Committee Members:

Sam Powell (chair) – Dean of the School of Theology and Christian Ministry; Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Hadley Wood (liaison) – Vice Provost for Faculty Development; Dean of General Education; Professor of French and Literature, Bill Clemmons – Associate Professor of Music, Jill Hamilton-Bunch – Assistant Professor of Education, Vic Heasley – Professor of Chemistry, Karl Martin – Professor Literature; Chair of the Department of Literature, Journalism, and Modern Languages, Kathy McConnell – Professor of Spanish, Dawne Page – Associate Professor of Biology, Jim Skalman – Associate Professor of Art; Chair, Department of Art and Design, Ronda Winderl – Professor of Communication and Theatre and Bill Wood – Professor of History

Committee Charge:

Point Loma Nazarene University has chosen to opt for a thematic approach to its Education Effectiveness Review. The newly restated University Mission, summarized in the phrase To Teach ~ To Shape ~ To Send, is a logical choice for such a thematic treatment. Furthermore, the University is anxious to investigate further and more deliberately sustain discourse on these missional phrases. The Institutional Proposal, page 8, calls for “analytical essays for each of the three themes” utilizing “specific lines of inquiry and means of assessment.” At the conclusion of its work, Task Force I will have prepared a reflective essay whose findings will generate full discussion “with the Board of Trustees, faculty, staff, students, and alumni.”

Listed below are questions that have been crafted by the WASC Steering Committee for the purpose of addressing the theme “To Teach.” These questions cover three specific areas: general education, the academic major, and faculty scholarship.

General Education (undergraduate level)

• Do students learn fundamental writing, quantitative, and critical thinking skills?
• How do students who are involved in cross-cultural experiences change as a result of intensive immersion in other cultures?
• Are students able to articulate a Wesleyan theological approach when addressing particular social and ethical issues?

Academic Majors (undergraduate and graduate levels)

• Do students demonstrate knowledge at the appropriate level in their major field?
• Have students developed the skills needed by professionals in their field of study?
• Are students able to identify and discuss significant ethical and theological issues in their major area of study?

Scholarship (undergraduate and graduate levels)

• In what ways are faculty actively engaged in research?
• In what ways has faculty-student collaboration increased?
• In what ways do faculty actively work at developing their teaching craft?

Teaching

What Do We Say about Teaching?

Point Loma Nazarene University’s official statements place a high premium on teaching. Excellence in teaching and learning is one of our core values. The university is committed to hiring “Christian teachers/scholars who are dedicated to teaching . . . [and who] are committed to lifelong learning and teaching” (Catalog, p 1). According to its mission statement, it “exists to provide higher education in a vital Christian community where minds are engaged and challenged” and “aspire[s] to be a learning community where . . .truth is pursued."

The Support of Teaching at PLNU

How does PLNU support what its statements say about the centrality of teaching? Four points deserve mention.

First, the university, in 2001, created the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). Its creation and the dedication of resources to its operation signaled the university’s commitment to the sustained and systematic improvement of teaching. The center sponsors a wide variety of activities that, in various ways, provide professors with resources for classroom instruction and forums for discussing pedagogy with colleagues. These activities include sponsoring faculty reading groups on pedagogy; Teachers Noticing Teacher, a program of peer mentoring; Tech Time, devoted to helping professors gain familiarity with the use of new technology for teaching; workshops on teaching, Ways and Means, which focuses on the ways in which students learn; support for professors to attend conferences on pedagogy; and maintaining a library of literature related to teaching. To date, 15% of professors have participated in the Teachers Noticing Teachers program, 11.1% have attended a Tech-Time session and 4.9% have attended a Ways and Means session. A measure of the value that PLNU places on teaching is found in a survey reporting that, in 2004, 80% of PLNU’s professors agreed with the statement that faculty are rewarded for being good teachers (see Faculty Survey 1998-2004).

Second, the university has created an administrative position, the Vice Provost for Faculty Development. This vice provost functions as director of the CTL and also as Dean of General Education. Like the CTL, the existence of this office both symbolizes the university’s commitment to teaching and is a means of realizing its statements about the centrality of teaching. As a vice provost, the person holding this position has direct access to the Provost and Chief Academic Officer, thus ensuring that matters of teaching are kept at the forefront of PLNU’s academic attention. Finally, this office unites the university’s pedagogical initiatives (the CTL) and its professional development program. In this way, professional development is directly linked to teaching concerns.

