AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: College of Professional Studies
Program Reviewed: Dramatic Arts, Film & Television BS 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)
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 1
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Computed
Fall 2012
Computed
DAFT
Fall 2013
Computed
1,115
Computed
1,070
1,036
1,050
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
Fall 2012
High School
DAFT
85
High School
87
SAT Scores
Fall 2013
High School
88
90
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
Intended college major for 2012 college-bound seniors
SAT
Intended College Major
Communication, Journalism and Related
Programs
Visual and Performing Arts
TestTakers
Mean
Scores
Number
Percent
(%)
Critical
Reading
Mathematic
s
Writin
g
4,002
3.0%
503
487
498
10,424
7.7%
488
481
478
* For further information, please visit
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/NY_12_03_03_01.pdf.
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 2
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2b.
Total
2009
Returned
#
%
DNR
# %
Total
DAFT
2
2010
Returned
#
%
2 100%
DNR
# %
Total
2
2011
Returned
#
%
2 100%
DNR
# %
Total
6
2012
Returned
#
%
83%
5
#
1
DNR
%
17%
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
Not Applicable
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - Q
53%
52%
50%
47%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Not Applicable
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 3
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)
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
MAJORS
DAFT
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
BS
Total
2h.
2
10
30
39
2
10
30
39
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
CPS-UG-Q
DAFT
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
BS
1
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 50-Visual and Performing Arts.
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Bachelors
Local
1,938
1,974
2,017
National
91,802
93,956
95,797
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.
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 4
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)
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 5
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? Information can be found at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
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)
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 6
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 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
2
2
9
1
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
FTE MAJORS
10
29
1
Fall 2011
30
38
1
Fall 2012
39
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
2.00
2.00
9.00
0.33
9.33
29.00
0.33
29.33
38.00
0.33
38.33
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 and includes both 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.
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 7
Fall 2010
Credit Hrs Taught
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
3,344
41.5%
3,493
44.3%
3,090
39.4%
3,437
45.7%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
4,716
58.5%
4,386
55.7%
4,752
60.6%
4,084
54.3%
0.0%
Total
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8,060
100%
7,879
100%
7,842
100%
7,521
100%
966
12.0%
715
9.1%
762
9.7%
678
9.0%
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Fall 2010
Courses Taught
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
49
36.6%
66
43.4%
49
35.0%
57
41.0%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
85
63.4%
86
56.6%
91
65.0%
82
59.0%
0.0%
Total
134
100%
0.0%
152
100%
0.0%
140
100%
0.0%
139
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_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 8
Departmental Data
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
7
54%
24
59%
Female
6
46%
17
Total
13
100%
Black
1
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
31
8
57%
24
62%
41%
23
6
43%
15
41
100%
54
14
100%
8%
4
10%
5
1
0
0%
2
5%
2
Asian
1
8%
0
0%
White
11
85%
32
Unknown
0
0%
Total
13
100%
Tenured
8
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
10
63%
20
53%
38%
21
6
38%
18
39
100%
53
16
100%
7%
4
10%
5
1
0
0%
2
5%
2
1
1
7%
0
0%
78%
43
12
86%
30
3
7%
3
0
0%
41
100%
54
14
100%
62%
8
8
5
38%
5
Not Applicable
0
0%
Total
13
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
30
10
59%
22
58%
47%
24
7
41%
16
38
100%
54
17
100%
6%
4
11%
5
1
0
0%
2
5%
2
1
1
6%
0
0%
77%
42
14
88%
28
3
8%
3
0
0%
39
100%
53
16
100%
57%
8
9
6
43%
6
0
0
0%
13
14
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
9
56%
28
64%
37
42%
23
7
44%
16
36%
23
38
100%
55
16
100%
44
100%
60
6%
4
11%
5
1
6%
5
11%
6
0
0%
1
3%
1
0
0%
1
2%
1
1
1
6%
0
0%
1
1
6%
0
0%
1
74%
42
15
88%
29
76%
44
14
88%
34
77%
48
4
11%
4
0
0%
4
11%
4
0
0%
4
9%
4
38
100%
54
17
100%
38
100%
55
16
100%
44
100%
60
56%
9
9
53%
9
10
63%
10
7
44%
7
8
47%
8
6
38%
6
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
14
16
100%
16
17
100%
17
18
100%
18
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 9
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
#
%
#
%
Male
7
58%
27
57%
Female
5
42%
20
43%
Total
12
FT
2012
PT
T
#
%
#
%
34
8
57%
29
62%
25
6
43%
18
38%
59
14
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
37
8
62%
27
60%
24
5
38%
18
40%
61
13
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
35
8
53%
27
61%
35
23
7
47%
17
39%
24
58
15
Gender
47
47
45
44
59
Ethnicity
Black
0%
4
9%
4
0%
1
2%
1
0%
2
4%
2
0%
2
5%
2
Hispanic
0%
2
4%
2
0%
5
11%
5
0%
6
13%
6
0%
5
11%
5
8%
1
2%
2
7%
1
2%
2
8%
0%
1
7%
0
0%
1
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
81%
51
78%
47
93%
35
80%
49
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0%
0
2
5%
2
Asian
1
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White
0
11
Unknown
Total
1
92%
0%
12
38
2
47
81%
4%
49
0%
13
2
93%
0%
59
14
38
2
47
4%
1
12
2
92%
0%
61
13
35
2
4%
45
1
14
2
0%
58
15
44
59
Tenure Status
Tenured
7
58%
7
8
57%
8
9
69%
9
10
67%
10
Tenure-Track
5
42%
5
3
21%
3
3
23%
3
4
27%
4
0%
0
3
21%
3
1
8%
1
1
7%
1
12
14
14
13
13
15
Not Applicable
Total
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
12
Self-Study Template 10
15
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
Funding
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 evaluations instructional vibrancy for
your program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
DAFT (Q)
College of
Professional
Studies
Total
Undergraduate
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
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
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 11
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)
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.
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 12
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
CPS_MC_DAFT_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 13