AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: English BA Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair: September 1, 2015
Overview and Program Review Summary: Please summarize this program’s mission and its relationship to the vision
and mission of St. John’s University, and the program’s School/College. Identify similar programs regionally and
nationally and distinguish this program from them. In addition, summarize your findings as they relate to (1) program
quality, (2) market growth potential, and (3) student learning. Also, summarize any significant changes, achievements
(by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future. Finally, based on the information gleaned
from the data in the self-study, give an overall rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential by categorizing it as
one of the following: (1) Enhance; (2) Maintain; (3) Reduce support, Phase out, Consolidate, or Discontinue.
(Suggested limit 1 page)
The overall theme of this program review is that the English Department has not received the same sort
of financial support as it had in the years before the last program review in 2009, but that it has been able to
continue its mission of serving the students of St John’s through the Core; through its majors and minors;
through its teaching of students from the School of Education who concentrate in English; and in its graduate
programs. The successful conversion of our Doctor of Arts degree into a PhD in English is a sure sign of
external recognition of the strengths of this department.
The mission of the BA in English program is to impart certain skills and knowledge bases to its English
majors and minors: the skills are critical reading, persuasive and analytical writing, and the ability to conduct
relevant and extensive research (reading, writing, and research); the knowledge bases are the history of
literature, criticism, and literary theory in English. The skills and knowledge bases of the BA in English
program align with the University’s mission by preparing our graduates with a keen historical sense of the
perennial human struggle for fairness and decency for all members of society, and the critical skills are those
required to become engaged citizens of the world working for social justice. The BA in English program, with
its emphasis on writing and global education, is perhaps unique in the College in combining two of the most
valuable aspects of a humanities education.
The BA in English at St John’s compares favorably not only to peer institutions (Hofstra, Adelphi,
Niagara, DePaul) but also to aspirational institutions (Fordham, Boston College, NYU, Rutgers) both in our
curricular offerings and in the credentials of our faculty. As will be evident below, we have worked hard and
well to redesign and enhance our undergraduate major, and few other English departments have successfully
combined traditional literature courses with more recent developments in global and ethnic literatures, film and
performance studies, writing courses and pedagogy courses. The major maintains an historical introduction to
the history of literature as a base for exploring more recent developments. Other departments will emphasize
one over the other, but our design is distinctive in accommodating both the traditional and the cutting-edge. We
have not had the opportunity to hire many new faculty over the past five years. Instead, we successfully
searched for replacement faculty, both of whom help us maintain a modest racial diversity in our faculty and
Self-Study Template 1
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
both of whom bring exciting new interests and expertise to the department. The production of first-rate
scholarship compares favorably with the best English departments. (We did note that we are smaller than many
departments in comparable institutions.)
As for market growth potential, the English Department in St John’s College was the only unit
designated for market expansion before our last program review in 2009. The department had been singled out
in the Provost’s Office’s High Demand/High Revenue analysis, where Brenda Majeski wrote, “Based on
external demand and medium contribution margin for undergraduate and high external demand and low
contribution for graduate, we identified opportunity to extend this department. We’re seeing ‘push’ demand via
students as well as ‘pull’ demand from employers (added emphasis on communication skills).” While there was
a dramatic increase in the number of students majoring in English in the past ten years before the last program
review, in the past five years our numbers have remained flat, which is still considerably better than the national
trend of declining enrollments in English and the Humanities (the declining College enrollment plays a role in
this “flatness” as well). The numbers indicate that the program is strong in attracting students who find it
rewarding, and the contribution margin in our undergraduate program is still high.
In the report to follow, we repeat some of what went into our last program review: the creation of a
Director for Literature in a Global Context, this time not only to oversee the teaching of E. 1100C in the Core
but to oversee the development of global studies throughout our curriculum and work closely with the Office of
Global Studies; and a Director of Creative Writer, this time not only to develop our undergraduate minor and to
build bridges between departments in the College and English and between other schools and the College, but
also to oversee the development of writing courses throughout our curriculum. We have also projected a series
of hires in a recent three-year plan requested by the provost that would further enhance our offerings and make
us among the strongest departments in the nation. New hires would lead to new courses, further enhancing the
program.
Faculty in recent years have been awarded major grants by outside agencies, including the NEH, and
have published articles and books in leading journals and presses. Our students have been admitted to leading
law schools (Yale, St John’s, Connecticut, U Penn) and PhD programs (Columbia, Brown, Oxford, Maryland,
Indiana U, USC, University of California at Irvine, Rice, Notre Dame). These are some markers of the success
the program has been attaining regularly.
STANDARD 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s
University, and the program’s School/College.
1a.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the Catholic, Vincentian, and
metropolitan identity of St. John’s University? www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
From Medieval Drama, to the study of Chaucer, James Joyce and Flannery O’Connor, many of our
courses reflect intense engagement with Catholicism, studying the intersection of religion and literature over
centuries and across borders. The coursework in the English major furthers Vincentian values: all sections of
English 1100c and 2150c engage with themes of social justice, such as slavery, colonialism, and poverty. Many
upper-level courses also explore social justice themes, for instance in the study of African, Caribbean, and other
postcolonial literatures. Many sections of 1100c and 2150c as well as upper-level English courses incorporate a
significant service learning experiences, and the English department sponsors the Writing Center’s initiative to
bring writing center tutors to Bread and Life, where they reach out to those less fortunate and help them learn
Self-Study Template 2
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
the art of self-expression in writing. The English Department’s BA program is also intensely metropolitan, with
visits to poetry readings, museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and American Museum of Natural
History, and attendance at plays at the Brooklyn Academy of Music and elsewhere. The department brings in
scholars, writers, artists, and activists from the city to meet and speak with students throughout the year.
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision.
www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission/vision-statement. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
The BA in English empowers diverse learners by imparting literary, cultural, and historical knowledge
as well as crucial skills in critical reading, persuasive and analytical writing, and research. Through innovative
teaching, research and service, we foster rational, spirited inquiry. All our courses are writing intensive, geared
toward teaching our majors and minors how to present clear and articulate arguments. Our student-centered
approach is shaped by a caring, nimble culture. Research is emphasized as a way of showing our students how
to fit their views into a larger context of critical inquiry. Students with a BA in English from St. John’s have the
skills for written and oral communication essential to success in a world increasingly in need of people capable
of critical thinking and analytic writing abilities. Our students emerge with a deep knowledge of issues of
poverty and social justice, gained through a study of literature and culture, giving them a broader sense of the
world and of humanity.
1c.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the
program’s School/College? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
The BA in English lends students a deep, living knowledge of literature, history, and culture; such
knowledge enables them to participate in a world with some sense of its complex conditions and the history of
human thought. We have broadened the scope of the BA in English beyond a rigorous study of traditional
literature to include courses in film studies, creative writing, composition theory, Caribbean and other
postcolonial literatures, and hip-hop studies. In all of these, and in our more traditional courses, we seek the
highest standards of scholarly inquiry and creative expression. We have broadened and deepened our
commitment to making English 1100c the best way to introduce all St. John’s first-year students to the literary
experience. The BA in English program, with its emphasis on writing and global education, unites the most
valuable aspects of a humanities education.
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Self-Study Template 3
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
High School Average
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
1150
1147
1127
1144
1157
89
88
89
90
91
School/
College
1104
1099
1085
1093
1093
88
88
88
88
89
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Computed
ENG
Fall 2012
Computed
1,125
Fall 2013
Computed
1,154
Computed
1,150
1,127
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
ENG
Fall 2012
High School
89
Fall 2013
High School
89
High School
88
88
SAT Scores
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - Q
1089
1077
1087
1098
88
88
88
88
Total University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
Self-Study Template 4
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
SAT
Test-Takers
Intended College Major
Mean Scores
Number Percent (%) Critical Reading
English Language and Literature
2,072
1.5%
Mathematics
Total
512
1070
558
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2b.
