public debate
on international labor law during the conference on the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.
Even with its success, the Debate Society has yet to secure its goal for its endowment.
Further, it has not received a tenure track line for an Assistant Debate Director. While Prof.
Wright works with the Debate Society, her effort there takes away from other professional
duties to the Rhetoric and Public Address program.
With the rise of the Department and the success of the Debate Society, there has been a
significant increase in the number of students who have selected Public Address as a major.
Further, the majority of students who work with the Department and/or the Debate Society
pursue graduate study in Rhetoric and Public Address, Law, or Political Science. Of course, not all
success rests with our majors continuing their education to graduate school. During the 2013 –
2014 and 2014 – 2015 academic years, Najaah Daniels, a Rhetoric and Public Address major and
St. John’s Ambassador, worked as an intern in the Office of the Vice President of the United
States. Additionally, Donya Nasser completed an internship in Washington, D.C. with the White
House Office of Legislative Affairs (2015). Yvonne Grillo’s interned through the Queens County
District Attorney’s Office (2013). Joseph Mazza’s interned with the Office of Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand (2011).
The challenge for the Department rests with student recruitment. New students who
attend St. John’s rarely possess a background in rhetorical theory or criticism, the foundation for
the Rhetoric and Public Address major. Consequently, the program must recruit majors once
they begin to attend St. John’s. Once in the program, Rhetoric and Public Address majors do
very well as evidenced by the fact that since 2008 almost half of the students who graduated
from the program have continued on the Graduate School. As the program continues to develop
its institutional presence on campus, we will be able to grow the major and continue to play a
vital role for St. John’s University.
LAS_PHET&PUBADDR_BA_Q
Self-Study Template 28