Welcome to the Office of the Provost's communication portal!

Please, click here or email provost@apu.edu to communicate with 
Azusa Pacific University's Provost, Dr. Mark StantonThank you!

Faculty Recognition & Awards Luncheon

posted May 13, 2017, 9:22 AM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated May 13, 2017, 9:23 AM ]

At the 2017 Faculty Luncheon, the Office of the Provost and Academic Cabinet recognized Five-Year Extended Faculty Contracts, Faculty Promotions, Adjunct Award Winners, Faculty Emeriti, and the major award Nominees and winners. Winners of the prestigious annual awards are listed below. Congratulations to all!

Alice V. Watkins Imago Dei Ethos Award: 
Alexander Jun, Ph.D.

Service-Learning Cornerstones Award: 
Skyla Herod, Ph.D.

University Leadership Award: 
Ryan Hartwig, Ph.D.

Undergraduate Scholarly Achievement Award: 
Robert Mullins, Ph.D.

Rose Liegler Graduate Scholarly Achievement Award:
Karen Longman, Ph.D.

Teaching Excellence Award:
Abbylin Sellers, Ph.D.

Chase Sawtell Inspirational Award:
Ken Otto, MLIS, MS

Spring 2017 Commencement Fun Facts

posted May 13, 2017, 9:01 AM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated May 13, 2017, 9:01 AM ]

Baccalaureate and Alumni Initiation
  • Approximately 4000 attendees at the event 
  • Speaker: Dr. Keith Hall 
  • SGA Faculty Award: Dr. Harold Clousing 
  • SGA Staff Award: Tina Ellison 
  • Music: Michelle Jensen & Chamber Singers 
Graduate Ceremony
  • Attendance approximately 4.500 
  • 601 Spring Graduates with 475 attending the event 
  • Ceremony length: 1 hour 35 minutes 
Undergraduate Ceremony
  • Attendance Approximately 12,000 
  • 1003 UG Graduates with 951 attending the event 
  • 73 Professional Graduates with 41 attending the event 
  • Ceremony length: 2 hours 2 min 
General Information
  • 1465 Streaming Views to 31 countries and 44 states 
  • Facilities Management worked 528 hours between Friday May 5-Monday May 8 
  • IMT worked 945 hours between Tuesday May 2- Sunday May 7 
  • 5125 items were sold at the Concessions booths 
  • 1131 items were sold at the Bookstore booth 
  • 36 Commencement related Events were held between Tuesday May 2- Saturday May 6
  • 5,777 guests were served by Dining Services during Commencement week
Number of Staff and Faculty Working to Support the Events
  • Total = 648 
  • Enrollment Management: 113 
  • Facilities Management: 74 
  • IMT: 31 
  • Campus Safety: 35 (plus 12 Azusa Police Department Officers) 
  • Dining Services: 88 
  • Event Services: 33 
  • Other Staff/Administration: 28 
  • Faculty: 234

Information Literacy Series—Part 6 of 6

posted Apr 24, 2017, 7:52 AM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Apr 24, 2017, 8:35 AM ]

How do you teach someone how to look? How do you find a new lead when you are in the library databases and your search results are negligible? How do you think strategically about the information you already have and needing to discover new places to look and new sources to pursue? This kind of critical thinking is key to problem solving and essential for innovation. The information literacy frame “Searching as Strategic Exploration” is all about the intellectual skills needed to “think outside the box.”

Ask any seasoned journalist, or investigator, or scientific researcher. How do you figure out whom to ask and what to ask when all you have is a problem and no idea of a solution? How do you gain access to the sources that may likely contain answers when you haven’t found the right language to unlock the information door?

Sometimes it means looking again, even when you don’t think there’s anything else to see. Sometimes it means digging into unlikely places, talking it through, breaking it down with those who share your perspective and those who don’t to perhaps grasp new insights. Sometimes you need a little “serendipity,” says the ACRL in its 2015 Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, which briefly defines the frame “Searching as Strategic Exploration” thusly:

Searching for information is often nonlinear and iterative, requiring the evaluation of a range of information sources and the mental flexibility to pursue alternate avenues as new understanding develops.