Third, teaching plays a prominent role in professors’ evaluations. PLNU's Faculty Handbook stipulates that “each continuing faculty member has at least three courses per year evaluated. The courses chosen should represent all areas in which the faculty member teaches (lower- and upper-division, major and general education courses), and should reflect different courses in successive years. First-year faculty members have all fall semester courses evaluated, plus an additional course of their choice.” Beside course evaluations, each professor is required to undergo an evaluation by a peer and by his or her department chair every 3 years and also upon application for promotion and tenure. The form used in the evaluation by chair asks the professor to evaluate himself or herself under the following heading:

• Command of Subject Matter
• Course Organizational Ability
• Effective, Enthusiastic Communicator
• Demonstrated Concern for Students
• Success in Stimulating Student Interest
• Success with Integration of the Subject Matter with Other Disciplines and with Christian Faith and Practice.

It also asks professors to evaluate their performance in the “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” by discussing the extent to which they are “developing or exploring new material or methods to enhance your teaching.” Peer evaluation involves classroom observation and requires the faculty peer to comment on whether the observed “presentations demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter; teaching methods . . . are consistent with the expectations of the discipline; [and] methods . . . effectively enhance the learning environment” and whether “questions asked by students are responded to in a manner that clarifies the material.” Finally, PLNU’s policy is that teaching should receive a 50-60% weighting in the promotion and tenure process (see Faculty Evaluation Summary).

Do PLNU’s professors make effective use of this evaluation process? In a 2005 survey of faculty, 49.7% reported that they made course adjustments based on these formal student evaluations. On that same survey, 75.9% of faculty reported that they had made adjustments to their course based on informal student feedback. These numbers seem to indicate that PLNU faculty value and respond to student feedback when they teach.

At the same time, the faculty survey indicates that PLNU professors use other resources to improve their teaching skills. 52% of the faculty respondents indicated that they made either moderate or major use of collaboration with faculty in their own disciplines in regard to pedagogy. Another 28.5% made moderate of major use of collaboration with colleagues in other disciplines. Professors also actively develop their teaching craft through interaction with colleagues off campus. 62.6% reported that they had read a book or article on pedagogy in the last year. 37.1% attended a conference on pedagogy. 42.2% participated in a teaching workshop. And 34.1% reported that they made either moderate or major use of collaboration with off-campus colleagues to actively improve their teaching.

Across the board, the faculty survey information suggests that PLNU faculty exist in a culture of teaching—a culture that values and discusses, in both formal and informal ways—what makes for good pedagogy.

General Education

What Do We Say about the General Education Program?

PLNU's Catalog states that “it is the goal of the University to provide an education in the liberal arts tradition and in professional areas that balance a broadening experience in its General Education Program with the depth necessary to concentrate in one of the major programs. . . . The purpose of the General Education Program is to provide a common educational experience, to develop essential skills, and to provide broad cultural background for personal and professional growth."

The Support of General Education at PLNU

Two organizational of PLNU point to the significance of general education to the university and exist to support general education.

First, the Vice Provost for Faculty Development functions also as the Dean of General Education.  Point Loma Nazarene University, in other words, has a full time academic administrator whose job it is to be an advocate for and supporter of the university’s general education program.

Second, university has a General Education Task Force (of which the Vice Provost for Faculty Development is the chair), whose duties include reviewing the philosophy and design of the university’s general education program, assessing the general education program, and making recommendations to the Academic Policies Committee about the general education curriculum.

What Has PLNU Wanted to Discover, through Its Assessment Efforts, about Learning in the General Education Program?

The educational effectiveness indicators (see the WASC CPR Group Two: Educational Effectiveness Indicators Report) relevant to general education are:

• EEI 1: 75% of students will be able to recognize theologically or biblically informed rhetorical elements appearing in non-theological contexts.
• EEI 2: 75% of students will be able to articulate a personal spiritual position and place it within a spectrum of Christian traditions.
• EEI 4: 75% of students will be able to interrogate an issue from at least three different disciplinary perspectives.
• EEI 5: 75% of students will be able to organize ideas to support a position (either in writing or orally) on summative GE exam.
• EEI 6: 75% of students will be able to present objections to their own position as logical as shown on a summative GE exam.
• EEI 7: 75% of students will be able to apply quantitative methods to solving real-life problems.
• EEI 8: 75% of students will be able to interrogate an issue from a different racial, class or gender position as shown on a summative GE exam.