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
Program
83%
89%
79%
80%
88%
40
34
85%
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
Total
ENG
46
2010
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
37
80%
9
20%
Total
41
2011
Returned
DNR
Total
#
%
#
%
32
78%
9
22%
2012
Returned
30
DNR
#
%
#
%
20
67%
10
33%
Total
Returned
27
DNR
#
%
#
%
20
74%
7
26%
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
Self-Study Template 5
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Program
64%
64%
83%
45%
65%
School/
College
Average Rate
61%
59%
58%
60%
57%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
ENG
Fall 2004 cohort
Total Graduated
27 17
63%
Fall 2005 cohort
Total Graduated
24 19
79%
Fall 2006 cohort
Total Graduated
35 24
69%
Fall 2007 cohort
Total Graduated
25 17
68%
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
Comments: Refer to Charts 2a – 2d in your response. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
The English Department at St. John’s offers a B.A. that compares favorably with our peer as well as
aspirational institutions. We offer a curriculum that reflects the standards that the field has evolved as well as
additional course offerings that reflect new developments in the discipline. In making the gateway to the major
a Core class, English 1100 Global Literature, and staffing it with full-time tenured faculty and our doctoral
students under our mentorship, we offer a cutting-edge curriculum. In requiring distribution requirements—
four courses that reflect the four major historical periods in the field of English and American literature—as
well as a theory class and an introduction to the major, the B.A. English program at St. John’s conforms to a
Self-Study Template 6
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
rigorous curriculum that is shared by demanding English programs across the country. We also ask that our
students take an additional four classes of their choice, and they do so, taking advantage of the wide variety of
academic specialties represented by the department. In addition to the traditional historically-defined fields of
the discipline, we’re also a department that can field courses in Post-Colonial literature, Film, interdisciplinary
topics, Ethnic American literature, and creative writing.
Perhaps the way our department compares most favorably to our aspirational institutions is in our
capstone course, which is the senior seminar; the very best liberal-arts colleges and research universities
dedicate at least one of their courses to this format. Limited to fifteen students (and often smaller in Staten
Island), our senior seminars are demanding: students meet in a seminar format and eventually write a fifteen to
twenty-page research paper. For those undergraduate students who have shown particular talent and
motivation, as well as those who have achieved at a very high level (3.5 and above), we also offer a combined
five-year B.A./M.A. program; this allows juniors and seniors to take one graduate class in each semester of their
last two years, allowing them to complete their undergraduate work while simultaneously preparing them for a
full-time M.A. load in their fifth and final years. Students are enthusiastic about the additional challenges this
option offers as well as the way it accelerates (and makes more affordable) the acquisition of a graduate degree.
Our SAT scores are higher than the average in the College or the University. Our peer institutions are
roughly similar, but we are not as high as our aspirational institutions. We shd be aiming at scores over 1200.
Our retention rates are slightly above the rates of the College and roughly the same as our peer
institutions. We are far below the retention rates of our aspirational institutions, which we believe is a function
of the University’s mission to the poor and underserved, many of whom cannot afford to return to St John’s.
Our graduation rates have remained steadily (sometimes significantly) above the rates of the College and
University, and are also above some of our peer institutions; we are below our aspirational institutions.
2f.
If applicable, describe the program’s student performance over the past five years on licensure or professional
certification exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
NA
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of
Students
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
184
193
200
240
234
Minors
21
25
32
39
36
Total
205
218
232
279
270
Self-Study Template 7
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
MAJORS
ENG
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
BA
212
192
150
137
17
15
17
16
229
207
167
153
BA/MA
Total
MINORS
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
English
26
22
22
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
2h.
20
283
246
212
197
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
BA
35
47
54
44
57
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred
SJC -UG-Q
ENG
English
BA
72
56
52
Self-Study Template 8
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS
website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 23-English Language and
Literature/Letters.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Bachelors
Local
944
978
906
National
53,231
52,744
53,767
1
Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national
patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
In our last program review we stated, “We are pleased to report that, in contrast to national trends, the
number of students majoring in English at St. John's has increased significantly (up 71% since 1996), from 156
students in 2004 to 222 in 2009 (Queens). This is in marked contrast to national enrollment trends for English:
"with the exception of the single year 2001, the number of bachelor's degrees in English per 100 bachelor's
degrees overall has decreased slightly every year since 1992" ("Trends in Bachelor's Degree Awards, 1989-90
to 2005-06").” Since 2009, there has been a decline in majors, and this is consistent in national trends
throughout the country, in peer institutions as well as the most elite institutions. The enrollment in St John’s
College has undergone a significant decline, exacerbating the decline in the number of majors.
Numbers reported by the dean’s office differ significantly from those in the chart: the English major on
Queens has almost 20 more students than reported, and 15 more minors. The chart also does not report the
number of students from the School of Education who take our “major” as their “concentration (33 credits):
there were 31 students from the School of Ed concentrating in English last year. So the decline is not as steep
as it seems, and is consistent with national trends. We expect as enrollment in SJC increases, and as the
Humanities makes a “comeback,” our enrollment will soon be increasing.
The number of degrees granted has decreased slightly every year, both nationally and regionally, while
our rate (which spiked to 72 one year) has remained steady.
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)
Self-Study Template 9
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
The Department of English has developed several new strategies to foster student engagement and
monitor progress. We focus closely on the advising process of our majors and minors, sending out a timed
series of email blasts that detail registration dates and procedures; that pair students with specific advisors. The
Department sends out detailed narrative course descriptions each semester to all its majors and minors and
regularly distributes detailed information regarding program requirements and prerequisites.
The students expressed their satisfaction in these efforts to communicate and to watch over this
important process. We also targeted students that we may label “at risk” by first identifying those students
whose major GPAs were under 2.5 or whose overall GPAs were under 2.0. This allowed their advisors to take
extra care in advising and counseling. We are planning to hold advising meetings for such students and help
them develop strategies for dealing with their issues. We also met with the Freshmen Center to facilitate
communication between the Department of English and freshmen who expressed interest in the major. One of
the challenges facing us is the current job market that has everyone nervous about future employment. To
encourage our students to remain optimistic, we hold a “Jobs Seminar” in the spring semester, with a diverse
panel describing the different job paths there are in English. We partner with the Career Services, inviting them
to our classes and sending students to the designated liaison.
2j.
If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or
attending graduate school. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
Our students continue to be successful in job searches and in graduate school admissions, even in the
current challenging economy. Many of our undergraduates have continued in the master’s degree program, and
we anticipate that approval of our Ph.D. program will continue to strengthen the overall program in English
studies
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your response using data provided
below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Our undergraduate majors populate the Writing Center as consultants working with students across the entire
University. They edit and write for the Humanities Review, the interdisciplinary undergraduate publication
circulated throughout the University and beyond it. They edit and write for Sequoya, the University’s
undergraduate literary magazine as well as for The Torch, the University’s student newspaper. We consider
these practical examples of the ways our students have shown the usefulness of our program
Self-Study Template 10
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
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
1) Mission
The English department has engaged in consistent and thorough strategic planning for its undergraduate
programs. We have added faculty in several areas and proposed new courses. We assess our program goals and
objectives throughout the year at department meetings and annually at our faculty retreat. Our commitment to
innovative scholarship and teaching create, in the words of the University’s mission, “an atmosphere in which
scholarly research, imaginative methodology, and an enthusiastic quest for truth serve as the basis of a vital
teaching/learning process and the development of lifelong learning.” To promote this atmosphere, our faculty
members work closely with students to help them present their research during Student Research Week. The
Department’s Honor Society also sponsors a mentoring program, pairing seniors with freshmen and newly
declared majors. The literary magazine, the Sequoya, sponsors an “Open Mic” event, a project designed by
English majors in the Honor Society, and that encourages students to present their creative writing in a
supportive environment.
The strength and breadth of our faculty’s research interests means that our BA curriculum offers both
the traditional study of English and American literature, as well as an expanded canon of global literatures. Our
Self-Study Template 11
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
undergraduate students become familiar with their textual culture and learn to analyze literary and cultural texts
in their interdisciplinary contexts. BA students extend their development of certain core methodologies (critical
reading, writing, and research) and have the opportunity for advanced practice in creative and expository
writing.
2b) Student Engagement
The English Department has an emphatically student-centered curriculum. We emphasize the
complementary relationship between student choice of courses and conscientious faculty mentoring. We put a
premium on advising our English majors and English minors, ensuring that that every student is paired with an
advisor who then monitors his or her progress through the major. Every semester, printed brochures are
circulated with detailed descriptions of the next semester’s course, to keep students updated and enable them to
make informed curricular choices in consultation with their advisors. There is thus always real communication
between the department and students about curricular choices, goals, and standards. Student reactions show how
well we are serving them: the department shows consistently high enrollments and excellent student
evaluations. We boast an excellent retention of students in the major, and our students report very high
satisfaction with the program.
Just as many of our new courses represent responses to student demand, we have instituted and are
planning curricular changes that will better serve our students. This is a prime example of the crucial connection
between pedagogy and research that defines our department and makes it one of the strongest in the university.