So, how do you teach someone how to look? Once again, as with the five other frames, this frame touches on concepts inherent in several other disciplines. Being able to dig up the right information is a vital skill in journalism, where students are trained to ask who, what, where, why, when, and how as the first step in good reporting. The techniques for brainstorming in composition are essential to help students discover and identify material to write about and how to write about it. “Inventio,” one of the five canons of classical rhetoric (Cicero, 86-82 BCE*), involves searching and discovering the information needed to create an effective argument. Discovery in law is essential in being able to gather the relevant evidence required to win a case. Effective diagnosis in medicine means being able to utilize divergent and convergent thinking, order the right tests to collect the needed data, and interpret that data with precision. Doing all of these things well means understanding that “Searching as Strategic Exploration.”

To teach this frame, faculty need to create assignments that give students the opportunities to explore information systems and practice searching strategies; assignments whose primary purpose is to provide students robust feedback on their developing search skills. Interactive activities and discussion groups, online and in-class, can create the learning spaces students need to discover from each other new ideas for searching. Progressive assignments can also be a good fit for students to experience the developmental nature of research. All it takes is keeping this aspect of information literacy in mind when creating adaptable assignments. For an example, let’s look at an online communications studies class.


Dave has been the online librarian for the older campus’ newer online university since it began eight years ago. It has grown and over half of the students are adult learners (students typically over the age of 25 and returning to school). He’s had the opportunity to interact with a number of these adult learners via email, chat, and Google Hangouts. He realizes these students are different than the traditional undergraduates as well as credential, master’s and doctoral students. These online students need more scaffolding as they enter into the weird world of proprietary online databases. Knowing this, Dave’s excited about meeting the information literacy needs of such a diverse population as he collaborates by email with the faculty of record for the communications studies course that most students at the online university take in their first term. The following is the result of that collaboration:

from: Michele Watanabe [online university faculty member]

date: Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:03 PM

to: Dave Handover [librarian]

subject: Re: Information Literacy experience for your students

Hey Dave, nice to hear from you. I read over your proposal to add an information literacy learning experience into my COMM 111 Public Communication course. I love your suggestion that I choose one of my assignments that fits well with one of those six frame descriptions you sent me. I so appreciate your guidance in creating an SLO and a rubric for scoring. I’ve chosen the last frame “Searching as Strategic Exploration” as being closest to one of my assignments, and after our collaboration, I agree, I think the third bulleted item in the Knowledge Practices list will work best as an SLO:

Information Literacy Learners are able to collaborate using both differing techniques and common ground techniques when searching a topic.

So taking your advice, I’m changing up my theorists assignment to integrate this information literacy SLO as an experience students can learn from. There are three parts to the assignment. First, students are randomly assigned into groups of three, and then from a group of 73 communication theorists found on the Wikipedia’s site, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communication_theorists, each group is given a range of theorists to work with based on the alphabet (theorists whose last names end in A-B, C-F, and so forth). The student groups brainstorm to choose up to three theorists whom they believe would be best to interpret an assigned current event. Then in Part 2, students individually choose one of their top theorists and discover resources that examines that theorist’s theory and approach to a current national event or issue. For Part 3, students write a reflection of three pages in the frame of that theorist for that assigned current event.

Your expertise has been invaluable in helping me build a solid information literacy experience into my course. Who knew! And thanks for your help with the rubric. Here’s my current form. Let me know if you have any further comments or recommenda

Searching as Strategic Exploration

Communication Theorist Assignment Rubric


Name: ________________________________        Date: ______________________

Standards of Evaluation











At what level did the student’s group cover the elements of Part 1 of the assignment?

1.Well-developed list of pertinent resources

2.Clearly articulated rationale for choosing  their theorists

3.Well-developed analysis of the fit of the theorists to the current event

4.Excellent use of proper citing

Strong in 3 of the 4 areas

Strong in 2 of the 4 areas

Strong in none or one of the 4 areas







EVALUATE chosen theorist in terms of discovered resources and validity of theorist’s theory and approach to chosen current event

1. Thoughtful and articulate

2. persuasive and relevant

3. multiple levels or parts

4. all parts of the model guidelines addressed

Strong in 3 of the 4 areas

Strong in 2 of the 4 areas

Strong in none or one of the 4 areas







COMPREHENSION Based on reflective exercise, level of comprehending an important part of the whole lesson

Clearly identified and comprehen-sively discussed at least one of the important parts of the lesson, with excellent detail and examples

Identified and discussed one important part of the lesson with sufficient detail and examples

Identified and discussed a part of the lesson, though not a significant element; detail and examples present but insufficient

Missed stating any important parts of the lesson






Column Scores






Total Score:






* Cicero. (86-82 BCE). Rhetorica ad Herennium.