What Have PLNU’s Assessment Efforts Told Us about Learning in the General Education Program?

First, in connection with ongoing assessment efforts, PLNU has established a general education task force, which includes the general education committee. Its purpose is “to revision and revise our current general education program utilizing what we know about learning communities, engaged learning, integrative themes, multi-disciplinary courses, team teaching, and the co-curricular” (Academic Affairs Planning Goal 3).  In connection with this purpose, the task force has set forth a document, “First Principles of General Education.”

Second, as a result of an exit exam (the “general education holistic writing exam”) administered to seniors, we know that only 37% of graduating students performed satisfactorily in 2004 with respect to writing skills (EEIs 5 and 6). Although 88% of students could select a significant topic to write about, only 51% could formulate a clearly focused thesis about the topic. More important, only 26-28% identified logical sub-points needed to prove their thesis argument and formulated appropriate evidence and only 33% presented a logical objection to their argument (see exam results).

The story was more encouraging with respect to quantitative skills (EEI 7), assessed in 2005 with the “general education capstone exam,” with 76% of graduating students in 2005 performing acceptably (see exam results).

At the same time, the results were mixed with regards to critical thinking skills (EEIs 4-8), assessed in the same general education capstone exam administered in 2005. Only 47% of students successfully indicated how an identified theological concept was functioning as a vehicle for separate political purposes. However, an encouraging result was that if a student had taken most or all of their GE requirements at PLNU, then they could better indicate how the theological concept applied to America (50-58% vs. 35% for students who had taken half or less of GE at PLNU). For the Multiple Perspectives Thinking Question, 70% of the students could ask a question relevant to the perspectives they chose, which is close to the goal of EEI 4 (75% of students will be able to interrogate an issue from multiple perspectives). However, only 51% of students could give the reason as to why the question was relevant. (See 2005 exam results.)

When it comes to articulating theological convictions (EEIs 1 and 2), the 2004 holistic writing exam yielded disappointing results, with only 44% of students passing the portion of the exam that asked them to articulate “a Christian (and Wesleyan) view and . . . [to] relate it to specific problem.” The results of the 2005 capstone exam were more encouraging, with 72% passing the “what theological concept was being referenced” portion of the exam. However, only 47% passed in “the further task of indicating how the theological concept was functioning as a vehicle for separate political purposes.” (See 2004 exam results and 2005 exam results.)

What Conclusions Can We Draw from This Data?

The data suggest the following conclusions:

Writing skills (EEIs 5 and 6): PLNU's current efforts yield generally unsatisfactory results. These data indicate that writing is a skill that needs to be improved among undergraduates at PLNU.

Quantitative skills (EEI 7): Current efforts are producing desired results, so that a majority of PLNU students are able to apply quantitative skills to a real-life complex quantitative problem.

Critical thinking skills (EEI 4-8): Current efforts are equipping students with basic critical thinking skills but are not doing a uniform job of conveying to them higher order skills. It is apparent that PLNU students do less well as the conceptual complexity of the task increases. This strongly suggests the need to ensure that enough critical thinking and application is incorporated into general education courses.

Theological convictions (EEIs 1 and 2): Current efforts are marginally successful, with weakness related to students’ incapacity to engage in higher order critical thinking. At the same time, the responses to surveys of students and alumni (see the section What Have PLNU’s Assessment Efforts Told Us about Students’ Learning in Their Academic Majors? below) indicate that classroom instruction has shaped students’ intellectual, ethical, and social development.

Suggestions for Improving the Assessment Process

Writing skills: The results of this initial test must be tempered by recognition of the very partial nature of the data. The exam was taken by only 8% of the graduating class and was very unevenly distributed among majors. Further tests of larger sample sizes and including all majors will obviously need to be performed.

Critical thinking skills: Only 51% of students could give the reason as to why the question was relevant. This may be an issue of how the prompt was written, and this exam will therefore be revised accordingly.

Theological convictions: It should be noted that neither the exams administered to seniors nor the surveys provide a direct answer to the question of whether students can articulate a Wesleyan theological approach when addressing particular social and ethical issues. This is because in the 2004 holistic writing exam, although students were asked to “indicate what you believe would be a significant Wesleyan response to this issue,” the rubric that graders followed asked about the presence, in student essays, of a “Christian view.” In the 2005 capstone exam students were asked “to identify 3 specific passages where the author implicitly or explicitly casts America or Americans in the role of Jesus Christ. They were also asked to identify the aspect of Christ’s character or work that was implicitly referenced in each passage.” Neither the grading rubric for the 2004 rubric nor the 2005 essay subject refers expressly to Wesleyan theology. The 2005 survey of students and alumni similarly failed to ask expressly about students’ knowledge of Wesleyan theology.

