AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: College of Professional Studies
Program Reviewed: Information Technology AS Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair:
Overview and Program Review Summary: Please summarize this program’s mission and its relationship to the vision and
mission of St. John’s University, and the program’s School/College. Identify similar programs regionally and nationally and
distinguish this program from them. In addition, summarize your findings as they relate to (1) program quality, (2) market
growth potential, and (3) student learning. Also, summarize any significant changes, achievements (by faculty and students
and the program itself), and plans for the future. Finally, based on the information gleaned from the data in the self-study,
give an overall rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential by categorizing it as one of the following: (1) Enhance; (2)
Maintain; (3) Reduce support, Phase out, Consolidate, or Discontinue.
(Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s University,
and the program’s School/College.
1a.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the Catholic, Vincentian, and
metropolitan identity of St. John’s University? www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision.
www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission/vision-statement. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1c.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the
program’s School/College? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
High School Average
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
School/
College
977
1006
997
1017
1019
82
83
84
84
85
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
SAT Scores
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - Q
1013
1014
1025
1028
84
84
85
86
Total University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
Program
School/College
75%
76%
72%
71%
71%
949
712
75%
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
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 2
One year Retention
Returned - F09
CPS-Q
Did Not Return
Ir Pidm
Ir Pidm2
Ir Pidm
Ir Pidm2
Ir Pidm
Ir Pidm2
4
33%
8
67%
12
100%
IT
Returned - F10
CPS-Q
Total
Total
Ir Pidm
Ir Pidm2
Ir Pidm
Ir Pidm2
1
100%
1
100%
IT
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012*
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - Q
74%
74%
71%
766
575
75%
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
No data provided here.
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Not Applicable
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2f.
If applicable, describe the program’s student performance over the past five years on licensure or professional
certification exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 3
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of Students
MAJORS
2h.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
1
2
2
1
16
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
2
2
1
16
IT
AS
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
6
2
1
1
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
Undergraduate AS
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
5
7
0
0
1
11/12
Degrees Conferred
CPS-UG-Q
IT
Information Technology
AS
1
Note: there are no students who have graduated from this program in the 10/11 and 12/13 academic years.
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 4
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 11-Computer and Information Services and
Support Services.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Associates
Local
52
19
29
National
32,466
37,677
41,161
1Local
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)
2i.
What mechanisms are in place to monitor students’ progress toward degree? And, to what extent is there a
collaborative effort to provide quality advising and support services to students? (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2j.
If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or attending
graduate school. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your responses using data provided below
and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 5
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and School/College
planning, direction, and priorities.
3a.
How does your program’s strategic goal/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s strategic
plan? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/leadership/strategic-planning
3b.
What is the evidence of monitoring the external and internal environments, specifically what are the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the program? How were they identified? What actions have been taken in
response to these findings? What characteristics of the program suggest a competitive edge against other programs
regionally and nationally?
3c.
What is the current and future market demand for the program? Support your response using the data provided
below or any other internal or external sources to justify your response.
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education and
training projected.
Percent
Numeric
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Computer System Analysts
22%
120,400
Computer System Analysts
Network and Computer System
28%
96,600
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
22%
120,400
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow Much Faster Than Average - Increase 21% or More %
Percent
Numeric
Computer System Analysts
22%
120,400
Network and Computer System
28%
96,600
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 6
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 4. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and
engagement.
4a.
Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items:
(Suggested limit 1/2 page for each of the three categories below)
1. Standards within the discipline
2. Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and study abroad
experiences.
3. The University Core competencies
4b.
The syllabi for the courses within this program incorporate the suggested elements of a syllabus – an example of
which can be found at the following St. John’s University Center for Teaching and Learning link. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
4c.
Describe the assessment model currently in place for the program and indicate the extent to which disciplinary and
core knowledge, competence, and values are met, as well as findings and action plans for improvement. For reference, visit
WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com/. (Suggested limit 1/2
page)
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality has the
program received? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
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
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
Majors
1
PT
Total
1
Minors
Majors
& Minors
Combined
Fall 2006
FT
PT
Total
2
2
0
1
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
0
1
Fall 2007
FT
PT
Total
2
2
0
2
0
2
Fall 2008
FT
PT
Total
1
1
0
2
0
2
Fall 2009
FT
15
PT
Total
1
0
1
0
1
16
0
15
1
16
Self-Study Template 7
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
15.00
0.33
15.33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned to
the
program
0
0
0
0
1
FTE
Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
16
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
P
Total
F
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
5
1
6
1
1
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
FTE MAJORS
2
1
Fall 2011
1
1
Fall 2012
1
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
P
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
5
0.333
5.333
1
0.333
1.333
0.333
0.333
1
1
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by SJU for all external reporting.
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 8
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
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
4188
45%
2841
35%
2883
38%
2304
38%
2427
42%
PT Faculty
5202
55%
5352
65%
4698
62%
3744
62%
3351
58%
Total
9390
100%
8193
100%
7581
100%
6048
100%
5778
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed by
Non-Majors
77%
80%
81%
73%
69%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes Scientific Inquiry credits/courses.
Fall 2010
Credit Hrs Taught
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
2,061
42.2%
2,223
40.5%
2,094
39.4%
2,028
40.2%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
2,820
57.78%
3,270
59.53%
3,225
60.6%
3,015
59.8%
Total
4,881
100%
5,493
100%
5,319
100%
5,043
100%
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
3,156
64.7%
3,243
59.0%
3,258
61.3%
2,934
58.2%
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 9
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators).
