CURRICULUM INITIATIVES SUMMARY

CURRICULUM INITIATIVES SUMMARY

These discussions took place February 16 and 27, 2006 and was supplemented by e-mail comments and follow-up work done by the Academic Council.

GE and UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM
Below is a summary of the initiatives that were discussed in the first of two conversations about curriculum. The focus of the February 16, 2006 conversation was on the undergraduate curriculum, primarily on general education and the work of the GE task force.

Ideas:

There should be some sort of capstone course/experience in GE.
Is it possible to connect a GE “capstone” experience with the capstone classes currently being offered by different academic majors?
It would be useful to connect GE courses with “service learning” experiences
We need to continue to enforce the limit on the number of units in majors so that the reduction of units in GE actually gives students more freedom to choose elective courses. There may need to be 3-4 units of flexibility in this for cases where a GE course was part of a major and is now no longer part of GE.
To transition to a new system of GE, PLNU needs to continue to reinforce the commitment that no current full-time faculty member will lose his or her job due to the changes in GE. There are some faculty who have interpreted this commitment to mean that no full time positions will be lost in individual departments. This needs to be clarified.
There needs to be some effort toward commonality across any GE course taught in an individual department (e.g. shared readings or themes, perhaps common syllabi, etc). This will depend to a certain extent on the “style” of each individual department.
There needs to be some sort of support for faculty teaching GE courses in the core. The required coordination will take extra preparation plus acquiring the knowledge of the other courses in the core. Suggestions include summer development grants (both the summer before and the summer after the course is taught for the first time), release time/an extra unit the first year that the class is taught, etc.
There needs to be a time created when there can be on-going dialog (between faculty and also between faculty and co-curricular staff) about the GE core and what is necessary to keep it engaging.
In order for a more creative GE to work, there is going to need to be a generous transfer policy.
Support programs for reading and writing across the curriculum.
Creates rubrics that can be used across disciplines to support reading and writing.
Support for team-teaching especially in the GE liberal arts core.
Continue to reduce large classes. This is especially important for first-year courses.
Continue to affirm the Liberal Arts core of the University.
Find ways for the Center directors to meet regularly to facility collaboration and shared resources.
To sponsor a workshop on ethics and public affairs at colleges and universities like us. Most political science programs at such institutions do not have room for a course on ethics and public affairs; this workshop could help them. This is a service to students at other Christian universities, and could fit PLNU's desire to be nationally prominent with a distinctive Wesleyan voice.
Undertake an effort to devise initiatives and activities, methods and mechanisms to increase student awareness, interest, and participation modeled on some work being done at Harvard.
Seek funding for student internships and workshops connected with the Health Promotion Center, Center for Justice and Reconciliation, Women’s Studies Center and the Armenian Center.
Provide assistance with publicity, fundraising and grant writing to support the work of the Centers, service learning, study abroad and other integrative learning opportunities.
Provide administrative staff support for the Center for Justice and Reconciliation and the Women’s Studies Center.
Create a cross discipline team of faculty and staff to train, debrief and support students who engage in cross cultural ministry and academic experiences.
Incorporate issues around poverty and the underrepresented in a broader range of coursework, several of the University Centers would be helpful in this area.
There is a desire for greater faculty involvement in the work of the Centers either as members of boards, participants in events publicizing events or integrating content into course work.
The Women’s Studies Center would like to hold a national symposia/conference on “Women’s Studies in Christian Higher Education,” highlighting PLNU’s progress and leadership in this area.
Several of the Centers work to link PLNU to the larger community in a variety of ways, there is financial support needed for these efforts.
There is a desire for the Centers to collaborate more intentionally with each others.
Our co-curricular programs need to be better publicized.
The Armenian Center would like to host a large conference that brings key leaders and organizations in the field of international economic development to PLNU. This could focus on microfinance, social entrepreneurship, or poverty alleviation efforts in general.
Develop 4-5 very strong relationships with key Christian international development organizations that are willing to host PLNU students for international internships (10-15 a year) with perhaps study abroad possibilities.
Development of a committee on campus that helps "sift through" the international organizations that connect to the school so that we become more intentional in what organizations we encourage the students to get involved in and so that we can develop deeper partnerships with organizations willing to take our students as interns and eventually to hire our students upon graduation.

Recommendations from WASC Groups – these came directly from WASC CPR Reports. Many of these echo suggestions that were submitted before the February 16, 2006 conversation as well as issues that arose during the conversation.

CPR Group One: Data recommends:

That the University continues its emphasis on having a significant portion of its courses (both graduate and undergraduate) taught by full-time faculty.
As part of the academic planning process, some consideration should be given to the data on class size and the current and future classroom needs at all sites.