Learning in Academic Majors

What Has PLNU Wanted to Discover, through Its Assessment Efforts, about Learning in Students’ Academic Majors?

PLNU has employed several means of assessment in order to learn 1) whether students are able to identify and discuss significant ethical and theological issues in their major areas of study; 2) whether students are developing the skills needed by professionals in their field of study; AND 3) whether students demonstrate knowledge at the appropriate level in their major fields. These means include the 2005 survey of alumni and the assessment programs undertaken by academic departments at PLNU.

What Have PLNU’s Assessment Efforts Told Us about Students’ Learning in Their Academic Majors?

1. The Ability to Identify Significant Ethical and Theological Issues in the Major Field of Study

Surveys administered to current undergraduate and graduate students and to alumni give us a positive picture of students’ abilities. The surveys indicate that most students believe that PLNU has facilitated an increase in their theological knowledge, with 64% of current undergraduates (and 68% of graduate students and 73% of alumni) indicating that their classes at PLNU gave them a better basis for making ethical decisions in both personal and workplace decisions; 69% of undergraduates (and 40% of graduates and 66% of alumni) asserting that their PLNU experience has helped them have a better understanding of what it means to be a Christian; and 71% of undergraduates (and 49% of graduate students and 72% of alumni) stating that they have grown in the Christian faith as a result of being students here. 78% of graduate students also indicated that their moral and ethical thinking is stimulated in classes and 73% asserted that they think critically about the integration of faith and profession in their courses.

The question of students’ knowledge of significant ethical and theological issues as they relate to students’ majors areas of study raises the question of where in the curriculum these subjects are introduced. The discussion of ethical and theological issues is woven into the curriculum at Point Loma Nazarene University. In some cases, the discussion of ethical and theological issues is woven into a variety of courses within a major field of study. In other cases, the faculty have developed individual courses with the discussion of ethical and theological issues as their primary focus.

One example of a course illustrative of courses in the second category is EDU 304: Legal, Ethical, and Wesleyan Perspectives on Education. All students completing both single subject and multiple subject credentials must successfully complete this course. Further examples include: HIS 485: High Thinking on Right Living from Socrates to Wendell Berry, a course for history majors; COM 485: Communication, Values, and Society, a course for a variety of majors in the Department of Communication and Theater; BIO 497: Biology Seminar, a course of biology majors that provides the specific opportunity to explore the relationship between Christian faith and scientific inquiry; MUH 431: Faith, Life, and Music, a course for music majors; PSY 420: Moral Development and Christian Spirituality, a course for psychology majors; and ECO 440: Racial and Gender Issues in Economics and Education, a course for business majors; and, THE 331: Christian Ethics, for students in the School of Theology and Christian Ministry.

Other departments on campus integrate the discussion of ethical and theological issues into a variety of courses in the curriculum. In the Department of Literature, Journalism, and Modern Languages, for example, ethical and theological issues are addressed in both LIT 250: Introduction to the Study of Literature and LIT 495: Literary Theory and Scholarship. In the School of Nursing, students take a series of courses, each a part of “Nursing of Communities” category. These courses certainly address the ethical implications of the nursing profession. Courses in the School of Business such as BUS 301: Legal Environment of Business and BUS 412: Leadership also address ethical and theological issues. In the Department of Political Science, POL 350: Rebuilding Devastated States and POL 351: War and Peace Studies provide two examples among many of courses where ethical and theological issues are addressed.

Finally, schools and departments offering internships for their students involve those students in very practical experiences where ethical and theological issues are addressed.

This brief survey demonstrates that PLNU students have ample opportunities in their major programs to ponder and discuss ethical and theological issues.

2. The Development of Professional Skills

Results from the alumni survey indicate success. 76% of the alumni agreed (or strongly agreed) with the statement, “I was well prepared with the skills necessary for the world of work.” 77% affirmed that they were “well prepared with the knowledge necessary for the world of work;” 69% agreed stated that they were “well prepared for the intellectual challenges of post-baccalaureate training;” and 89% indicated that they “had meaningful learning experiences outside the classroom.”