Education research has continually pointed to the ways that college faculty who are actively involved in
their students’ intellectual experiences outside of the class ensure that students have higher retention, are more
successful academically, and are more intellectually stimulated by their classroom studies. To this end, the
English department, under the leadership of Dr. Sicari, has made a concerted and protracted effort to work with
students both inside and outside of our courses resulting in a vibrant community of student-scholars, a collegial
atmosphere amongst faculty, and increased student interest in the major and Ph.D. program. Many hallmark
events and activities have invigorated the work of the department and increased student engagement:

Professor Brown coordinates many events to showcase the creative writing of students and the works of
prominent creative writers in the country.

Dr. Lubey and Professor Brownstein share duties as joint faculty advisors for the department’s honor
society, Sigma Tau Delta. They work with the department’s honors students to host events for students
in the major as well as other majors.

Many of the department’s undergraduate majors work in the Writing Center where they attend national
and regional conferences with the director of the Writing Center, to share their experiences as tutors
with a larger national and regional audience.
Self-Study Template 12
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q

The department has coordinated several career colloquia over the last 5 years for students in the
department about career opportunities for English majors after graduation. Most of the panelists were
SJU graduates.

Dr. Lubey coordinates a series of workshops for both BA and MA students in the department about the
application process for graduate school that includes: selecting a program, writing the personal
statement, choosing a writing sample, etc.

Dr. Ahmad coordinates a series called “Bookmarks” where English faculty members discuss their
recently published books with students and share the processes of both research and publication in the
field. Each event has been attended by more than 50 students, both graduate and undergraduate.
2c) Globalization
The department’s expectation for student breadth and depth of literatures across time and space
alongside its intellectual and social frameworks for studying literature, language, and learning make it perfectly
suited to fulfill the mission of globalization at the university. Collectively, the faculty represent add a rich
dimension to the context of the current reality and historical underpinnings of how globalization is defined
today. We have added a significant number of new courses that expand our offerings as well as addressing the
university’s commitment to Globalization. These include the upper-level undergraduate courses “Ethnic
Autobiography,” “20th-century Circum-Caribbean,” “Comparative Migration,” and “Race and Speculation.” In
conjunction with the university’s globalization initiative, the department created the core course English 1100C:
“Literature in a Global Context.” A number of our faculty members teach this course, bringing their diverse
interests and literary expertise to bear on an important core course that excites freshmen about pursuing literary
study in an international context. A special section of this 1100c course, Global Passport, has been earmarked
for freshmen, allowing them to go abroad at a low program cost.
If provided the necessary resources, we also intend to implement our program goals via the creation of a
director position for Global Literature. The Director of Global Literature would oversee the teaching of 1100C,
the literature course in the University Core. As a writing-intensive course and as a multicultural course,
introducing students to literature as a global (as opposed to a merely Anglo-American) phenomenon, this core
course functions in two essential ways to the Development of the University's mission, and it requires the
oversight of someone expert both in writing and in global literature. This directorship will oversee within the
department the emerging field of global literature and help develop that part of our various programs.
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?
Strengths
Self-Study Template 13
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
While the department faces the same threat that every discipline in the humanities is confronting, the
unique strength of the St. John’s English department lies in the diversity of our faculty and our student body.
Recent hires in Caribbean postcolonial literature, African American literature, and Asian American literature
have enhanced our local and national reputation. Our expanded faculty means that not only offer courses in
traditional fields like medieval, Renaissance and Victorian literature, but also in emerging fields like Caribbean
literature, vernacular literature, digital humanities, and race theory. With new initiatives at both federal and
corporate levels aimed at increasing diversity, the heterogeneity of our faculty and the immense diversity of our
student body—many of whom are non-traditional students—give us a strong advantage over similar programs
nation-wide.
Internally speaking, the department has taken acute measures to respond to the general decline in
humanities enrollment. With the hopes of attracting potential students, we have increased our participation at
events like Open House, Major Fairs, and student days. To raise the profile of the English department, each year
we put out a newsletter describing the accomplishments of our faculty and the achievements of our students.
Since 2010, the department has worked to increase our online visibility by maintaining a department blog
(http://stjenglish.com/), which announces upcoming events, faculty awards, student accomplishments, and
registration deadlines. We have also been working closely with the Freshmen Center to attract potential majors
and to increase the retention rates of our declared majors and minors. This fall, we have augmented our efforts
to support our current majors and minors by implementing a new electronic advisement schedule, which keeps
track of which students are paired with which advisor, and logs the time and date of advisement sessions. This
database, which exists online as a Google document, allows all faculty members to track their advisees at a
glance, and it enables the department as a whole to quickly identify which students require additional support.
Weaknesses
There is a national trend in the decline of humanities enrollment, a decline exacerbated by the extensive
economic downturn of the past several years. Job prospects for graduating seniors have been bleak, especially
for humanities majors. Mindful of these decreased employment opportunities, the English department has
partnered with the University’s Career Services to identify fruitful student internships on the path to
employment. In conjunction with Career Services, we have organized sessions designed to aid students in their
job search. Several of these panels have featured SJU alumni who have found positions in publishing, non-profit
work, and education.
While we have made a concerted – and successful – effort to increase the diversity of our faculty, we
will need support from the university to continue in this important direction, in order to have a faculty that is
representative of our student body.
Opportunities
The department’s sense of its long-term curricular success would be enhanced with information that the
administration does not supply: detailed alumni contact information from the Office of Alumni Affairs, and
routine surveys of students and graduates undertaken by the Office of Institutional Research (or some other
office of the administration). The department has done its best to collect anecdotal feedback from alums about
our curriculum, but it does not have the support or resources to do this work systematically. With these
resources, we will be able to better streamline our curricular offerings and extra-curricular activities to fast-track
student success after graduation and on through the job market.
Self-Study Template 14
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
The department’s growing reputation can be further enhanced through a guest speaker series (poets,
fiction writers, scholars, performance artists, activists) or a visiting scholar appointment. This will increase
student engagement at the extra-curricular level and enhance the regional profile of the University. Funding for
such events would make St. John’s more visible as a site for intellectual culture, an attract more students both
across the university and regionally.
The department sees an opportunity to develop its offerings in composition studies and in creative
writing, as part of both the graduate and undergraduate programs. We would like to hire more writers to our
faculty, and a more diverse set of writers, in order to bring our faculty and course offerings in line with other
institutions in the region. Fordham, Hofstra, Adelphi, Queens and Brooklyn College all have taken advantage
of their locations in New York and hired extraordinary writers in full-time and visiting positions, in order to
bring the literary culture of the city to their campuses. We would like St. John’s to do the same. We will be
asking for a Director of Creative Writing, to coordinate this effort and to develop our minor and publicize it
throughout the College and the University. (This Director will also oversee writing in our graduate programs.)
Threats
With regard to external threats to the department, we do not see ourselves competing with similar
undergraduate programs at neighboring institutions like Hofstra or Adelphi.
Competitive Edge
The competitive edge of our program lies in the diversity of our faculty and their research interests and
the diversity of our student body. As an external review of the English department recently concluded, our
program has managed to attract and maintain the diversity of our student body at a level that better-funded
programs have aspired to but been unable to achieve. The competitive edge of our faculty lies in its unique
combination of emerging fields like writing studies, digital humanities, cultural studies and creative writing
with the traditional fields. This competitive edge has been cultivated by university support in the form of
research reductions, new faculty hires and other program support. The new PhD program in English enhances
the department’s reputation and makes the undergraduate programs more attractive.
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.
As the data provided by the Office of Institutional Research shows, the current and future market
demand for the program is positive, but not robust. Projections for the period 2010-2020 show a growth of 6%
for the typical occupations associated with a degree in literature: employment opportunities for writers and
authors are expected to grow by 6%, for proofreaders and copy markers at 6%, and for editors at 1%. However,
anecdotal data suggests a growing demand in non-traditional occupations for the reading, writing, and critical
analysis skills distinctive to English majors and minors. Individual faculty members have reported student
employment in law enforcement administration, non-profit organizations, and K-12 education. While numbers
for projected employment trends across the humanities is low, 2012 data from the United States Department of
Labor reports a 11.1% growth rate for positions in education, training, and library occupations
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t06.htm). Numbers for adjacent career paths are also positive:
occupations in the legal sector are expected to increase by 10.7% and jobs in the arts and media are expected to
grow by 7%.
