academic program review self study template self-study template page 1 items for reflection for each...

Academic Program Review Self-Study Template AY 2009 - 2010

LAS_IAS_ASIANSTU_BA_Q Self-Study Template page 1

ITEMS FOR REFLECTION FOR EACH STANDARD CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.stjohns.edu/about/ir/apr

1. Reporting School/College: St. John’s College 2. Program Reviewed: Asian Studies BA Q 3. Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair:

Overview: (Suggested limit 1 page) This section will focus the review for your reader. Please summarize your program’s mission and its relationship to the mission of St. John’s University, your Department and School/College Strategic Plan, and the University’s 2008-2013 Strategic Plan. Identify similar programs regionally and nationally and distinguish your program from them. Also summarize your findings as they relate to (1) market growth potential, (2) program quality, and (3) student learning. And, summarize any significant changes, achievements (by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future.

http://www.stjohns.edu/about/ir/apr



Standard 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s University and of its School/College. (When responding to this standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.) 1a. Narrative: (Suggested limit 1 page)



1b. What activities provide evidence that the program furthers the Catholic identity of St. John’s University? (Suggested limit 1/3 page) 1c. What activities has the program undertaken to provide evidence of support for the Vincentian tradition and values? (Suggested limit 1/3 page) 1d. What activities provide evidence that the program promotes the metropolitan character of the University? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)



Standard 2. The program engages in ongoing, systematic planning that is reflective of the University and School/College strategic direction and priorities. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.) 2a. Narrative: (Suggested limit 1 page)



2b. How does your program's strategic goals/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s 2008-2013 Strategic Plan, specifically related to Mission, Student Engagement, and Globalization. (Suggested limit 1 page)



2c. How does your program’s strategic goals/objectives link to the University’s institutional focus to “transform the institutional culture to one in which the quality of how we serve our students both in and out of the classroom is exceptional.” (Suggested limit ½ page) 2d. Describe the process for implementing program goals/objectives. (Suggested limit ½ page)



2e. What activities undertaken by the program provide evidence of monitoring the external and internal environment, specifically, what are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing this program? How were these 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? (Suggested limit ½ page) 2f. What is the market growth potential for the program? What internal and/or external sources support your response? (Suggested limit ½ page)



Standard 3. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and engagement. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.) 3a. Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items: (Suggested limit 1 page)

1. Disciplinary standards 2. The 2008-2013 Strategic Plan areas of focus (Mission, Engagement,

Globalization) 3. The University Core competencies



3b. Please describe the comprehensive assessment model currently implemented for the 2009-2010 academic year for the program through WeaveOnline. Be sure to include how many objectives have been indicated for each program, the number of objectives being measured with findings and action plans for this assessment cycle, and the time it will take in this model to complete assessment of all objectives. (Suggested limit ¾ page) 3c. From the 2008-2009 Assessment Plan (WeaveOnline) indicate what action plans the program has implemented to meet indicated targets. (Suggested limit ½ page)



Standard 4. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard and complete the following chart(s).) 4a. Narrative: (Suggested limit 1 page)



4b. What is the student to full-time faculty ratio based on number of majors and minors in the program and the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program? For full-time faculty assigned to the program, please provide the most recent year and previous years if available. The number of majors and minors can be found below. Full-time faculty by program is only available through departmental records. Please complete the table below and provide additional information in 4e if that may help to explain the pattern of this ratio.

# Majors/ FT

Faculty

Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009

FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total Majors 13 1 14 17 0 17 15 0 15 10 1 11 24 0 24 Minors 4 4 4 4 3 3 17 17 17 1 18

Majors & Minors Combined 17 1 18 21 0 21 18 0 18 27 1 28 41 1 42 # of FTE Students (Majors

& Minors) 17.00 0.33 17.33 21.00 0.00 21.00 18.00 0.00 18.00 27.00 0.33 27.33 41.00 0.33 41.33 # of FTE Faculty assigned

to the program 0 0 0 0 0

FTE Student/

FTE Faculty Ratio 0 0 0 0 0

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

# of FTE faculty assigned to the program

FTE Student/FTE Faculty Ration



Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 F Total F P Total F Total F P Total Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors MAJORS 24 24 28 1 29 24 24 21 1 22 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 F Total F P Total F P Total F Total Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors MINORS 11 11 17 1 18 12 1 13 4 4 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

F Total F P Total F P Total F P Total

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Total MAJORS/MINORS 35 35 45 2 47 36 1 37 25 1 26


F Total F P Total F P Total F P Total

FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE

Total FTE MAJORS 35 35 45 0.667 45.667 36 0.333 36.333 25 0.333 25.333

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. If your department provides service instruction to support the core curriculum, please explain in the context of student credit hours taught, 4c, and courses taught, 4d, and 4e below.