Thank you to Dave Harmeyer, M.L.S., Ed.D. Associate Dean, University Libraries and Janice Baskin, M.A., M.S. Director, Library Publications for writing this series for the Provost's newsletter. Please feel free to contact them directly at dharmeyer@apu.edu and/or jbaskin@apu.edu with questions or comments.


AlcoholEdu Online Module and Survey

posted Apr 21, 2017, 1:33 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Apr 24, 2017, 10:01 AM ]

As part of the Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Task Force initiatives, students participated in an online educational module called AlcoholEdu for College in Fall 2016. AlcoholEdu is an interactive online course designed to reduce the negative consequences of alcohol among students. It is the most widely used alcohol prevention program in higher education, and provides compliance to the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR part 86).

The online course delivers a personalized experience to all types of students dependent on their current drinking choices, which are sourced via students’ responses to a survey presented at the beginning of the course. AlcoholEdu provides an online platform to
  • Improve Student Attitudes, Behaviors & Knowledge 
  • Support Ongoing Prevention with Data and Analytics 
  • Mitigate institutional liability and risk 
AlcoholEdu was administered in the Fall 2016 to incoming new students, athletes, and student leaders.

Survey Participants:
  • Athletes: 357 
  • New Students: 1422 
  • Student Leaders: 123 
Data in this report are based on responses from 555 students at APU who completed all three AlcoholEdu for College surveys in the fall of 2016. The survey results are being used to implement targeted programming around specific alcohol issues and to highlight the positive social norms in regards to alcohol use. 

Formative Assessments and Knowledge Gained through AlcoholEDU









APU students reported that AlcoholEdu
  • Prepared them to prevent an alcohol overdose: 82% 
  • Prepared them to help someone who may have alcohol poisoning: 85% 
  • Helped them establish a plan ahead of time to make responsible decisions about drinking: 85% 
  • Changed their perceptions of other’s drinking behavior: 58%

Highlights from the Survey

  • 5% of students reported drinking in a high risk way, when measured midway through the fall term (Survey 3, n=555).
  • 26% of students reported not drinking in the past two weeks, with 60% indicating not drinking in the past year (Survey 3, n=555).
  • 85% of students, after completing AlcoholEdu (Survey 2, n=5 55), reported that the course prepared them to make responsible decisions about drinking.
  • The most common drinking-related risk behaviors that students engage in are Doing Shots and Pre-gaming.
  • Two of the most frequently reported negative consequences of drinking are Had a Hangover and Blacked Out.
  • 81 Students wanted to be contacted by the school to learn more about alcohol and other drug addiction recovery related programs and services available on campus.
  • Students reported that some of the most important reasons not to drink are because I’m going to drive and I don’t want to spend the money. 
The AOD Task Force is looking for ways to partner across campus to integrate more alcohol and other drug education. If you would like to know more information about the survey results and/or how to implement alcohol education in the classroom, please contact the AOD Task Force Chair, Brittany Billar at bbillar@apu.edu.

Reformation Conference

posted Apr 7, 2017, 5:13 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Apr 7, 2017, 5:14 PM ]

Please consider participating in this APU-hosted interdisciplinary conference.  We are still accepting proposals for papers and panels (please email to reformation@apu.edu).  The conference is interdisciplinary with the goal of understanding the reverberations of the Reformation in all areas of life from the 16th century to our own time.  I hope you'll support this APU-sponsored Conference--after all, 500th anniversaries only come around once every, well, 500 years.

Brad Hale, PhD
Associate Professor of History
Director of the Humanities Program
Azusa Pacific University

Faculty and Staff, interested in Leading a New-Student Adventure Trip this Summer?

posted Apr 7, 2017, 4:59 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Apr 10, 2017, 8:22 AM ]

APU Faculty and Staff,

On behalf of the Outdoor Adventure Program at the Office of Communiversity, we would like to invite you to consider leading a New-Student Adventure (NSA) trip this summer!

New Student Adventure is a unique supplemental opportunity for our incoming first-year students to learn about APU and give them the confidence and tools to have a successful college career.

There are 3 trips this summer—Ansel Adams Wilderness, Malibu, and Mexico; and we are currently looking for faculty and staff members who are interested in co-leading any one of these trips with the Communiversity and Mexico Outreach staff. Prior outdoor experience is not necessary but preferred.

Here are the dates:

Ansel Adams (Backpacking and Climbing)—July 16–July 23
Malibu (Climb, Surf, and Hike)—July 30–August 4
Mexico (Serve and Grow)—July 23–July 29

If you are interested, please complete the application by Friday, April 21st, 2017! We would love to hear from you.

