Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Speech Language Pathology MA 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.
2a. Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
2b. Undergraduate 1 st Year Retention Rate
2c. Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Self-Study Template 1
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

2d. Graduate Standardized Test Scores
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Speech
Pathology
MA old new
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Ir Grev Score
400
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
473
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
394
149
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
490
150
Speech
Pathology
MA old new
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score Ir Greq Score Ir Greq Score
477 557 538
147
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
574
148
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score Ir Grev Score Ir Grev Score Ir Grev Score
Graduate School Arts &
Sci old new
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
491 500 497
154
532
153
Graduate School Arts &
Sci old new
Fall 2010
Ir Greq Score
585
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
566
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
593
149
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
604
150
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
Self-Study Template 2
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

General test percentage distribution of scores within intended graduate major field that is based on the performance of seniors and non-enrolled college graduates who were tested on the verbal and quantitative examination.
GRE
Intended Graduate Major Test-Takers Mean Score (Verbal) Mean Score (Quantitative)
Arts and Humanities* 31,657 157 150
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
Comments: Refer to Charts 2a – 2d in your response. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2e. Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
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.
Fall
2005 2006 2007 2008 Number of Students
Majors
Minors
Total
149
0
149
129
0
129
146
0
146
122
0
122
2009
119
0
119
Self-Study Template 3
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

MAJORS SPE
SPE5
MA
MA
Fall 2010
Majors
Fall 2011
Majors
Total 119
2h. Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
16
103
Degrees
Granted 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
102
102
Fall 2012
Majors
98
98
Fall 2013
Majors
100
100
MA 47 59 60 44 63
10/11 11/12 12/13
SJC-GR MA
Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred
57 48 52
Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 51-Health Professions and Related
Programs.
2009-
2010
2010-
2011
2011-
2012
Local 1,163
Doctorate
1,132 1,225
National 57,746 60,153 62,090
1 Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Self-Study Template 4
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

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 response using data provided below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 2. Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and
School/College planning, direction, and priorities.
Self-Study Template 5
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

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.
Change, 2010-20
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Audiologist
Percent
37%
Numeric
4,800
Occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment
Speech Language
Pathologists
Percent
23%
Numeric
28,800
Speech Language Pathologists 23% 28,800
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 21% or more
Percent Numeric
Audiologist
37%
Speech Language Pathologists 23%
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
4,800
28,800
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
Self-Study Template 6
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

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.
# Majors/
Fall 2005
FT Faculty FT PT Total
Majors
Minors
64 85 149
0
FT
66
Fall 2006
PT
63
Total
129
0
FT
75
Fall 2007
PT
71
Total
146
0
FT
33
Fall 2008
PT
89
Total
122
0
FT
85
Fall 2009
PT
34
Total
119
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined 64 85 149 66 63 129 75 71 146 33 89 122 85 34 119
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors) 64.00 28.33 92.33 66.00 21.00 87.00 75.00 23.67 98.67 33.00 29.67 62.67 85.00 11.33 96.33
# of FTE
Faculty assigned to the program 6.1
FTE
Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
1.4 7.5 6.4
0
2 8.4 4.8
0
2.2 7.0 6.2
0
1.5 7.7 6
0
1.58 7.58
0
Self-Study Template 7
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

MAJORS
F
Majors
Fall 2010
76
P
Majors
43
Total
Majors
119
F
Majors
72
Fall 2011
P
30
Total
102
F
66
Fall 2012
P
Majors Majors Majors Majors
32
Total
Majors
98
F
Majors
79
Fall 2013
P
Majors
21
Total
Majors
100
Total FTE MAJORS
F
Fall 2010
P Total F
Fall 2011
P Total F P
FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE
Fall 2012
Total F
Fall 2013
P Total
FTE FTE FTE FTE
# of FTE faculty assigned to the program
76 14.333 90.333 72 10 82 66 10.667 76.667 79 7 86
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by STJ for all external reporting.
Self-Study Template 8
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

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 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009
Taught # % # % # % # % # %
2571 43% 2638 40% 2545 37% 1756 59%
FT Faculty
PT Faculty 3467 57%
Total
% consumed by Non-
Majors
6038 100%
62%
3936
6574
60%
100%
63%
4295
6840
63%
100%
62%
1231
2987
41%
100%
22%
Not available as of yet
0
0%
0%
Credit Hrs Taught
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
Total
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
Fall 2010 Fall 2011
Number Percent
1,555 56.4%
Number
1,503
Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Percent Number
57.6% 1,643
Percent Number
61.2% 1,496
Percent
55.8%
1,201 43.6% 1,107 42.4% 1,040
0.0% 0.0%
38.8% 1,185 44.2%
0.0% 0.0%
100% 2,756 100% 2,610 100% 2,683 100% 2,681
413 15.0% 417 16.0% 261 9.7% 348 13.0%
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. Figures from Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 reflect the department at that time and fall 2008 represents the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
Self-Study Template 9
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