CPR Group Two: Educational Effectiveness Indicators recommends:

The General Education revision needs to provide more ongoing formative writing experiences for our students.
These experiences need to purposely build on the work done in the Freshman Writing Course.
The faculty need to be better informed about what happens in the Freshman Writing Course and they need to know what kinds of progress they ought to expect of students.
PLNU needs to provide writing support for all classes that engage in formative writing with students. This can be done through the Department of Literature, Journalism and Modern Languages’ Writer’s Studio, through the Center for Teaching and Learning or through the two working together.
Increasing efforts should be made in general education courses to make more explicit the meta-cognitive levels of their disciplinary work.
Increasing efforts should be made to let faculty know what is being covered in general education courses (overarching themes, common goals, meta-cognitive skills), so that faculty teaching subsequent courses can interact with that material by reinforcing, responding to, or qualifying that previous work). This work can be coordinated by the Dean of General Education who can also create opportunities of the dissemination of appropriate information.
The general education revision should include a minimal core of 8 courses (2 per year for each of a “regular student’s” 4 years). A core will permit programmatic work on development of skills and on continued conversation around larger issues.
Courses comprising the core should work at identifying shared themes and concerns as well as discussing ways to anticipate the other course (in the fall) or reference the other course (in the spring).
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.
The General Education Task Force should seriously look at ensuring that statistical literacy is being included in a required (rather than optional) general education offering.
The General Education Task Force should consider ways to include work on reading skills in either new or existing courses.
The General Education Committee should encourage the departments that offer multi-section General Education courses to identify a portion of the course (theme, method, text, experience) that would be shared across all sections. General Education courses should be seen as being jointly owned between the individual professor, the department and the faculty.
The General Education Committee needs to create a mechanism for the ongoing assessment and revision of general education. Part of this work should consist in a re-conceptualization of General Education as being principally about the needs of students and not about the needs of departments; thus General Education should be seen as belonging to all the faculty and not just to individual departments. This mechanism should include ongoing conversation with students about general education.
The Dean of General Education needs to work actively at developing some institutional vision of the nature, purpose, and developmental impact of general education. This informational effort needs to be accomplished through short, but regular communications.
The Dean of General Education needs to encourage faculty to do this same kind of ongoing communication about general education and its purposes with students.
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 Seven: Diversity recommends:
- The Center for Justice and Reconciliation and Center for Women’s Studies do exemplary and creative work across disciplines and coordinating co-curricular activities with faculty, spiritual development, and student development. These Centers should be given additional financial support and administrative staff to increase their impact on the campus.
- Study abroad experiences need to be better integrated back into the life and perspective of the PLNU campus. Students have life-changing experiences with diverse cultures and races, but have few ways to bring that transformation back to bear on the larger campus climate.
- Link the work of the Office of International Studies with the Diversity Committee. Perhaps a representative of the office could be on the committee. Efforts to assist students as they transition to and return from study abroad programs may help increase or sustain their cultural competence.
- Consider ways to study the curriculum and determine which courses are contributing to students’ development of cultural competence. Will the indicators be course titles? Descriptions? Course readings or activities? How might these courses be integrated into the General Education curriculum?
EER Task Force I: TEACH may have some recommendations for this section.
EER Task Force II: SHAPE may have some recommendations for this section.
EER Task Force III: SEND may have some recommendations for this section.

Framing questions:

How effectively are we achieving our General Education goals?
Does organizing the GE program around the Wesleyan Quadrilateral actually work? Are faculty and students aware of this organization, and it is reflected in syllabi? Should it be?
The average major at PLNU, when combined with the GE program, leaves little if any room for free electives? Is this acceptable to the faculty? Does it contribute in a meaningful way to the educational goals set by the faculty for student learning?
What do students identify as the most influential integrative opportunities?

GRADUATE PROGRAMS

Below is a summary of the initiatives that were discussed in the second of two conversations about curriculum. The focus of the February 27, 2006 conversation was on the graduate program.

Ideas:

We need to be intentional about building a sense of community when the faculty is spread out among several different locations.
Is it enough to have a shared mission and vision and not focus on building interpersonal relationships between sites?
It would be helpful to arrange regular meetings of the graduate program directors 3-4 times per year.
We need to make better use of technology (video conferencing, teleconferencing, etc) for communication.
The portal (which will soon be rolled out) will provide some new ways for faculty to share resources, especially electronic ones.
Arcadia needs a video conferencing set-up at their facility.
In order to build a sense of community, we need common experiences and shared time together. There is no substitute for this.
If we are serious about having “hospitable conversations in a covenantal community” we are going to have to be willing to make some changes in structures and systems and spend some money on this goal.
No matter what discipline, we are all interested in pedagogy, perhaps working on issues related to pedagogy is a good way to build relationships.
Could the fall workshop be used to do some community building activities? Can we intentionally place people at tables to make sure that people don’t sit with only those they know? Could something creative be done with activities during the meal time?
Is there something more intentional that could be done with the Community Dinner or is it to large an event?
At each faculty meeting have one academic department featured – this would include an overview of the faculty, current projects and other information. This would help people at all sites to put faces with names.
Could faculty meetings be structured differently to build community? For example could the location for the meetings occasionally be a room with tables so that people could sit in groups and discuss topics? Could there be specific activities in the meeting?
How can we have faculty teach at locations other than the one to which they are normally assigned? Is there a way to create a visiting faculty program? Perhaps there are some opportunities for guest lectures, short seminars or intensive courses that would have faculty teaching at a site other than their own.
Are there some ways to structure grants to provide incentives for projects that involve faculty from more than one location?
We need to improve communication between departments. Particularly as it relates to the liberal studies program and the passage of students from undergraduate majors into the single subject credential programs.
We need to do a better job of helping our undergraduate students to know about our graduate program offerings.
How do we address the particular needs to adjuncts? They are used more heavily in graduate programs.
We need to improve communication to the faculty about decisions and major events. The use of the LAN for planning announcements could be expanded to include key information from Cabinet as well. We should also remind faculty (both full time and adjunct) about the information in the Faculty Shared folder.
There needs to be a clearer process for starting and expanding programs. There is a fair amount of confusion about who can originate ideas and the process for developing those ideas.
Is it possible to have the Academic Council (chairs/deans) make some of the mundane/routine decisions and use faculty meetings for conversations about significant issues and decisions?
Assistance with marketing graduate programs is needed. Are we interested in marketing our programs beyond the local communities where they are located?
Are we thinking about creating graduate programs unique enough that students would want to relocate to attend them?
Are we considering graduate programs in disciplines other than the “professions”?
We need a clear philosophical statement about the purpose of graduate programs. The GSC is working on a mission/vision statement for graduate programs.
There is a need for an on-going community wide conversation about the big picture for graduate programs and how that fits into the long range plan for PLNU.
How can we create a liberal arts context for graduate programs?
We need to develop a well-maintained data base on clergy (particularly Nazarene) providing basic demographic data for ongoing research on clergy issues and needs. I’d like to see some funds made available to encourage faculty research in this area.
Another important component of the vision for the CPL includes a facility on campus or on Point Loma that could accommodate clergy (including clergy couples) for a one or two week renewal experience. PLNU personnel and faculty could be utilized as a resource to assist pastors (and their family) with the issues of personal renewal, burn-out, mid-life ministry re-focus, sabbatical leave, etc.
A way to provide support and reinforce a sense of community among the pastors studying in the MMin program is to have on of the intensives in their three year program held as a retreat. This would provide much needed refreshment to the pastors and supplementing the cost of such a retreat would be an encouragement to them.

CPR Group One: Data recommends:

There needs to be improvement in the collection and reporting of graduate program data. The University is in the process of correcting the problems, but must be diligent in seeing the task through over the next few years.
That the University continues its emphasis on having a significant portion of its courses (both graduate and undergraduate) taught by full-time faculty.
As part of the academic planning process, some consideration should be given to the data on class size and the current and future classroom needs at all sites.

CPR Group Four: Standards 2&4 recommends:

Further inquiry into why there may be an information gap between adjunct and full-time faculty as well as graduate and undergraduate faculty regarding commitment to graduate programs is warranted.
Due to the weaker response by full-time and graduate faculty as compared to graduate students concerning PLNU providing continuous education and life-long learning opportunities, it is recommended that steps be taken to close this gap in order for there to be an institutional commitment to support the growth of graduate education and professional development.
Regarding institutional long-term commitment, it is recommended that there be improvement in the level of access to academic resources for graduate students in order to increase the level of academic rigor in research and scholarly activity.
In order to facilitate understanding of graduate students concerning support services it is recommended that PLNU offer a better orientation to these services
It is recommended that PLNU use benchmarks to measure standards of excellence such as professional accreditation, national exams, publications, significant research in order to gage improvement and growth in the field in order to maintain professional and academic rigor as well as meaningful research.
Regarding academic support, there are four recommendations
1. request Schools/Department with graduate programs document the literature of the field used and made available to graduate students and faculty for their research agenda. This will include the currency of texts, syllabi, library, school/department resources, etc.;
2. request support services such as the library and audio-visual review their commitment to building graduate level facilities and resources;
3. review of the curricula, faculty involvement, academic resources and technology for currency in scholarly literature and research compared with similar institutions; and
4. request each School/Department make a survey of graduate curricula, textbooks, professional/academic journals and conference proceedings available to faculty and students and identify best practices at comparable graduate institutions.

Framing questions:

What ideas do you have for building community when not all faculty and staff are in the same physical location?
What can be done to improve communication between departments and programs?
What information needs to be shared and what issues need to be discussed?
Is there an ideal balance between the size of undergraduate and graduate programs?
What suggestions do you have for developing a process for setting priorities for new program starts and/or program expansions?
What recommendations do you have regarding the needed infrastructure for graduate programs?