Courses
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
53
38%
57
44%
47
43%
46
47%
FT Faculty
62
42%
PT Faculty
86
58%
87
62%
73
56%
62
57%
52
53%
Total
148
100%
140
100%
130
100%
109
100%
98
100%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes Scientific Inquiry credits/courses.
Fall 2010
Courses Taught
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
36
43.4%
41
44.1%
39
43.3%
36
41.9%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
47
56.6%
52
55.9%
51
56.7%
50
58.1%
0.0%
Total
83
100%
0.0%
93
100%
0.0%
90
100%
0.0%
86
100%
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental
information on next page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 10
Departmental Data
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
9
50%
28
61%
Female
9
50%
18
Total
18
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
37
8
53%
25
56%
39%
27
7
47%
20
46
100%
64
15
100%
0%
1
2%
1
0
0
0%
2
4%
2
Asian
0
0%
2
4%
White
18
100%
40
Unknown
0
0%
Total
18
100%
Tenured
9
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
33
9
56%
25
61%
44%
27
7
44%
16
45
100%
60
16
100%
0%
2
4%
2
0
0
0%
2
4%
2
2
0
0%
2
4%
87%
58
15
100%
38
1
2%
1
0
0%
46
100%
64
15
100%
50%
9
10
6
33%
6
Not Applicable
3
17%
Total
18
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
34
9
60%
23
61%
39%
23
6
40%
15
41
100%
57
15
100%
0%
2
5%
2
0
1
6%
0
0%
1
2
0
0%
2
5%
84%
53
15
94%
37
1
2%
1
0
0%
45
100%
60
16
100%
67%
10
11
5
33%
5
3
0
0%
18
15
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
9
60%
20
71%
29
39%
21
6
40%
8
29%
14
38
100%
53
15
100%
28
100%
43
0%
2
5%
2
0
0%
1
4%
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
2
0
0%
2
5%
2
0
0%
1
4%
1
90%
52
14
93%
33
87%
47
14
93%
25
89%
39
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
3%
1
0
0%
1
4%
1
41
100%
57
15
100%
38
100%
53
15
100%
28
100%
43
69%
11
11
73%
11
12
80%
12
5
31%
5
3
20%
3
3
20%
3
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
0
0%
0
15
16
100%
16
15
100%
15
15
100%
15
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 11
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
#
%
#
%
Male
7
54%
20
80%
Female
6
46%
5
20%
Total
13
FT
2012
PT
T
#
%
#
%
27
6
46%
23
85%
11
7
54%
4
15%
38
13
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
29
7
50%
22
81%
11
7
50%
5
19%
40
14
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
29
7
50%
20
77%
27
12
7
50%
6
23%
13
41
14
Gender
25
27
27
26
40
Ethnicity
Black
0%
1
4%
1
1
7%
1
4%
2
3
1
7%
2
8%
3
0%
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
85%
34
11
79%
21
81%
32
2 or More Races
1
4%
1
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Hispanic
0%
1
Asian
8%
0%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
1
8%
White
11
85%
Unknown
Total
1
1
23
0%
13
4%
1
0%
1
4%
1
0%
1
1
8%
92%
34
11
85%
0%
25
0%
1
8%
0%
0
1
3
23
0%
38
13
4%
1
0%
1
4%
1
0%
1
1
7%
1
4%
2
11%
3
1
7%
2
7%
0%
1
1
7%
85%
34
11
79%
0%
27
0
23
0%
40
14
0%
27
0
0%
41
14
26
40
Tenure Status
Tenured
11
85%
11
10
77%
10
10
71%
10
11
79%
11
Tenure-Track
2
15%
2
3
23%
3
4
29%
4
3
21%
3
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Not Applicable
Total
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
Self-Study Template 12
5e.
What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching and/or
learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5f.
What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty development in support of the program?
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5g.
The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. If available, please provide the
dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program dollar
amounts are available through departmental records.)
Fiscal Year
External
$ Amount
Funding
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
Program
$ Amount Department
30,000
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
-
-
14,000
-
5h.
Please comment on the table below that shows trends in overall course evaluations instructional vibrancy for your
program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 13
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
Information
Technology AS
(Q)
College of
Professional
Studies
Total
Undergraduate
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.04
4.09
4.14
4.34
4.33
4.43
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Note: Institutional Vibrancy is the average of the first 14 questions on the course evaluation, with questions pertaining to
course organization, communication, faculty-student interaction, and assignments/grading. All course evaluation questions
range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
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 /3page)
Standard 5.
Comments: Indicate to what extent the program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and
goals. Include references from 5a – 5i. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it is cost-effective.
6a.
Narrative/Supportive Technological Environment - Comment on classrooms and labs meeting industry-standards for
quality and availability of hardware, software, and peripherals; library space, holdings and services; science laboratories, TV
studios, art/computer graphic labs; etc. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6b.
Narrative/ Supportive Physical Environment - Comment on level of faculty and student satisfaction with HVAC; faculty
and student satisfaction with classroom lighting, crowdedness, and acoustics; flexible teaching environments, and faculty
offices, etc.. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6c.
To what extent has the University funded major capital projects, e.g., renovations, which are linked directly to the
program during the past five years? (Bulleted list)
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 14
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)
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)
CPS_INFOTECH_AS_Q
Self-Study Template 15