4c. How many credit hours has the department delivered by full-time faculty? How many credit hours has the department delivered by part-time faculty (including administrators)? What percent of the total credit hours consumed were by non-majors?

Credit Hours Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Taught # % # % # % # % # %

FT Faculty

51 9% 3 1% 72 11% 105 14% 102 13%

PT Faculty 507 91% 585 99% 558 89% 651 86% 708 87%

Total 558 100% 588 100% 630 100% 756 100% 810 100%

% consumed by

Non-Majors/Minors

69% 72% 81% 86% 76%

Credit Hrs Taught Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

F-T Faculty 156 18.0% 48 4.9% 96 10.5% 111 14.0%

P-T Faculty (inc Admin) 711 82.0% 924 95.1% 816 89.5% 684 86.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 867 100% 972 100% 912 100% 795 100%

% Consumed by Non-Majors 663 76.5% 684 70.4% 639 70.1% 522 65.7%

4d. How many courses has the department delivered by full-time faculty? How many courses has the department delivered by part-time faculty (including administrators)?

Courses Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Taught # % # % # % # % # %

FT Faculty 2 13%

0 0% 3 18% 3 18% 3 19%

PT Faculty 13 87% 15 100% 14 82% 14 82% 13 81%

Total 15 100% 15 100% 17 100% 17 100% 16 100%



Courses Taught Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

F-T Faculty 3 18.8% 3 15.0% 2 12.5% 2 11.8%

P-T Faculty (inc Admin) 13 81.3% 17 85.0% 14 87.5% 15 88.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 16 100% 20 100% 16 100% 17 100% 4e. Narrative: Provide any additional information about the student (majors & minors)/full-time faculty ratio, credit hours delivered and courses taught by full-time and part-time faulty that may be helpful to understand the noted trends above. (Suggested limit ½ page). 4f. Explain the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental information on next page)



Departmental Data 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

Gender

Male 0 0% 2 29% 2 0 0% 7 78% 7 1 50% 9 82% 10 1 50% 7 88% 8 1 50% 0 0 1

Female 1 100% 5 71% 6 1 100% 2 22% 3 1 50% 2 18% 3 1 50% 1 13% 2 1 50% 8 100% 9 Total 1 100% 7 100% 8 1 100% 9 100% 10 2 100% 11 100% 13 2 100% 8 100% 10 2 100% 8 10%% 10

Ethnicity

Black 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

Asian 1 100% 7 100% 8 1 100% 8 89% 9 2 100% 10 91% 12 2 100% 7 88% 9 2 100% 8 100% 10 White 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 1 11% 1 0 0% 1 9% 1 0 0% 1 13% 1 0 0% 0 0% 0

Unknown 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 Total 1 100% 7 100% 8 1 100% 9 100% 10 2 100% 11 100% 13 2 100% 8 100% 10 2 100% 8 100% 10

Tenure Status

Tenured 1 100% 1 1 100% 1 1 50% 1 1 50% 1 1 50% 1 Tenure-Track 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0

Not Applicable 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 1 50% 1 1 50% 1 1 50% 1 Total 1 100% 1 1 100% 1 2 100% 2 2 100% 2 2 100% 2



2010 2011 2012 2013

FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

Gender Male 1 50% 1 14% 2 0% 3 38% 3 0% 2 25% 2 0% 2 25% 2

Female 1 50% 6 86% 7 1 100% 5 63% 6 1 100% 6 75% 7 1 100% 6 75% 7

Total 2 7 9 1 8 9 1 8 9 1 8 9

Ethnicity Black 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0

Hispanic 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Asian 2 100% 7 100% 9 1 100% 7 88% 8 1 100% 7 88% 8 1 100% 7 88% 8 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 White 0% 0% 0 0% 1 13% 1 0% 1 13% 1 0% 1 13% 1

2 or More Races 0 0% 0

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 Unknown 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0

Total 2 7 9 1 8 9 1 8 9 1 8 9

Tenure Status

Tenured 1 50% 1 1 100% 1 1 100% 1 1 100% 1 Tenure-Track 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0

Not Applicable 1 50% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0

Total 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1



4g. What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching or learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit ½ page) 4h. What initiatives has the program initiated in the past five years to promote faculty development? (Suggested limit ½ page)



4i. The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department.

