WASC Home > CPR Reports
Back

CO-CURRICULAR INITIATIVES SUMMARY

The discussion on this section was held January 30, 2006 and was supplemented by e-mail comments and follow-up work done by the Academic Council.

The overriding theme from this conversation was that if we want to engage in further partnerships between the curricular and co-curricular space needs to be created to make sustained dialog possible.  The group discussed the PLNU schedule in the mid 1990’s that allowed for a mid-day activity period once per week. Finding a way to create a similar time could allow for:

  • Faculty, student and staff interactions around spiritual issues (e.g. Discipleship groups)
  • Faculty, student and staff book groups
  • Faculty and staff conversations related to collaboration
  • Opportunities for presentations related to pedagogy and research as well as issues of interest to both faculty and co-curricular staff

Ideas:

  • What committees are in place to look at these issues?  Where will the resources come from?  How will priorities be set?
  • How can the co-curricular support the work of the graduate programs?
  • What structures are needed and what resources to launch a curricular/co-curricular partnership in service learning?
  • Create co-curricular/service learning opportunities
  • Work to create service learning opportunities in support of local churches.
  • Do we need to provide training/inspiration/a time for discourse on how various areas of the university are trying to create learning communities?  Could this be a source of good ideas for enhancing each academic department’s sense of community?
  • Expose more faculty members to the learning communities in Flex housing. The structure of the new program provides ways for them to be directly involved.
  • Look at the large meal time at NSO.  Could there be a change in how food is served to create a greater sense of community in departments by the meals being arranged by each department and served in a location unique to that department?
  • What opportunities become available for integration of academic, spiritual and student development goals in a GE program that is sequenced?  Would it be possible to develop goals in these three areas for each year of the sequence?
  • Are there ways that Student Development could create a “co-curricular” component in some of the large GE classes?  For example:
    • Psych 101 Course - We could partner here to provide some experiences that could be discussed in small groups.
    • Religion Courses - We could help design a trip to visit different denominations or religions in San Diego in partnership with the religion department.
    • Geography/Biology courses could partner with the Outdoor Leadership program to provide field trips that put students into the middle of what they are studying.
  •  Should a “re-entry” course be created to help students integrate their overseas experience (either ministry trips or study abroad)?
  • Could we create a “Common Day of Learning” - APU has a great model for this that we could explore.  In the Spring, Senior Seminar or capstone courses could provide lectures and activities.  All other classes are cancelled and faculty give credit for underclassmen attending seniors presentations.  A theme could be generated that could be complimented by chapel and other co-curricular activities.
  • We need a centralized way of communicating who in the faculty and staff has particular expertise in areas relevant to curricular and co-curricular collaboration.  For example Spiritual and Student Development have a well established system for training leaders.   Everyone on campus should know who the experts are in those departments.  Could the Center for Teaching and learning expand their website offerings to include such a list?
  • How can our model for advising be improved?  How does building a deeper sense of community in an academic department help with advising?  Is there a time when an in-depth conversation can be held between the academic advising staff and faculty to brainstorm about the best model for student advising.

Note:

  • CPR Group Two: Educational Effectiveness Indicators recommends:
    • A one-unit post-international-experience course should be developed. Students need to take this course on re-entry into the U.S. after a semester abroad or after a LoveWorks experience. The course should focus on helping students to imagine an impact of the international experience on their future life beyond just being a page in their picture album.
    • Continued integration of the curricular and co-curricular should be pursued through the General Education Committee, the First-Year Experience Committee, the Assessment Committee, and through shared programs such as service learning, learning/living communities, and the Preface Reading Program. PLNU community members need to stay alert to other collaborative ventures that can be developed.
  • CPR Group Three: Standards 1&3 recommends:
    • Expanded interaction and input of faculty with Student Development and Spiritual Development.
  • CPR Group Seven: Diversity recommends:
      • Ethnic and gender diversity issues should be addressed in the primary focal point of the community:  chapel.  Chapel services are required for all students, and given our nature as a faith-based institution, the things that are said and modeled in chapel carry a particularly weighty message.  From ethnic diversity in music and worship styles, to the demographics of speakers heard, to addressing topics of racism and sexism or educating about and celebrating more diversity, chapel is a key site where these issues could be explored and grappled with. 
  • EER Task Force I: TEACH may have some recommendations for this section.
  • EER Task Force III: SEND may have some recommendations for this section.

Framing questions:

  1. To what extent do students experience the curricular and co-curricular as an integrated whole?  What can be done to encourage this experience?
  2. Is there an appropriate balance between study and co-curricular participation?
  3. How effective are our student engagement and retention activities?  How would we know?  What are our goals?
  4. Is there evidence that co-curricular participation contributes to classroom learning?  To persistence?  To satisfaction? 
  5. What are the three most significant ways that students say co-curricular participation enhances their classroom learning? 
  6. What are the three most important things the faculty could do to more effectively support co-curricular programs?
  7. What are the three most important initiatives that the institution could undertake to enhance the chapel experience for students?  What could faculty do to support that?
  8. How effective are our spiritual formation efforts?  What do we know about the spiritual development of our students?  What can faculty do to support student spiritual formation?