Self-Study Template 15
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education
and training projected.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
Writers and Authors
6%
9,500
Proofreaders and Copy Markers
6%
4,100
Editors
1%
800
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Writers and Authors
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
6%
9,500
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much slower than average – Increase 1 to 6%
Percent
Numeric
Writers and Authors
6%
9,500
Proofreaders and Copy Markers
6%
4,100
Editors
1%
800
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
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
Disciplinary Standards
Self-Study Template 16
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
The extraordinary success of the English program's BA curriculum — in terms of its academic rigor and
breadth, and student retention---has been driven by the high caliber of its research faculty. Outstanding student
satisfaction with the department's curriculum over the past 20 years—evidenced by a tripled BA enrollment since
1
1997, and by retention rates around 80%---has been fostered by the university’s support for research. Without this
support, the English department will have difficulty supporting, retaining, and recruiting the kinds of faculty who have
made this program's curriculum so successful.
The English program offers rigorous training in close reading, critical theory, and historical scholarship of a wide
range of literatures. Our faculty teach with the liveliness and expertise that only active scholars can offer to students
beginning their literary studies. Most courses in the major are taught by highly productive research faculty, active
scholars in their fields and dynamic teachers who bring their scholarly excitement into the classroom to engage students.
Our curriculum is carefully sequenced to offer a rigorous introduction to the terms and methods of literary study, in
English 2200 (Introduction to English Studies) and 2300 (Introduction to Literary Theory). Thereafter, we encourage
students to choose their own paths among a wide range of course offerings that cover the major periods and geographical
areas of Anglophone literature. To serve our 200+ majors, the department presently offers 24 upper-level courses for the
major at Queens (with multiple sections), and 6 on Staten Island. We are unusual among comparable English
departments in offering many creative writing courses to our students: these courses are taught by acclaimed poets and
fiction writers and are among our most popular offerings.
Our upper level BA curriculum offers the study of English, American and World Anglophone literature,
including the traditional national literatures of England and America as well as an expanded canon of global literatures
written in English; the major also featuresfilm and performance studies. Our undergraduate students become familiar
with their textual culture and learn to analyze literary and cultural texts in their interdisciplinary contexts. BA students
extend their development of certain core methodologies (critical reading, writing, and research) and have the
opportunity for advanced practice in creative and expository writing.
We have been very active in adding new undergraduate courses to our roster in recent years. These courses
show the intellectual excitement that is sparked by the combination of faculty research interests with a student-centered
curriculum. Some of our new courses offering innovative theoretical and cultural approaches include “African
American Women’s Discourses,” “Reading the Body: Race, Gender and Text,” “Writing as Social Action,”
“Comparative Migrations,” and several new courses in film studies. These new courses have been well received by
students and work to enhance our reputation as a department with strengths in creative writing and pedagogy. Our
recent hires of specialists in composition and rhetoric have made a noticeable and positive impact on the department and
have significantly enhanced our specialty in pedagogy. Our most recent hires, one in Caribbean Literature and the other
in contemporary African American Literature and Culture, are currently teaching and developing new courses that will
enhance our offerings even further.
2. Curriculum Integrity, etc
The BA program in English aligns with the University’s goals for a curriculum with integrity and coherence as
well as programs that emphasize teaching vibrancy and excellence. Students are given a firm, coherent foundation in the
range of what English as a discipline has to offer, with courses such as a dedicated sections of Literature in a Global
Context, then onto Introduction to English Studies and Introduction to Literary Theory. Majors then progress on a path
through historical divisions, ending with a capstone class of a Senior Seminar. Our courses from various divisions offer
a global perspective that encourages students to connect their literary studies to real world relevancy.
Students are encouraged to pursue academic internships for credit that help them to gain real world experience using
skills developed as an English major. Recent examples include internships at Teachers & Writers Collaborative, Poets
House, Simon and Schuster, Penguin, Late Night with David Letterman, Rachel ray Show, law offices, non-profits, and
governmental agencies (City Hall, for example).
Professors Steve Mentz, Raj Chetty and Robert Fanuzzi have created innovative intersession literary study
abroad courses for undergraduate credit and our faculty regularly encourages English majors to study abroad for a
semester to widen their experience with and as a basis for literary and cultural studies. Working with the Global Studies,
Self-Study Template 17
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
we recently approved a course called “Italy in English Literature” for students studying in Rome. Meanwhile, in the
summer and fall of 2009, Dr. Denny helped to launch a new DNY course where students started their studies
in Rome in the summer and finished their semester in the fall at the St. John’s Queens campus. This has
become a regular feature of our offerings, especially with 1100C.
3. The University Core competencies
Because of the nature of the reading and writing that scholars engage in the field of English Studies, the faculty of
the English department —well-respected scholars and researchers—are particularly well-suited to offer students an
accurate and rigorous reflection of the discipline. Thus, students in the department experience their classrooms as critical
spaces where they learn to read, write, and understand the most current methods, theories, and trends of the field.
The program goals and outcomes of the department have been designed so that students will extend their
development of critical reading, and thinking, and writing; understand literary research and design their own new
projects; demonstrate knowledge of literary criticism, cultural theory, and historical frameworks of literary production;
and have the opportunity for advanced practice in creative and expository writing. These program goals and outcomes
extend and deepen the University Core Competencies (UCC), particularly the UCC’s emphasis on research, critical
thinking and reading, writing skills, and sharp ability to evaluate sources, making the department a strong pedagogical
ally for the vision of competency that the university expects each St. John’s graduate to attain. Our students learn to
navigate an increasingly challenging set of reading and writing requirements as they move through the courses of the
department. The curriculum for English 2200 (Introduction to English Studies) and 2300 (Introduction to Literary
Theory) are continually revisited by the faculty since these courses have been designed to offer students a kind of
scaffolding into the literacy demands of the major.
Students are expected to demonstrate the ability to write skillfully in all courses in the English department, for both
undergraduate and graduate, since all courses are largely writing-intensive. In the fall of 2009, faculty began extensive
conversations about English 2200 in a department meeting and followed-up with a week-long email discussion where
faculty shared 2200 syllabi. This conversation about 2200 led to yearly discussions at our annual retreat about
that course and how writing was taught in all our courses. Over the past three years, we have been assessing
both 2200 and our senior seminars, seeking ways to make sure our intro course and our capstone course
demonstrate and achieve the program’s goals. In all undergraduate courses, students are expected to demonstrate
their understanding through an array of writing activities: short-answer quizzes and exams, take-home essay exams,
extended essays, poetry, extended creative works, and action research.
Students are expected to demonstrate proficiency in information literacy and the ability to think critically across the
curriculum since the major is designed to introduce students to a variety of literary and critical texts. On average, students
read 8 full-length texts in the course of a semester and a large array of critical essays alongside these texts. In their
discussion and essays for the courses, undergraduate students are also expected to remain in dialogue with and extend
what they learned in 2300 (Introduction to Literary Theory) as a way to continually bridge their reading with critical
theory throughout the major.
Students are consistently offered the opportunity to demonstrate skill in oral presentation in the seminar-style of
interaction and active learning that characterizes the pedagogy of faculty in the department. In undergraduate classes,
students are expected to formally present their final projects, synopses of the weeks’ readings, and be active and vocal
participants in classroom discussions.
4b.
The syllabi for the courses within this program incorporate the suggested elements of a syllabus – an example of
which can be found at the following St. John’s University Center for Teaching and Learning link. (Suggested limit 1/3
page) http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
The syllabi for courses within the English Department at both the undergraduate and graduate levels,
adhere to and often exceed the suggested elements of the syllabus as suggested by St. John’s University Center
Self-Study Template 18
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
for Teaching and Learning. The syllabi are clearly written, areas of competency and assessment are clearly
delineated, and coursework and expectations are succinctly stated. Students are given both learning goals and
course outcomes, which helps them to measure what they were intended to learn with what they actually
learned. The English Department does an excellent job of incorporating the suggested elements of the syllabus.
The English department regularly does peer-review of all department syllabi, including those from adjuncts and
graduate students. In fall 2014, the department performed a comprehensive updating of all course outlines and
syllabi for Middle States review. We devote a department meeting at the beginning of each semester to review
all syllabi and we use these discussions to drive our assessment meetings.
4c.
Describe the assessment model currently in place for the program and indicate the extent to which disciplinary
and core knowledge, competence, and values are met, as well as findings and action plans for improvement. For
reference, visit WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Program assessment is carried out each year, culminating in our annual retreat in May. Each year we assess
one or more goals and outcomes, devising a method for collecting materials and performing the assessment as a
group.