The survey also asked about more general skills which prepare individuals for working in their disciplines. Large majorities (between 76% and 91%) of those responding stated that PLNU moderately or greatly helped them develop critical thinking and analytical skills, original ideas or products, good leadership skills, effective written and verbal communication, and habits of a good citizen.

3. The Development of Knowledge Appropriate to Majors Fields of Study

The main source of information is the set of program assessments conducted by academic departments. Every department participates in on-going assessment and all have posted plans on the PLNU accreditation website except for the School of Education, which is currently working on a revision of their plan. By 2005 10 departments had begun collecting data. In 9 of these 10 departments, graduating students were performing satisfactorily as measured by a specified competency benchmark (EEI 3).

Illustrative typical of how assessment is undertaken by PLNU to measure the knowledge of our graduating seniors are the assessment tools employed by: 1) the Literature, Journalism and Modern Language Department to evaluate their Spanish majors, 2) the Physics Department to evaluate their engineering and physics majors, and 3) the Family and Consumer Sciences Department.

The Department of Literature, Journalism, and Modern Languages (LJML):

The department employs a four-pronged evaluation process, evaluating the students’ writing ability (by a writing examination based on a thematic prompt, a portfolio comprising four pieces of writing, and a grammar exam), oral skills (through an oral exit interview), reading ability (through two reading examinations, one created by the department, the other being the standardized SATII Reading Exam) and cultural awareness (by means of an exam).

With respect to writing ability, in the assessment period (2001 to 2004) 82% of the seniors received a score of 80% or better on the writing exam; 77% of seniors received a score of 80% or higher on the completed portfolio; and 77% of seniors had a score of 80% or better on the grammar exam; 77% of seniors scored 80% or better on the oral skills interview; on reading ability, 71% attained a score of 80% or higher on the department examination and 78% of students scored 80% or higher on the SATII. 69% of our seniors scored in the top 20^th percentile on the SATII; and 62% of seniors scored 71% or better on the cultural awareness exam.

The Department of Physics and Engineering (Physics):

One measure used by the Physics department to determine their students’ knowledge is rate of graduates pursuing graduate education. In the past six years there have been 17 graduates and of that number, 15 have gone on to post-graduate work.

To determine whether their students understand the basic concepts and principles of physics, the Physics department administers an exam provided by the Educational Testing Service. In the assessment period, all but three physics seniors have scored in the upper one-third of the students nation-wide; those three scored in the 40-50 percentile.

Beside this exam, the Physics department has administered an alumni survey, with 23 responses (35 alumni having received the survey). The responses were positive about the department’s efforts and virtually all respondents expressed their gratitude for the education they received at PLNU. The only persistent critical result was a feeling among the alumni that the department was not adequately funded.

The Family and Consumer Sciences Department (FCS):

The FCS Department has created an annual exit examination to assess the knowledge of their majors upon graduation. Also, seniors are required to have create portfolio and a research project.

The results of the exit exam show consistently that between 72% and 92% of graduating students possess satisfactory levels of knowledge. Assessment of student portfolios and research projects is even more positive, with 100% of students performing acceptably.

What Conclusions Can We Draw from This Data?

The majority of PLNU’s students and alumni believe that the university has contributed to their theological and ethical knowledge. Admittedly, the information gathered from surveys is limited, as students were asked vague questions such as whether PLNU has helped them “have a better understanding of what it means to be a Christian.” Moreover, the survey questions did not connect students’ ethical and theological beliefs with what they learned in courses in their major fields of study. Nonetheless, the surveys do provide an encouraging picture at least of students’ and alumni’s perceptions of PLNU impact upon them. Naturally, it is always possible to hope that improvement can be made, so that in the future positive responses to these sorts of questions would be in the 80-90% range instead of the 60-70% range. Also, it is worth noting that current graduate students rated the university fairly lowly on the questions of whether PLNU has helped them have a better understanding of what it means to be a Christian and whether they have grown in the Christian faith as a result of being students here.

As for professional skills, the results are again encouraging and suggest that most of PLNU’s alumni believe that it has provided them with requisite abilities. Of course, the survey reflects alumni perceptions and asked general questions not specific to particular types of work. So the university can be confident that it is generally doing a good job of providing students with professional skills, even if it lacks more detailed knowledge about levels of alumni skills in any number of particular areas of work.