If you have any questions, please feel free email me or call me at extension 3029.

Thank you for your consideration!

Alex Oh, M.S.
Director of Campus Activities
Office of Communiversity
Azusa Pacific University

First-Ever Mary Hill Award Goes to Dr. Kim Denu!

posted Apr 7, 2017, 12:48 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Apr 10, 2017, 8:13 AM ]

On March 30th, Azusa Pacific University recognized Kimberly B.W. Denu, Ph.D., Vice President, Chief Diversity Officer, and member of the Office of the Provost, with the first-ever Mary Hill Award for her work in advancing women in leadership. Less than a week prior, Dr. Denu was featured as a keynote speaker at the second annual Advancing Women in Leadership Conference, which was co-sponsored by APU and hosted at Biola University. Congratulations, Dr. Denu!

Pictured left to right: Karen Longman, Gail Wallace, Elaine Richardson, Kim B.W. Denu, Heather Petridis, Anita Henck, Shino Simons

Information Literacy Series—Part 5 of 6

posted Mar 30, 2017, 10:02 AM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Mar 30, 2017, 10:03 AM ]

The only constant is change, declared Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher (500 BCE), and that, perhaps, is a fitting characterization for the fifth “frame” of information literacy, “Scholarship as Conversation.” As anyone who has reentered a conversation (much changed from its start) knows, talking changes things. Discourse is dynamic – while the reasons we share information may be murky, we are compelled to share. Being information literate in a scholarly or professional discourse means that you understand the process in order to participate successfully as well as benefit from the conversation, and that the nature of the discourse is to change or evolve.

What changes discourse is a number of things, all inherent in the information literate mind: to understand that the conversation is not finished, but ongoing; to not just value different perspectives but seek them out; to both contribute to and evaluate contributions to the conversation; to tolerate ambiguity, suspend judgment, and exercise responsibility during the process; and finally, to recognize that the purpose of the process is to “negotiate meaning” amongst your community.

Whether a gang of video gamers or a task force of neurosurgeons, groups of people with common interests and common goals talk to each other within the group in specialized ways with specialized rules of evidence and authority and specialized language. In rhetoric, these are known as “discourse communities,” and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) definition for “Scholarship as Conversation” demonstrates strong similarities to them:

Communities of scholars, researchers, or professionals engage in sustained discourse with new insights and discoveries occurring over time as a result of varied perspectives and interpretations.

Information literate individuals have learned the skills and developed the appropriate mindsets to enter into a scholarly or professional conversation, comprehend its milieu, participate successfully, and make relevant and valuable contributions to the knowledge base. More than that, they understand that not being able to do so disempowers the individual. Information literate people comprehend that if they don’t know the language of their discourse communities or its unique modes of communication they are hampered, if not barred, from communication.

Since all students aspire to enter some profession, the ability to hear and be heard within that professional community is vital to career success. Also essential is students’ ability to follow the development of important issues in the field they are pursuing, to recognize the key contributors to those issues, as well as to recognize new voices in whatever venue and from any valid, though possibly differing, perspectives. Innovation often comes from unexpected places, so the ability to hear from unexpected places is key.

In addition to their relevance in workplace and professional conversations, the information literacy skills practiced from the frame Scholarship as Conversation, are also important for civic life and for any situation where a discourse community has formed. In fact, for any leadership role, whether church elder, community organizer, or humanitarian advocate, the ability to effectively manage the professional conversation can mean the difference between truly changing a situation and merely being busy.

Now let’s take a look at a scenario that helps illustrate how a librarian and faculty member might collaborate to teach on the information literacy frame Scholarship as Conversation. 


Dave has been teaching one-shot library instruction sessions for the Department of Biblical and Religious Studies (DBRS) for ten years. In compliance with the university’s new information literacy initiative, Dave and his fellow librarians are working more collaboratively with faculty in order to implement a new information literacy (IL) model. The director of DBRS has shared with Dave all current Old Testament undergraduate syllabi. Working together, Dave and the director are identifying one course that has a large number of course sections taught to mostly undergrads early in their college years. The two are looking for something that might work well as a broad-based IL student experience. They settle on the course Exploring Genesis, which all students take before their junior year. There are a large number of sections taught, including one-third by adjuncts.