In 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, assessment of student writing was conducted by the English department The
particular learning objectives that were assessed in the first case (English 2200 Introduction to English Studies)
were the extent to which students could write in effective critical expository prose and could conduct library
research, and in the second instance (English 2100 and 3490), the extent to which students could do research,
integrate their research into a coherent argument, and write a final research paper based on their work. See
below for the full reports on these assessment activities. The first assessment exercise, involving English 2200
Introduction to English Studies, showed that in general, 80% of the students scored a Very Good or Excellent
on the end-of-the-semester Assessment Exercise with no more than 10% scoring as Poor ( 90% did Excellent or
Very Good on the Research component and 80% doing Excellent or Very Good on the Writing component). In
the second assessment exercise, 100% of the students met the requirements for Rubric 1 (Finding appropriate
and relevant research materials), while 50% met the requirements for Rubric 2 (Integration of secondary sources
into student’s original argument). In the first Assessment Exercise (done in May 2013), the Department
resolved to emphasize further the research component of the course and “to invite the research librarian to our
3000-level” divisional courses, “to assess the syllabi in those courses,” and finally to assess “the proposals and
the final research papers in the [3000-level] courses.” In the second Assessment Exercise (done in spring 2014),
the Department resolved to continue to review what “research” consists of in such courses, given developments
in the digital humanities and to continue to evaluate how the department can strengthen the writing, analytical,
and argumentative skills of our students.
I.
Assessment: Intro to English Major
(English 2200)
UEPC
May 2013
Learning objectives to be assessed:
1. Write papers that show strong skills in critical expository prose: narration, description,
summary, paraphrase, and quotation; thesis, argument, evidence, inference, tone, irony,
connotation, denotation, and metaphor.
2. Conduct library research and use reference material in different media: hardbound,
microfilm, and computer.
Self-Study Template 19
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
Materials assessed:
Final Research proposals: 5 from each section (10 total)
Final research proposals: 5 from each section (10 total)
Target: 80% of students Very Good (3) or Excellent (4); no more than 10% Poor (1)
Objective #2: Research skills
Research Proposal Assignment:
 4 proposals received a score of 4; 5 received a score of 3; 1 received a score of 2; none
received a score of 1.
Results: 90% of students Very Good or Excellent; none Poor; 40% Excellent.
Objective #1: Writing skills
Research papers:
 5 received a score of 4; 3 received a score of 3; 2 received a score of 2; none received a score
of 1.
Results: 80% of students Very Good or Excellent; 20% Fair; none Poor.
Targets met in both sets of materials.
Action Plan: Though we are preparing students well to write research papers, we want to emphasize this
aspect of our programs more explicitly and directly. We plan to invite the research librarian to our
3000-level electives, and to assess the syllabi in those courses, as well as the proposals and the final
research papers in the courses.
II.
Degree Program Assessed: BA English (Spring 2014)
Learning Outcome(s) to be Measured: #3 Research
Target Course #(s) and Instructor(s) to Conduct Measurement:
E 2100 Sicari
E 3490 Sicari
Instructor Section
Type of Assignment(s) for Learning Outcome Measurement:
Final papers (Random sample of six from each course)
Rubric for Measurement:
1) Appropriate and relevant research materials: 1) Excellent, 2) good,3) fair, 4) poor
Self-Study Template 20
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
2) Integration of secondary sources into student’s original argument:
4) poor
1) Excellent, 2) good, 3) fair,
Target: 90% of students will score 1 or 2.)
Findings:
Target was met
1) 100% of students found appropriate and relevant materials research materials; ie., scored a 1
2) six of twelve (50%) received an aggregate score of 1 on integration. Five of six received score of 2.
One received a 4.
2014 Action plan: Even though target was met, we have an action of plan of working to review what we
mean by “research,” to expand that notion to include digital humanities and other forms of expansion of
argument in professional ways.
In May 2015, we assessed both sections of E. 2200 and both senior seminars. The following were the results:
BA in English assessment:
We chose to assess goals #1 and #2 this year:
I.
II.
Demonstrate highly developed critical reading and writing skills.
Demonstrate understanding of the basics of research.
We did this through assessment of random student samples from two sections of English 2200 (Introduction to
the English Major) and two sections of the senior seminar. Dr Sicari and Dr Rice taught 2200, and Dr Tsou and
Dr Ganter taught the seminars. For English 2200, each professor chose ten papers randomly from his/her class;
for the seminars, five papers were selected by each professor to be assessed.
The UEPC devised rubrics for these two goals:
1 = superior 2 = good 3 = fair 4 = poor NA = not applicable
Goal #1:
Did the student have a clear and significant thesis for his /her paper?
Did the student develop an organized argument moving in clear progression toward a meaningful goal?
Goal #2:
Did the student find valid and relevant sources for research?
Did the student integrate that research into his/her own argument?
English 2200:
Self-Study Template 21
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
For Goal #1, we projected for the Introduction to English Studies course that 80 % of the students would receive
scores 1 or 2, and that there would be no more than 10% scoring a 4. For Goal #2, we projected that at least
70% of the students would get a score of 1 or 2, and that no more than 10% would receive a 4.
The results:
For Goal #1, question #1: 8 students received 1; 9 students received 2; 3 students received 3. Therefore, 17 out
of 20 received 1 or 2 (85%), and no student received a 4. Target met. Action plan: continue to monitor.
For Goal #1, question #2: 9 students received 1; 8 students received 2; 3 students received 3. Therefore, 17 out
of 20 received 1 or 2 (85%), and no student received a 4. Target met. Action plan: continue to monitor.
Senior seminars:
For Goal #1, we projected for the seminars that 90 % of the students would receive scores 1 or 2, and that no
student would receive a 4. For Goal #2, we projected that at least 80% of the students would get a score of 1 or
2, and that none would receive a 4.
The results:
For Goal #1, question 1: 8 students received 1, 2 students received 2. Therefore, 100 % of the students received
1 0r 2. Target met. ACTION Plan: continue to monitor.
For Goal #1, question #2: 4 students received 1; 4 students received 2; 2 students received 3. Therefore, 80 %
of the students received 1 0r 2. Target met. ACTION Plan: continue to monitor.
For Goal #2, question #1: 8 students received 1; 2 students received 2. Therefore, 100 % of the students
received 1 0r 2. Target met. ACTION Plan: continue to monitor.
For Goal #2, question #2: 7 students received 1; 2 students received 2; 1 student received 3. Therefore, 90 % of
the students received 1 0r 2. Target met. ACTION Plan: continue to monitor.
Overall assessment: while we met targets, we want to continue to emphasize research from the first course
through to the capstone, and will continue to hold departmental meetings to discuss this goal.
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality
has the program received? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Drs. Harry Denny and Anne Geller received the 2014 International Writing Centers Association Award for their
article, Of Ladybugs, Low Status, and Loving the Job: Writing Center Professionals Navigating their Careers,” in
The Writing Center Journal 33:1 (2013)
The IWS and WAC recently won the Writing Program of Excellence Award, March 2014, Conference on College
Composition and Communication (CCCC)
Anne Geller, Nominated for 2014 International Writing Association Outstanding Book Award (to be decided
Fall 2014)
Self-Study Template 22
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
Prof. Lee Ann Brown
Matching Funds Grant ($300) from Poets & Writers for Visiting Poet to St. John’s University, C.A. Conrad,
Fall 2013.
Dr. Scott Combs
Scholar in Residence, Ecole Nationale de Cirque in Montreal and Concordia University (ongoing)
Dr. Granville Ganter
2013-14. Grierson Fellow. Smith College, Sophia Smith Collection.
One month residency and $2500
Dr. Kathleen Lubey
Edith and Richard French Fellowship, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, 2014. In
support of research on book project “Marginal Conversation.”
Dr. Nicole Rice
ACLS Collaborative Research Fellowship (with Dr. Margaret A. Pappano, Queen’s University). This fellowship
was funded from September 1, 2011-May 31, 2013. Funding included $40,000 salary replacement for 2011-12
and a project fund of $17,400.
Dr. Melissa Mowry
James L. Clifford Award for the Best Article in Eighteenth-Century Studies
Dr. Jennifer Travis
McNair Scholars Mentor of the Year, 2013
Standard 4.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 5. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals.
5a.
Below you will find the number of students enrolled as majors and minors in the program. Please complete the
table by adding the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program. Then calculate the student to full-time faculty
ratio.