With respect to knowledge appropriate to major fields of study, the data (contained in departmental assessment plans), is positive, once allowance is made for the fact that many PLNU academic departments have been slow to gather the data required by their plans. Nonetheless, the trend, based on those departments that have gathered data, is encouraging, as the examples of the three departments cited above indicate. In each case, the data show that students are learning material in the courses in their majors that is appropriate for their disciplines. In some cases (e.g., LJML students in the Spanish major), the data reveal potential pedagogical issues and point the way toward curricular and other sorts of revision. In this major, students scored lowest in the cultural awareness exam; consequently, the department is currently reviewing both the examination and the material covered in the various courses to determine the reasonableness of the examination and to consider how the content might be taught more effectively.

Suggestions for Improving the Assessment Process

If PLNU continues to be interested in students’ ability to identify significant ethical and theological issues in their major fields of study, then it will be important to develop some means of assessing this ability, as we currently have no program or instrument that expressly measure this.

Measurement of alumni professional skills would be helped if questions were asked with a greater degree of specificity with respect to particular skills and job-specific skills.

As for students’ knowledge in their major areas of study, complete evaluation awaits the completion of academic departments’ assessment programs and the gathering of data.

Learning through Off-Campus Cross-Cultural Studies

As a supplement to its general education program and its schedule of academic majors, PLNU has encouraged students to study off-campus in approved international programs. To this end, the university has created the Office of International Studies, which maintains information about programs, evaluates potential programs, and assists students in the process of applying for these programs.

What Has PLNU Wanted to Discover, through Its Assessment Efforts, about Learning through Off-Campus Studies?

The Office of International Studies has asked students returning from international studies the following questions in an evaluation form (see Assessing Off-Campus Study Programs):

• How did your study-abroad experience change you?
• What did you learn about your host country?
• What did you learn about the United States?

What Have PLNU’s Assessment Efforts Told Us about Learning in Off-Campus Studies?

Of the changes that students have reported as resulting from their off-campus studies, the most statistically significant were in culture and personal growth.

In answer to the question about the extent to which their experience taught them about their host countries, students reported that they learned most about the culture of the host country and its people.

Students also have mostly agreed with the statement that their study abroad experience helped them to gain a new perspective of the United States. (see Assessing Off-Campus Study Programs)

What Conclusions Can We Draw from This Data?

As hoped, the data indicate that students’ study in other countries does result in statistically significant change in personal growth, knowledge of other cultures, and attitude toward the United States. Although the questions asked of returning students are somewhat vague (e.g., “How did your study-abroad experience change you?”), there is sufficient information to warrant confidence that students are learning the sorts of things that the university intended when it created the Office of International Studies.

Scholarship

What Do We Say about Scholarship?

Unlike its statements about teaching, PLNU has no official statements that assert the importance of professors’ scholarship. Its importance, however, can be gathered from the fact that “Research, community involvement, and continuing education to be determined by individual interest” receives a 20-30% weighting in the faculty evaluation process  (Faculty Evaluation Summary). The form used in faculty evaluations contains a section in which the professor discusses his/her “Knowledge and Scholarship,” organized under these headings: the scholarship of teaching and learning, of integration, of discovery, and of application. (In this way, PLNU endorses and uses Ernest Boyer’s depiction of scholarship.) Forms for promotion and tenure applications have a section in which the professor lists publications.

The Support of Scholarship

PLNU attempts to support and encourage professors’ scholarship in several ways:

• “The Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Development attempts to provide programmatic support for the enhancement of research.” (Faculty Handbook - Research) 
• One semester sabbatical leaves.
• A Research and Special Projects (RASP) fund, offering small grants for the material costs of scholarship (such as travel to conferences).
• A professional development budget, currently $1000 for each professor, for professional memberships, travel to conferences, and other material costs of scholarship.
• Discretionary grants, which are administered by the Provost, supplement professors’ development budget, and are competitively available upon application.
• The Wesleyan Center for 21st Century Studies also offers grants of $3000.00 and fellowship with load reduction.
• Finally, the university has created Point Loma Press, which “serves as the academic publishing concern for Point Loma Nazarene University . Publications support the scholarly work of the faculty and provide articulation of Wesleyan themes and trajectories, and may include coverage of important University-sponsored conferences, symposia, and events.”

With respect to professors’ perceptions of support for scholarship, it is worth noting that “there was a large increase from 1998 to 2001, with a slight decrease in 2004, on the agreement with the statement regarding support for faculty development. In 1998, 45.7% agreed somewhat or strongly that there was adequate support, while in 2001 and 2004 there was 88.3% and 80.1% agreement, respectively” (see Faculty Survey 1998-2004).