Dave then meets with the lead faculty for the Exploring Genesis course who not only manages changes in the course content but also teaches three sections a year herself, coordinates all the adjuncts, and knows Dave as a librarian colleague. As they spend a number of hours working on the details, she and Dave also collaborate to set up a large meeting with all the instructors of the course, not only to bring them onboard regarding the new IL model, but to walk the faculty through what an IL student learning experience might look like for the course. Let’s follow what happened at the meeting, called by the lead faculty herself, and situated at a local, popular family restaurant’s banquet room on a Saturday at 4:00 in the afternoon.

Sarah Hueglad, Old Testament classroom faculty: OK, everyone, I think we can get started. But, please, continue to enjoy the refreshments. In a moment our department librarian, Dave, will share a few things about connecting information literacy to the Exploring Genesis course that we all teach. Dave and I met a couple of times and have designed an information literacy experience assignment for the course along with a model for a rubric. We began the process by choosing the information literacy concept called “Scholarship as Conversation.” It seemed like a good fit for the class and for the assignment we eventually created. The idea of “Scholarship as Conversation” is one of six frames that make up an information literacy model coming recently from the Association of College & Research Libraries called the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.

As you know this course has four core student learning outcomes that we are required to teach to. We also have the option to add up to two more of our own learning outcomes. A new book on this new information literacy model has a large number of sample SLOs for each of the six frames. Adapting one of them to the new assignment seemed like the best way to go. So, for this assignment, we added the SLO: “Information literacy learners are able to create a chronological narrative of significant historic milestones on a topic in a particular discipline.”

To teach to this SLO, we suggest replacing the Genesis Person of the Year Award assignment with a new Chronological Narrative assignment. Students will be assigned one of the themes in Genesis (creation, sibling rivalry, infertility, covenants, lies/deceits, and so forth). After watching a video on how to search for scholarly resources, they will locate and analyze at least four scholarly journal articles and then write a three-page, Turabian citation style reflective paper exploring the “conversation” on their theme in terms of the history of its development and the scholarly perspectives that helped shape it. After their paper is completed, students will be formed into groups of two or three according to their common theme. Each group will be required to create one deliverable that explains their collective insights in regards to the scholarly conversations they discovered from their theme. Deliverables can be a PowerPoint, a short video, a play, an interpretive dance (just kidding) or other approved end-products. Dave, maybe you can explain a little more.

Dave: Thanks Sarah. It’s nice to see so many familiar faces on this Saturday afternoon and I’m especially grateful so many of our adjuncts could come. I’m glad the time we chose made it possible for all of you to attend.

OK, so on your handout are two things: the assignment Sarah just summarized and the rubric we worked on for both the three-page student paper and the students’ final deliverable. The rubric helps in two ways: first it simplifies your grading and second it easily collects information literacy data for accreditation and other campus uses. Notice the rubric has four sets of scores. Each will be used both as an initial baseline for each student and an aggregated baseline for the course sections as a whole. The student data remains confidential even as we work with the Office of Institutional Research & Assessment to gather longitudinal data over the educational experience of each student. I see we have a question.

Faculty 1: Doesn’t this add to our workload? How will we be compensated?

Sarah: Since one assignment is replaced with another, there is no change in workload. In fact, the older assignment had a time-consuming threaded discussion component that the new one does not.

Faculty 2: Why did THIS particular course get singled out in OUR department? Is it because so many students take the class?

Dave: Yes, one reason this course was chosen was because it affected a large student population. In fact, the other departments across campus also are collaborating with their librarians to do similar information literacy assignment modifications to one or more courses. The university hopes to integrate information literacy assignments into as many courses as possible, including those online.

Faculty 3: Well, I for one appreciate this plan. It’s a lot clearer to me now – how I can do this thing called information literacy. I’m looking forward to trying it out.

Sarah: Any more questions? Great, meeting adjourned! 

Faculty Meeting Handout 

Scholarship as Conversation 
ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy* 

The Genesis Thematic Chronological Narrative Assignment 

Student Learning Outcome: Information literacy learners are able to create a chronological narrative of significant historic milestones on a topic in a particular discipline.

This assignment has three components:

1. After being assigned one of a dozen themes found in the book of Genesis and watching this video on how to search for scholarly resources, you will find and study at least four peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles that discuss the history or development of your theme, articles that together should include more than one perspective on your theme.

2. You will individually write a three-page reflective paper discussing these perspectives as a scholarly conversation using Turabian citation style.

3. You and your teammates’ papers and research collectively will inform your group final deliverable project. You will be working with your group to come up with a creative way to communicate to the rest of the class what you discovered from the literature regarding your thematic chronology in Genesis. Examples of what can be used include PowerPoint, a short video, a play, or other approved end-product. Presentations should be ten minutes long or less. Grading will be assessed by the following rubric.