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Majors
178
6
184
188
Minors
20
1
21
25
Majors
& Minors
Combined
198
7
205
213
Total
FT
PT
5
5
Fall 2007
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2008
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2009
Total
FT
PT
Total
193
194
6
200
234
6
240
226
8
234
25
31
1
32
38
1
39
35
1
36
218
225
7
232
272
7
279
261
9
270
Self-Study Template 23
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
198.00
2.33
200.33
213.00
1.67
214.67
225.00
2.33
227.33
272.00
2.33
274.33
261.00
3.00
264.00
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned to
the
program
15
16
19
20
20
FTE
Student/FTE
Faculty
Ratio
13.5:1
13.4:1
12:1
13.5:1
13:1
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
226
10
236
215
Fall 2010
F
MINORS
5
Total
Minors Minors
33
1
34
F
P
Minors
24
7
180
Fall 2012
Total
1
F
156
25
Total
26
5
161
Fall 2013
F
26
Fall 2011
P
Total
Minors
Minors
24
2
26
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
259
11
270
239
6
245
199
7
206
180
7
187
Fall 2010
FTE MAJORS
173
Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors
Fall 2010
MAJORS/MINORS
220
Fall 2011
P
Minors
Total
Fall 2013
F
MAJORS
Total
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
239
2
241
199
259
3.667 262.667
2.333 201.333
180
2.333 182.333
Self-Study Template 24
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
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 STJ for all external reporting.
The figure for majors includes first and any second majors.
5b.
Below you will find the credit hours the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators) and the total credit hours consumed by non-majors.
Credit Hours
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
2244
29%
5370
68%
5889
66%
2142
45%
3540
78%
PT Faculty
5400
71%
2523
32%
3087
34%
2595
55%
1023
22%
Total
7644
100%
7893
100%
8976
100%
4737
100%
4563
100%
Taught
FT Faculty
% consumed by
Non-Majors
80%
79%
81%
69%
57%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 include English Composition.
Self-Study Template 25
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
2,622
56.0%
2,631
57.4%
2,580
48.2%
2,451
47.9%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
2,058
44.0%
1,956
42.6%
2,775
51.8%
2,661
52.1%
0.0%
Total
4,680
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
100%
2,838
0.0%
4,587
60.6%
0.0%
100%
2,826
5,355
61.6%
3,711
0.0%
100%
5,112
100%
69.3%
3,579
70.0%
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
88
69%
106
66%
39
48%
59
76%
FT Faculty
36
29%
PT Faculty
89
71%
40
31%
54
34%
43
52%
19
24%
Total
125
100%
128
100%
160
100%
82
100%
78
100%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 include English Composition.
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
40
56.3%
54
78.3%
F-T Faculty
Number
44
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
50.0%
47
54.0%
Self-Study Template 26
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
31
43.7%
15
0.0%
Total
71
100%
21.7%
44
0.0%
69
100%
50.0%
40
0.0%
88
100%
46.0%
0.0%
87
100%
Self-Study Template 27
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental information on next
page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Departmental Plan
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
11
58%
19
43%
Female
8
42%
25
Total
19
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
30
17
46%
12
46%
57%
33
20
54%
14
44
100%
63
37
100%
0%
3
7%
3
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
1
5%
1
2%
White
15
79%
38
Unknown
3
16%
Total
19
100%
Tenured
9
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
29
19
42%
8
36%
54%
34
26
58%
14
26
100%
63
45
100%
5%
2
8%
4
2
1
3%
0
0%
1
2
3
8%
1
4%
86%
53
31
84%
21
2
5%
5
0
0%
44
100%
63
37
100%
47%
9
10
10
53%
10
Not Applicable
0
0%
Total
19
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
27
13
52%
7
32%
64%
40
12
48%
15
22
100%
67
25
100%
4%
0
0%
2
1
2
4%
0
0%
2
4
3
7%
2
9%
81%
52
34
76%
15
2
8%
2
4
9%
26
100%
63
45
100%
27%
10
12
12
32%
12
0
15
41%
19
37
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
13
52%
3
25%
16
68%
27
12
48%
9
75%
21
22
100%
47
25
100%
12
100%
37
4%
2
9%
3
1
4%
1
8%
2
0
0%
1
5%
1
0
0%
1
8%
1
5
2
8%
2
9%
4
2
8%
1
8%
3
68%
49
20
80%
16
73%
36
20
80%
9
75%
29
5
23%
9
2
8%
1
5%
3
2
8%
0
0%
2
22
100%
67
25
100%
22
100%
47
25
100%
12
100%
37
27%
12
14
56%
14
15
60%
15
12
27%
12
11
44%
11
10
40%
10
15
21
47%
21
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
37
45
100%
45
25
100%
25
25
100%
25
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
Self-Study Template 28
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
12
48%
8
47%
Female
13
52%
9
53%
Total
25
1
17
1
4%
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
12
50%
3
30%
22
12
50%
7
70%
42
24
0%
1
1
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
15
12
50%
7
39%
19
12
50%
11
61%
34
24
0%
1
1
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
13
54%
11
52%
24
23
11
46%
10
48%
21
42
24
Gender
10
18
21
45
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
2
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
1
6%
1
8%
1
6%
3
0%
0%
4%
0%
1
10%
1
1
4%
1
10%
2
0
1
4%
0%
4%
0%
1
0%
1
5%
1
0%
3
14%
3
0%
2
11%
2
1
4%
2
11%
3
2
8%
2
10%
4
1
1
4%
0%
1
1
4%
0
0%
1
White
21
84%
12
71%
33
20
83%
6
60%
26
20
83%
12
67%
32
20
83%
13
62%
33
2 or More Races
1
4%
1
6%
2
1
4%
1
10%
2
1
4%
1
6%
2
1
4%
1
5%
2
0
0%
0
1
5%
1
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
Total
0%
25
2
17
12%
2
0%
42
24
1
10
10%
1
0%
34
24
1
18
6%
1
0%
42
24
21
45
Tenure Status
Tenured
16
64%
16
18
75%
18
20
83%
20
22
92%
22
Tenure-Track
9
36%
9
6
25%
6
4
17%
4
2
8%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Not Applicable
Total
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
Self-Study Template 29
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
The English faculty membership has been relatively stable in terms of racial diversity and gender equity over the past five years. In
terms of gender equity, departmental data shows that gender ratios are about 50% for full timers; the adjunct pool of faculty
fluctuates from year to year but has generally had a significant majority of women, recently about 75%.
In terms of racial diversity, the department faculty still does not yet match the diversity of student body but its membership has
been stable in the past 5 years. Our adjunct pool is more racially diverse than out full-time faculty, and our doctoral students, who
teach many sections of E. 1100C, are a racially diverse body, with at least 1/3 of our doctoral students who teach being people of
color.
Tenure is not broken down here in terms of gender or racial data.
Self-Study Template 30
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_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)
English department faculty continuously demonstrate their work as active teacher-scholars at the
individual, classroom, departmental, sub-disciplinary, and disciplinary levels. Through ongoing departmental
assessment activities, faculty share and discuss syllabi and thus pedagogical goals. In recent years, faculty have
been assessing together what constitutes student research within our undergraduate teaching, including types of
research products, teaching students how to conduct research, online and paper research projects. The
department’s faculty have also worked to reflect on the requirements and curriculum of the undergraduate and
graduate course sequences, utilizing institutional data as well as data from benchmark programs.
Department faculty have published two books representing cutting-edge scholarship in pedagogy,
mentoring, and university writing, one published by an internationally recognized private publisher (Routledge)
and the other two by one of the premier university press in Composition and Rhetoric studies (Utah State
University Press). One more book is currently under contract with the same university press. Combined with
numerous published articles, this scholarship represents the St. John’s College English department faculty’s
deep engagement with innovative research, and scholarship on teaching and learning in English. Articles have
been published in prestigious journals like Writing Program Administration, Writing Center Journal, English
Language Notes, Assessing Writing, College Composition and Communication, Composition Studies,
Experimental Literary Education, Pedagogy, the Harvard Education Review, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad, and in various edited collections.
Faculty have also regularly given international, national, and regional conference presentations on
teaching and learning in English, sometimes with undergraduate and graduate student co-panelists. To indicate
the department’s deep engagement in this scholarly activity, in just the last year faculty from the department
have spoken on topics related to teaching and learning in English at professional conferences (including a
keynote address) such as American Comparative Literature Association, Modern Language Association,
Council for Writing Program Administrators, International Writing Centers Association, Associated Writing
Programs, and the American Studies Association. Many of the department’s faculty are known nationally via
professional organizations for their important contributions to sub-disciplinary conversations about teaching and
learning in English. Some faculty in English are scholars with teaching responsibilities and explicit research
interests and agendas in teaching and learning in English, literature and creative writing, composition and
literacy studies, writing program administration, and writing across the curriculum. These faculty members have
secured grant monies from national and St. John’s University funding agencies, monies specifically designated
for pedagogical ends: a study of meaningful student writing experiences and work to develop interdisciplinary
education and an engaged humanities program. Finally, all faculty members’ research agendas and production
directly bear on their teaching and pedagogy.