What Has PLNU Wanted to Discover, through Its Assessment Efforts, about Scholarship?

In connection with accreditation renewal, PLNU has asked the following questions:

• In what ways are graduate faculty actively engaged in research?
• In what ways are undergraduate faculty actively engaged in research?
• In what ways has faculty-student collaboration increased?

PLNU is interested in distinguishing the scholarly productivity of undergraduate professors from that of graduate professors because our previous accreditation process revealed some weakness in the amount of scholarship produced by graduate professors. However, it is important to note that, of all the professors responding to the 2005 survey of faculty, only 9 taught exclusively at the graduate level. As a result, for purposes of this report, “graduate faculty” means those who teach at least some graduate courses; “undergraduate faculty” denotes those who teach exclusively at the undergraduate level.

What Have PLNU’s Assessment Efforts Told Us about Scholarship at PLNU?

Graduate Professors

Faculty strongly believe in the importance of graduate faculty’s involvement in research, conferences, etc. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of survey respondents agree or agree strongly that these kinds of activities add to the scholarship of graduate programs (see disaggregated faculty survey data).

With respect to scholarly activities (see disaggregated faculty survey data), in 2004-2005 89% of graduate faculty attended a professional conference, 40% presented papers or posters, 40% hosted or helped to plan a conference, while 23% served as officers for a scholarly society.

In 2004-2005, 31% published an article, 26% contributed a chapter to a published book, and 20% published a book or signed a contract for a book. Several faculty members have published multiple articles and books. Additionally, 23% participated in a public recital or exhibition. Stated negatively, only 3% of graduate professors had not, in 2004-2005, engaged in such scholarly activities as attending a conference or publishing.

Finally, graduate professors are involved in such other scholarly tasks as book reviews, receiving grants, serving as a referee for journals, and editing.

Undergraduate Professors

Full-time undergraduate professors at PLNU are engaged in research in a number of ways (see disaggregated faculty survey data). For example, continuing involvement in their fields of study is reflected in the fact that 86% of faculty attended a professional conference last year, with 37% presenting papers or posters. In addition, 42% hosted or helped to plan a conference, while 18% served as officers for a scholarly society.

Professors also remain active in publishing their research. In 2004-2005, 29% published an article, 12% contributed a chapter to a published book, and 6.5% published a book or signed a contract for a book. Several faculty members have published multiple articles and books. Finally, beyond print publications, the activity of faculty members in music and the fine arts is reflected in the 25% of undergraduate professors who have regularly given public performances, recitals, and exhibitions. Conversely, only 6.5% of undergraduate professors had not, in 2004-2005, taken part in such scholarly activities as attending a conference or publishing.

Additionally, undergraduate professors are involved in ancillary scholarly tasks such as book reviews, receiving grants, serving as a referee for journals, and editing.

Faculty-Student Collaboration

It is not possible to measure an increase in faculty-student collaboration because PLNU did not ask questions related to this subject in its Faculty Surveys (1989, ’92,’95, ’98, ‘01, or ’04) prior to the current 2005 WASC Faculty Survey (see disaggregated faculty survey data).

The incidence of faculty-student collaboration in general and the various types of faculty-student collaborative activities engaged in is indicated in the 2005 WASC Faculty Survey (see disaggregated faculty survey data). The survey reveals a high level of collaboration: in 2004-1005, 23% attended a conference with a student, 10% presented a paper with a student, 2% published an article with a student, 1% contributed a chapter to a published book with a student, and 10% gave a public recital or exhibition with a student.

In connection with teaching, 17% have supervised an honors project, 9% have supervised students’ summer research, 30% have supervised independent studies by students, and 13% have supervised a master’s degree thesis or project.

Making Use of PLNU's Support for Scholarship

A considerable percentage of PLNU professors have received institutional support for scholarship: 36% of undergraduate professors have received a RASP grant, 47% have received a sabbatical, and 26% have received support from the Wesleyan Center. The percentages for graduate professors are 34%, 25%, and 17% (see disaggregated faculty survey data).

What Conclusions Can We Draw from This Data?

For purposes of assessment, PLNU asked about the sorts of scholarship in which PLNU professors engage. The data show rather clearly that they are, collectively considered, engaged in all of the typical activities of scholars.