External Funding

Fiscal Year 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

$ Amount Program

$ Amount Department

External Funding

Fiscal Year 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

$ Amount Program

$ Amount 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 only available through departmental records.) Comments (Suggested limit ½ page)



Standard 5: The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.) 5a. Narrative: (Suggested limit 1 page)



5b. Undergraduate SAT and High School Average SAT High School Average

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Program 1320 1072 1173 1025 1204 91 87 90 88 88 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 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Computed Computed Computed Computed

ASC 1,063 1,154 1,170 1,070

Freshmen High School Average Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

High School High School High School High School

ASC 88 92 89 83

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

5c. Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rates Fall 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 # Fresh # Ret %

Program 100% 0% 100% 80% 75% 4 4 100% School/ College 77% 79% 77% 77% 73% 1005 768 76%

University 78% 78% 78% 79% 76% 3268 2557 78% Note* The % of student started in Fall 2004 and returned to the program in Fall 2005 ** The % of student started in Fall 2008 and returned to the program in Fall 2009



2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Returned DNR Total Returned DNR Total Returned DNR Total Returned DNR

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % ASC 14 11 79% 3 21% 3 3 100% 8 7 88% 1 13% 4 4 100%

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

5d. Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate

Fall 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Program 100% 0% 100%

School/ College

Average Rate 61% 59% 58% 60% 57% University 64% 59% 61% 61% 58%

Fall 2004 cohort Fall 2005 cohort Fall 2006 cohort Fall 2007 cohort

Total Graduate

d Total Graduate

d Total Graduate

d Total Graduate

d ASC 2 0 0% 3 3 100% 5 2 40% 4 2 50%

Fall

2004 2005 2006 2007

School/College Average Rate - Q 57% 57% 57% 51%

Total University 58% 58% 59% 55%



5e. Graduate Standardized Test Scores 5f. Narrative: Please describe how your program compares with your peer and aspirational institutions. (Suggested limit ½ page) 5g. If applicable, describe your program’s student performance over the past 5 years on licensure or professional certifications exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit ¼ page)



5h. Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years? Please complete the table below. Fall

Number of Students 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Majors 14 17 15 11 24 Minors 4 4 3 17 18 Total 18 21 18 28 42


Majors Majors Majors Majors

MAJORS ASC BA 22 25 21 20

BA/MA 1 3 2 2

Total 23 28 23 22

Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Minors Minors Minors MINORS ASC 4 6 3 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Total Total Total Total Total 23 32 29 25 5i. Number of degrees granted during the past five years. Please complete the table below.

Degrees Granted

Academic Year 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

BA 1 4 4 2 3

10/11 11/12 12/13 Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred

SJC -UG-Q ASC Asian Studies BA 2 3 3



5i (1). Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 05 – Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender and Group Studies.

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Bachelor's

Local 208 183 187

National 8,621 9,100 9,232

1Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University, Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University, Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.

5j. Narrative: How do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national patterns? (Suggested limit ¼ page) 5k. 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 ¼ page)



Standard 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.) Although financial data is not available at the program level, departmental information is provided below for your reference.

Department Information - Earned Income/Direct Instruction Expense Ratio (FY 2013 data not yet available)

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 $ From Grants Earned Income from Instruction 711,070 737,078 804,103 966,114 1,045,305 (by student credit hours taught)

General Fees (includes lab fees)

22,022 19,987 26,213 25,311 31,479 Direct Instructional Cost 259,800 288,000 281,000 365,000 407,000 (Departmental Budget) Earned Income/Direct Instructional Expense Ratio 2.82 2.63 2.95 2.72 2.65



FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

$ FROM GRANTS

-

-

-

-

EARNED INCOME FROM INSTRUCTION (By student credit hours taught) 1,344,299 1,583,473 1,825,864 2,009,216 GENERAL FEES (includes Lab Fees) 41,564 49,783 54,192 59,023 DIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL COST (Departmental budget) 446,000 440,000 445,000 409,000 EARNED INCOME/DIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENSE RATIO 3.11 3.71 4.22 5.06

6a. Narrative: (Suggested limit 1 page)



6b. 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.)



Standard 7. The program has taken effective actions based on the findings of the last program review. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.) 7a. Narrative: (Suggested limit 1 page)

academic program review self study template self-study template page 1 items for reflection for each...

Documents