It is worth special mention that our PhD students are engaged in research on teaching and pedagogy, and
they appear regularly at regional and national conferences representing the doctoral program and the University.
They are beginning to publish in journals on these issues as well.
5f.
What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty development in support of the
program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Although the department was marked for enhancement during the 2009 program review cycle, reduced
university finances have noticeably curtailed the hiring of faculty in areas of need. The department was able to
Self-Study Template 31
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
replace two faculty positions, but has been unable to replace losses in the composition and rhetoric program,
where one faculty member migrated to administration, and another compositionist was not replaced. We will be
searching during AY 2016 another replacement position. With very little funding, over the past two years the
program has nonetheless sought to develop faculty expertise in digital learning, inviting speakers to campus and
organizing graduate courses on the topic. Several faculty have been developing skills in digital humanities on
their own, pursuing new research on the topic and teaching digital skills in their coursework. Because of the
combined BA/MA program, and because most of the undergraduate faculty are also on the graduate faculty,
faculty development for the graduate program often has a positive impact on the BA program. The program
continues to sponsor lively discussion of faculty research with the "Bookmarks" series, where students and
faculty convene to discuss recent faculty book publications. Due to limited budget for honoraria, there has been
a noticeable lack of invited outside speakers to the program.
5g.
The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. If available, please provide
the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program
dollar amounts are available through departmental records.)
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
136,000
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
7,500
3,333
103,500
-
Self-Study Template 32
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_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)
English (Q)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.04
4.31
4.32
4.35
4.51
4.60
Saint John’s
3.95
4.01
4.00
4.28
4.33
4.33
College
Total
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Undergraduate
Note: Institutional Vibrancy is the average of the first 14 questions on the course evaluation, with questions pertaining
to course organization, communication, faculty-student interaction, and assignments/grading. All course evaluation
questions range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Teaching continues to be one of the great strengths of the English department. The collective "vibrancy"
score of the program is consistently above the college and university averages (the data does not distinguish
between adjunct and full time faculty). Although the program averages may not initially seem significantly
above college and university scores, at the top of the scale, increases in tenths of a percentage point are very
difficult to get and show that both part time and full time faculty in English are well-reviewed among students.
These numbers confirm anecdotal student comments that the English faculty are among the most dynamic
teachers in the university.
5i.
What percentage of full time faculty assigned to this program have terminal degrees or industry certifications
renewed within the past 2 years? Comment. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
100% of the full-time faculty have terminal degrees (PhD, DA, or MFA).
Standard 5.
Comments: Indicate to what extent the program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission
and goals. Include references from 5a – 5i. (Suggested limit 1 page)
The program has continued to foster a large, high quality major (187 students), and perform great
service to university (approximately 60% of its students are non-majors). Further, each year the program
typically supports 30-40 majors in Education, who also major in English, for which it receives little
acknowledgement from the university. As a group, the fulltime faculty are among the most distinguished
researchers in the university. Research productivity of the current faculty includes over 70 books and 150
articles, many in the discipline's best publication venues, and numerous national grants and awards by agencies
Self-Study Template 33
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
such as the NEH, the Folger library, the John Carter Brown library, and the American Antiquarian Association.
At the same time, faculty teaching evaluations are also far above university norms.
However, the program continues to employ a high percentage of adjuncts to teach its basic English and Core
courses. Adjunct faculty, mainly our own doctoral students, continue to teach about 50% of the program's
overall credit hours. Although these percentages are typical of national averages, they point to a need for more
fulltime faculty, for which there has been no additional university support in the past 5 years. The university
does fund a First Year Writing program, separate from the English program, but the English program still
employs approximately 25 adjuncts to cover its share of Business Writing and its Global Literature courses in
the University Core, as well as non-major literature electives. Further, the program's field coverage of courses
in English and American literature has also been steadily eroding over the past 15 years---at Queens, the
program has one medievalist, one early modernist, one eighteenth century-ist for English literature but none for
American, etc. The present fulltime faculty have shown extraordinary flexibility in designing creative courses to
compensate for the lack of field coverage. It has also developed strong faculty in postcolonial literary studies.
Although the program has a relatively diverse faculty, its full-timers are roughly 80% white, and further hires of
faculty of color would be needed to reflect the diversity of our student population.
Although Standard 5 seems to be asking for data about "the faculty" understood as a "resource," the academic
resources needed to support the extraordinary research output of the faculty include significant improvements in
travel and research budgets; IT support for digital humanities; and improved library book and database
acquisitions (ie: see Standard 6).
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
In addition to supporting one of the larger majors at the university, the English BA program provides
extraordinary service to the university, both through staffing Core courses in English as well as serving School
of Education students majors in English Education concentrations. It maintains a distinguished research faculty
with very high teaching evaluations. It has begun to develop faculty expertise in digital humanities. However, it
has a large adjunct faculty. It could use full-time hires in digital literacy, composition and rhetoric, Writing
Center Studies, Memoir Writing, as well as resources for recruiting and retaining faculty of color.
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)
Technology. English faculty continued to receive some resources that support research and teaching:
research reductions, research leaves, summer grants, travel money; this last remains inadequate, insufficient to
cover even one national conference per faculty member. There was a decline in research reductions in FY 2009
and 2010, but this support has returned in the past two years. Such support has encouraged the development of
an outstanding research and teaching faculty.
Self-Study Template 34
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
Inadequate library, research, and teaching resources continue to hamper the development of the
education of the BA student. Library database subscription is still insufficient for conducting research and for
assigning research to students, especially in upper-level courses and senior seminars that require secondary
research. Undergraduate skills in research and writing is hampered as a consequence of this. Students need both
book and digital resources to conduct research and to engage meaningfully with texts in the classroom.
Students wishing to take specialized independent studies or conduct primary research continue to have virtually
no resources. Currently, we have a partial subscription to Project Muse and JSTOR, but we need a full
subscription to both. Also, students and faculty doing archival research need access to two online databases:
America’s Historical Newspapers and America’s Historical Imprints. Subscriptions in British literature
databases is stronger (EEBO and ECCO); all fields should be represented in subscriptions.
In addition to lagging research support, there are inadequate technologies and conditions for teaching.
There is no surefire way in the smart classroom to show film/video clips with audio. In fact, faculty teaching
film are unable to show clips from Marillac classrooms about 25% of the time, and must call IT to assist. This
assist usually takes 10-15 minutes and is wasteful, and disrespectful, of the students’ time. The English
Department was renovated in 2010, and one of the changes was to turn the seminar room into a space in which
film screenings were capable. This has helped enormously, though the department and the college still need a
devoted space for film/video screening that could seat more than 15; and more than one such facility is needed
for instruction in our multiple programs.
It is also essential that students be able to view films independently in a scholarly environment on
campus, that they be able to re-watch portions of these films during lecture and discussion (in exactly the same
way that students are asked to bring to class their “texts” in a regular literature course so that the professor can
refer meaningfully to moments in those texts), and that they are able to access a number of supplemental films
through either a university or department library. In addition, BA students engaged in film research need to be
able to view films on campus. A small room, in addition to the screening room, with two televisions hooked up
to DVDs, and equipped with headphones, would allow and encourage our students to view films not available
off campus.
Faculty technological needs are not fully met. Though the move to Mac computers across campus was
beneficial, the 4-year revolving cycle of faculty laptop replacement is less effective than one might imagine,
because technologies become obsolete in 3 years and machines stagnate. Faculty should have, as most research
universities do, computer budgets so that we can choose machines that meet our needs; and there should be
reimbursement for programs and cloud storage we currently incur at our own expense. We need more scanning
technology for online teaching and the still-emerging field of digital humanities. Students would benefit from
film screening capabilities, and the laptop program does not keep pace with instructional and research needs.
6b.
Narrative/ Supportive Physical Environment - Comment on level of faculty and student satisfaction with HVAC;
faculty and student satisfaction with classroom lighting, crowdedness, and acoustics; flexible teaching environments,
and faculty offices, etc.. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Physical environment. Faculty offices in SJH B40, remain shockingly inadequate, far below the
standard of higher education, and poorly reflective of our department, college, and university. Lacking full
walls, they do not allow faculty to perform primary components of the job: engage individually or in small
groups with students, prepare for class, grade, conduct research, or hold meetings. Students cannot be
Self-Study Template 35
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
guaranteed confidentiality or quiet, which impedes productive advising and instruction, a mainstay of graduate
mentoring; and faculty cannot use offices as a quiet space in which to prepare for class, write, edit, or research.