However, it is difficult to draw conclusions beyond this generalization. PLNU has no prior point of reference, so longitudinal analyses are out of the question. Consequently, it is impossible to determine whether PLNU’s professors are more or less engaged in scholarship than in the past. Similarly, the lack of a benchmark or set of comparative universities means that, although PLNU possesses a snapshot of faculty scholarship in 2005, there is no basis for concluding whether or not the amount and quality of scholarship is commensurate with PLNU’s aspirations. Moreover, the data do not tell us much about the quantity of professors’ scholarship. The survey, for example, asked whether in 2004-2005 professors had published an article; however, it did not ask how many articles professors had published in that year.

It is important also to note that in all facets of graduate education, Point Loma focuses on producing professional practitioners rather than producing researchers. All advanced degrees in Religion, Education, Nursing, Business and Biology focus on improving skills and knowledge through meaningful practice rather than replicating researchers. At the same time, the data show that PLNU’s professors, including its graduate professors, are engaged in the full range of scholarship. As a result, the professional nature of PLNU’s graduate programs does not preclude faculty scholarship.

With respect to faculty-student collaboration, the data once again provide a snapshot indicating that there is some level of such collaboration. However, longitudinal analysis is possible. It is also impossible to determine from the data whether the level of collaboration agrees with PLNU’s educational mission and its goal of being a university with voice and prominence. Although many professors have collaborated with students on on-campus projects (such as summer research and independent studies), 43% have not. Moreover, 66% have not collaborated with students on other sorts of activities, such as publication.

The data relating to professors’ use of PLNU support for scholarship present a similar picture. We know the percentages of professors who have received a sabbatical or Wesleyan Center grant; however, we do not know whether these numbers represent the same small pool of professors being supported from multiple sources or whether they represent many professors being supported by one or two institutional sources. We also have no way of knowing whether the amount of support is commensurate with either actual scholarly production or a desired level of scholarly production. All we can say is that the sources of support are being used.

Suggestions for Improving the Assessment Process

If PLNU wishes to know whether the faculty’s scholarly activity is increasing in quantity and quality, more longitudinal studies will be required and it will be necessary to ask more detailed questions: not just whether a professor has published at least one article in a given year but how many articles. Similarly, at some point it will be important to have a way of weighing scholarly production, so that future assessments can discriminate between national, peer-reviewed journals and local, non-competitive journals. The same is true of books, performances and other forms of scholarly productivity.

It may also be helpful to find ways of further distinguishing undergraduate from graduate faculty. As noted, in this report the set of graduate professors is composed of those who teach at least some graduate courses; however, this means that a professor in the School of Theology and Christian Ministry who teaches one graduate course in the space of 5 years is categorized with a professor in the School of Education who teaches mostly graduate courses. It may be useful in the future to distinguish professors by department and school.

Also, for purposes of assessment PLNU should develop some standards for acceptable levels of scholarly activity. It does little good to note that professors are, as a whole, engaged in various forms of scholarship, because such observation tells us nothing about whether such engagement accords with our goal of being a school of voice and prominence. Similarly, PLNU should have some goal for the desired amount of faculty-student collaboration.

Recommendations to the President

1. Regarding teaching: Reduce teaching load to 18 units/year as with our competitors (Westmont)—better teaching and scholarship. Faculty-student collaboration is currently on top of a full teaching load—a reduced load would enable for collaboration. Issue: what kind of institution do we want to be?

2. Regarding general education:

• Re writing and critical thinking skills: departments should examine their curricula; expand writer’s studio to support writing assignments in other departments.
• Avoid use of adjuncts in GE courses
• Also, a need to integrate critical thinking skills into GE courses
• Encourage ongoing dialog about general education. GE program is not very progressive—trying to teach 1950s curriculum with contemporary pedagogy. Need greater range of options, more interconnected courses, courses that engage students’ disciplines.

3. Regarding study abroad programs: Expand opportunities for study abroad. Ask departments whether it is feasible to require study abroad (if PLNU is to reach its goal of having 45% of the undergraduates in study abroad programs).

4. Regarding scholarship: Set some standards for professors’ scholarly productivity; ensure that institutional support is adequate for those standards; incorporate those standards into the evaluation and promotion/tenure process.

5. Regarding faculty-student collaboration: Need a more formal and structured approach to student-faculty collaboration within departments—perhaps connect to RASP grants or other funding—more opportunities to share with each other about how we collaborate.

6. Regarding PLNU's assessment efforts:

• Simplify and combine various assessment efforts.
• Need better university wide standards for assessing programs, e.g., use of capstone courses—what they should accomplish and require. They should include self-reflection—how does the discipline interact with faith.