5c. Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty (including administrators).
Courses Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009
Taught # % # % # % # % # %
45 42% 15 37% 21(16) 50%(67%) 16 67%
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Total
43
58
101
43%
57%
100%
63
108
58%
100%
26
41
63%
100%
21(8) 50%(33%)
42(24) 100%(100%)
8
240
33%
100
Courses
Taught
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
25 59.5% 32 55.2% 27 62.8% 23 54.8%
17 40.5% 26
0.0%
44.8% 16 37.2% 19
0.0% 0.0%
45.2%
0.0%
Total 42 100% 58 100% 43 100% 42 100%
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. Figures from Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 reflect the department at that time and fall 2008 represents the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
Self-Study Template 10
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

Gender
Male
Female
Total
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
White
Unknown
Total
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)
Developmental Plan
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
#
FT
% #
PT
%
7 41% 13 38%
10 59% 21 62%
17 100% 34 100%
0 0% 1 3%
1
1
6%
6%
0
0
0%
0%
14 82% 32 94%
1 6% 1 3%
17 100% 34 100%
1
1
46
2
51
1
20
31
51
Total
#
FT
% #
PT
%
9
9
50%
50%
16
22
42%
58%
18 100% 38 100%
1 6% 1 3%
0
2
0%
11%
2
0
5%
0%
15 83% 34 89%
0 0% 1 3%
18 100% 38 100%
2
2
49
1
56
2
25
31
56
Total
#
FT
% #
PT
%
8 40% 15 38%
12 60% 25 63%
20 100% 40 100%
0 0% 2 5%
3
1
15%
5%
0
0
0%
0%
16 80% 36 90%
0 0% 2 5%
20 100% 40 100%
3
1
52
2
60
2
23
37
60
Total
#
FT
% #
PT
%
7 64% 3 21%
4 36% 11 79%
11 100% 14 100%
10
15
25
Total FT
#
Not available as of yet
PT
% # %
Total
0
0
0
0 0% 0 0%
1
0
9%
0%
0
0
0%
0%
9 82% 12 86%
1 9% 2 14%
11 100% 14 100%
1
0
21
3
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tenure Status
Tenured
Tenure-Track
Not Applicable
Total
10 59%
6 35%
1 6%
17 100%
10
6
1
17
12 67%
3 17%
3 17%
18 100%
12
3
3
18
12 60%
6 30%
2 10%
20 100%
12
6
2
20
5 45%
4 36%
2 18%
11 100%
5
4
2
11
Note: The Department of Speech split beginning in Fall 2008. Figures from Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 reflect the department at that time and fall 2008 represents the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders.
Self-Study Template 11
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q
0
0
0
0

Gender
Male
Female
Total
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
American
Indian/Alaskan Native
White
2 or More Races
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
Total
Tenure Status
Tenured
Tenure-Track
Not Applicable
Total
2
FT
#
2010
PT
% # %
3
8
11
27% 1 6%
73% 16 94%
17
0%
18%
0%
1
0%
6%
0%
8
1
11
0%
73%
9%
6
5
11
55%
45%
0%
15
6% 1
17
0%
88%
6
5
0
11
2
28
0
23
Total
4
24
28
3
0
0
2
#
3
8
11
FT
#
2011
PT
% %
27% 1 6%
73% 15 94%
16
0%
18% 1
0%
0%
6%
0%
Total
4
23
27
3
0
0
2
FT
#
2012
PT
% # %
3
9
12
25% 3 20%
75% 12 80%
15
0%
17%
0%
1
0%
7%
0%
Total
6
21
27
3
0
0
2
FT
2013
PT
# % # %
2
9
11
18% 2 13%
82% 14 88%
16
0%
18%
0%
1
0
0 0%
6%
0%
Total
4
23
27
3
0
0
8
0% 0%
73% 14 88%
1
11
9%
6
5
11
55%
45%
0%
1
16
6%
6
5
0
11
2
27
0
22 9
0% 0%
75% 11 73%
1 7%
1
12
8%
6
5
1
12
50%
42%
8%
2
15
13%
6
5
1
12
3
27
0
20 9
0% 0 0%
82% 14 88%
0 0%
11
0%
8
3
11
73%
27%
0%
0
1
16
0%
6%
8
3
0
11
0
1
27
0
23
0
Self-Study Template 12
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

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 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
22,000 82,500 408,686 107,225
External
Funding 09/10
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department 4,000
10/11
Fiscal Year
11/12
14,345 17,500
12/13
-
Self-Study Template 13
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

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) Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013
Speech
Language
Pathology/
Audiology (Q)
Saint John’s
College
-
4.23
-
4.26
-
4.19
-
4.37
-
4.40
-
4.40
Total Graduate 4.14 4.16 4.30 4.37 4.39 4.52
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 1/3 page)
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)
Self-Study Template 14
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q

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)
LAS_CSD_SPEECHLANG.PATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 15