We cannot leave valuables unless they are locked away in cabinets. If faculty hold extensive meetings with
students, we know it is at the expense of the concentration of our nearby colleagues. Students regularly
comment on their disappointment in the conditions and register discomfort at being overheard during
conferences with faculty. HVAC is relatively quiet but sporadic: temperatures vary widely, and we regularly
must call facilities for adjustments. All this negatively impacts on student engagement.
Classrooms vary widely in their level of satisfying student and faculty needs. We cannot count on
having adequate space, comfortable temperature, and good acoustics. Often, especially in Marillac and Sullivan,
30 or more students are packed into a very small room, making it nearly impossible to comfortably engage in
group work or for professor and students to move around the room. HVAC is extremely loud in many rooms,
especially Marillac and Sullivan, making class discussion—the basis of most English classes—impossible, and
often requiring faculty to loudly repeat their own as well as students’ contributions. Temperatures vary widely
from frigid to intolerably hot. In sum classroom conducive to alertness and learning is not a guarantee. At their
best, as in D’Angelo and some SJH, rooms offer students comfortable space and temperatures, light, working
technology, flexibility, and quiet; at their worst, as in Marillac and sometimes Sullivan and SJH, rooms are
crowded, hot, noisy, and inflexible. The noise from campus renovations can sometimes interfere with
instruction. Students express awareness of and dissatisfaction with these environmental problems.
Many English courses require two classroom environments not currently available: (1) a screening
room for film courses and (2) seminar rooms for senior seminars, designed to be small-group, researchintensive, discussion-based classes. These rooms also are necessary for hosting colloquia and guest speakers.
(Seminar rooms exist in D’Angelo, but we’re told by facilities that they are unavailable for class instruction.)
For undergraduate senior seminars, creative writing workshops, and the freshmen English seminar we’ve been
running for the past four years, the seminar table offers a collaborative, mature environment for students,
emphasizing an egalitarian relationship among faculty and students that fosters discussion and independent
thought. We have only one for our use, B40-43, which is not enough to accommodate all the courses for which
we might use them, and which we often need to reserve for meetings and administrative tasks.
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)
SJH B40 cosmetic renovations. In summer 2011, the majority of English faculty offices—those in the
B40 hallway—were provided with new carpeting, paint, furniture, and cubicle walls. These changes were
cosmetic and, while a superficial improvement, did not address the primary needs of English faculty: offices
with full walls that provide privacy, quiet, confidentiality. During the planning of renovations, faculty and the
dean asked facilities for a more permanent redesign that would provide full walls, but were told that these
offices were to be temporary, since a Humanities Center was then being planned for the second floor of St.
Augustine Hall, and therefore that cubicles needed to remain. The Humanities Center plans have been
cancelled, so we are stuck with a renovation that we were told would be temporary and that does not meet our
needs.
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 36
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
The BA in English on Queens has a robust contribution margin that is over 1.3 million dollars. Our
undergraduate major and minors, coupled with the University Core course, English 1100C, makes our presence
strong in the College and the University, and we reach many students through our classes.
We are confident that there is significant room for growth, especially through our minors. If there is a new and
streamlined Core Curriculum, there will be more room for minors throughout the University; English is always
a popular minor, especially as writing skills are more and more valued by employers. As more students from
other departments and colleges take classes in our minors, our cost effectiveness should only increase.
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program review and plans have
been initiated for the future.
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
Since the last program review, the faculty of the English department has not grown in numbers, but we
have replaced departing faculty with new faculty that bring diversity to the faculty and increase the diversity of
our course offerings. The two most recent faculty members have developed courses that enhance our offerings
in Caribbean and African-American studies, and our students have responded enthusiastically. This is part of
our ongoing mission as a department to continue to develop new courses that reflect the most recent
innovations in our fields, as well as maintain the traditional teaching of literature and culture. Our diverse study
body deserves – and demands – courses that are relevant to their lives and needs as students.
Our commitment to our University Core course is also pertinent in this regard. The course – E. 1100C,
Literature in a Global Context – has been a staple in the Core since that Core was instituted, and will most likely
remain part of the required Core in the new Core that is being developed by the UCCC. We have been able to
bring over more sections of this course from CPS, which allows our doctoral students to teach the majority of
these essential courses. Our doctoral students are trained in global literature, and our assistant chair, Dr Dohra
Ahmad, has been vigilant in overseeing their teaching.
Our commitment in the next few years, in our undergraduate program, is to continue to attract more
students to the major but also to bring in more students to our minors. If the new Core is smaller (as is
planned), that should allow all departments more opportunity to develop their minors and attract new students.
We believe that both the English minor and the Creative Writing Minor are going to become very popular, as
critical thinking, and communication and writing skills are always at the top of employers’ list of what they
look for in college graduates. Our focus on globalization and writing should make our major and minors ever
more attractive.
The approval of the new PhD program in the English department, while not directly affecting the
undergraduate degree, will have indirect affect and residual benefits. Our faculty, committed to doctoral
education as it is, is also committed to our undergraduate programs. The bringing of the expertise from such
Self-Study Template 37
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
faculty to undergraduate education is one of the great benefits a student has when she is in a program taught by
PhD caliber faculty. The popularity of our BA/MA program has increased, and we anticipate even more
applications to it with the PhD program in place. The external reviewers for our PhD proposal described our
faculty as follows:
“We are very impressed with the caliber of the full time faculty of the English Department. Their CVs reveal
that they are comparable to the faculty of an English Department in an R1 university. Their background,
credentials and achievements are impressive, especially in the sheer number of books published at prestigious
presses and articles placed in refereed journals. The faculty is younger than that at many similar programs,
suggesting to us that some canny and excellent hiring has been conducted over the past decade and that this
faculty knows well the shape of the contemporary field. We commend them for their desire to innovate rather
than replicate, to create a future-looking program rather than simply institute a PhD similar to the programs that
trained them. Several faculty already possess a national and even international reputation. Many more soon will,
considering the impressiveness of their records. An elected faculty personnel committee decides eligibility for
graduate teaching based on scholarship and research productivity, and we take it as an indicator of the
department’s general excellence that 24 of the 26 faculty qualify to teach graduate courses. All in all we would
describe the faculty as excellent and of burgeoning fame. If this trajectory holds in the decade ahead St John’s
will become more widely known for the outstanding quality of its English Department.”
This is how we intend to grow our faculty, by hiring teachers who are also active scholars and who are
committed to their teaching of both graduate and undergraduate students. While we have pursued the
intellectual and pedagogical benefits of our active research portfolios, we have not neglected our assessment
practices. The department has been actively reshaping its practices as a result of ongoing assessment and reassessment in many areas, as this report documents. We have assessed our programs rigorously, and have made
small but substantial changes in them as a result of our assessment. We are also more aware of the need to
prepared students for the workplace. The needs of the global workplace increasingly require high level
analytical and linguistic skills, especially advanced writing, reading, and conceptual analysis, and in this new
climate the skills that we teach our English majors have become even more valuable. Our workshops on
employment, plus the close ties we have built with career center, have helped our students become more aware
of the value of their education. We have also become more aggressive in helping our students receive
internships.
In the last program review, we requested a Director for Creative Writing, a Director for Symposia, and a
Director for Global Studies. These were never filled. This time, we will be requesting two additional directors:
a Director for Writing, and a Director for Global Studies. These positions will not be for undergraduate
programs only, but for the MA and PhD programs as well. A director (with a course reduction and a stipend) to
oversee the development writing courses across all our programs, and a director to oversee the development of
global courses and programs offered through the department, would enhance our ability to grow and develop.
We also have requested, in our three-year plan for the provost, three new hires, one per year. We are in urgent
need to replace Dr Denny, and over the next two years to add two new positions in the area of “Writing Studies”
that are crucial to the success of our new doctoral program, as well as our undergraduate major and Masters
program.
FY 2017: Director of Writing Center and Professor or Associate Professor of English, specializing in Writing
Studies and Writing Center Theory and Practice
Self-Study Template 38
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q
FY 2018: Specialist in Non-Fiction Prose and Memoir Writing. Secondary interests should include non-fiction
prose of the colonized world.
FY 2019: Specialist in Composition and Rhetoric, with secondary interest in new media.
These three positions are important for our undergraduate programs, especially our Creative Writing Minor
(which may well develop into a Writing Minor). Central to the development of our BA in English (as
identified in our program review) is to grow this part of our major and especially to grow the minor. These
three positions will allow us to move fully in the direction we see, as a department combining the best of both
traditional and newer fields of English Studies.
Self-Study Template 39
LAS_ENG_ENG_BA_Q