Scholarship as Conversation 
ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy* 

Rubric for the Genesis Thematic Chronological Narrative Assignment 

Student Learning Outcome: Information literacy learners are able to create a chronological narrative of significant historic milestones on a topic in a particular discipline

Student: ________________­­­­­____________________        Date: ______________________

Team: ______________________________________


Standards of Evaluation













Number and quality of resources

Four or more resources: a) topically relevant, b) current, c) scholarly, and d) correct Turabian style

Lacking in one of the four categories: a), b), c), or d)

Lacking in two of the four categories: a), b), c), or d)

Lacking in all four categories: a), b), c), and d)


Score 1:







Quality of three-page Genesis thematic chronological narrative paper and turned in on time

 1. Identified three or more insights on the theme,

2. identification and comparison of scholar perspectives is clear and well-supported from the journal texts,

3. chronology of theme development is highly accurate, well detailed, and highly relevant

1. Identified at least two insights on the theme,

2. identification and comparison of scholar perspectives is present with adequate text support,

3. chronology of development is basically accurate, sufficient detail and relevancy

1. Identified at least one insight on the theme,

2. identification and comparison of scholar perspectives is barely perceptible with minimal text support

3. chronology of development is has some inaccuracy, minimal detail, relevancy uneven

1. Attempt at insight is present but undeveloped

2. attempt at identification and comparison of scholar perspectives is present but undeveloped, inappropriate or no text support

3. chronology of development is inaccurate, detail is inappropriate or irrelevant or missing


Score 2:







Quality of demonstrating connections between what was discovered in the literature and final deliverable to the class

Cleary demonstrated learning from the literature, high creativity, all members involved

Demonstrated learning from literature, some creativity, not all members involved

Unclearly demonstrated learning from literature, low creativity, not all members involved

No clear demonstration of learning from literature, no creativity, all members not involved


Score 3:






Additional Comments:



Total Score:



Note to faculty: When submitting final grades in the form there are three additional columns to put each students’ chronological assignment scores (Score 1, Score 2, and Score 3).

*The Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education was filed by the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) Board on February 2, 2015 and adopted by the ACRL Board, January 11, 2016. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Thank you to Dave Harmeyer, M.L.S., Ed.D. Associate Dean, University Libraries and Janice Baskin, M.A., M.S. Director, Library Publications for writing this series for the Provost's newsletter. Please feel free to contact them directly at dharmeyer@apu.edu and/or jbaskin@apu.edu with questions or comments.

Student Service Learning Project Spotlight

posted Mar 25, 2017, 8:48 AM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Mar 25, 2017, 8:53 AM ]

My name is Tanna Brinkman, and I am a member of the Service Learning Project Group that is promoting INSPIRE, an event sponsored by ARDENT. This is a group of seven business women in Glendora whose mission is to empower women by providing them with unique products, services, and experiences, and by supporting local community efforts benefiting women and their families.

Through our Principles of Marketing Class taught by Assistant Professor Rachel Bodell, we were able to join forces with these entrepreneurs and support their event. We collectively believe in their mission to empower women through beauty, health, and wellness products and services. I know that a few of the girls, including myself, also hope to one day run our own businesses. Seeing these women unite together in support of each other’s goals, while simultaneously giving back to the community, is an incredible example of power and inspiration that we can carry into our future entrepreneurial endeavors.

We hope that you consider attending this event! For more information, please watch the video below!

ARDENT Inspire 2017 from Kami Zoller on Vimeo.

Are Your Catalog Pages Ready?

posted Mar 23, 2017, 3:35 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Mar 25, 2017, 9:21 AM ]

Are your catalog pages ready? It's time to start wrapping up the editing process of the 2017 – 2108 catalog. Please don't wait until the last minute to start your pages into workflow! You can access your pages at nextcatalog.apu.edu.

Due Dates:

  • All catalog pages must be started into workflow by Monday, May 15th. If your role has "EDITOR" in it, you must click the green "Start Workflow" button on all of your pages by this date. 
  • All approvers must approve their pages by Thursday, June 1st. If your role has "APPROVER" or "EDITOR_2" in it, you must click "Approve" on all pages waiting for your approval by this date.

  • Need a quick refresher on how to edit and/or approve catalog pages? Check out our Catalog Help Documentation at the OCS website here. CourseLeaf training is available by request.

Feel free to contact the Office of Curricular Support with any questions or concerns you may have. Happy editing!

1-10 of 76