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!

Honors College Spring 2017 Lecture Series

posted Jan 20, 2017, 10:05 AM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Jan 20, 2017, 10:21 AM ]



Academic Quality & Reputation Report—Service & Experiential Learning

posted Jan 19, 2017, 1:01 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Jan 19, 2017, 1:21 PM ]

Participation in Service Learning

Participation data is from the Academic Service-Learning 2014-2015 year in review report


Community Impact

Community impact data is from the Academic Service-Learning 2014-2015 year in review report


Theory to Practice (Student service learning evaluations)

4-point agreement scale: 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree


Internal Assessment

Faith-Based Outcomes







Short-Term Program Development Breakfast

posted Jan 19, 2017, 11:24 AM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Jan 19, 2017, 1:21 PM ]


Service-Learning: Where the Cornerstones Connect

posted Jan 4, 2017, 2:23 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Jan 4, 2017, 2:41 PM ]


Academic service-learning builds community by developing positive, reciprocal relationships between Azusa Pacific University and the local, national, and international private and public sectors in order to enhance scholarship of faculty, students, and community partners through service activities, which integrate faith in Christ with service and learning.

Beyond the difference being made within the community, service-learning positively affects the academic careers of students. Through engaged learning, students increase their understanding of the course material; through real-life experience in the field, they are better prepared for their vocation, resulting in increased employability.

During the 2015-16 school year, 3,422 students in 171 classes within 24 different departments of Azusa Pacific University contributed 52,256 hours of service to over 90 community partners. In the fall of 2016, 1,556 students were enrolled in 84 service-learning courses and we are currently finalizing plans for 86 service-learning courses for the spring 2017 semester. This large scale impact on the community could not happen without the partnership and support of committed faculty and community partners.


Semester Highlight: Ceramics on Display 

Throughout the semester, fifth grader students from Powell Elementary have been enlivening the classroom of APU Ceramics courses. Powell was just recently named Azusa's Visual and Performing Arts Elementary School, and we are honored to partner with them in a project that directly reflects their new identity!

This was a multi-day experience for the 5th graders. The creation process began on the first day, when the 5th grade students were introduced to the medium and worked one-on-one with APU Art students to make their object. The students returned a few weeks later to paint their item in preparation for the kiln. Final products were displayed at Powell's very own Art Show in November. 

A core value of all service-learning projects is reciprocity; not only are the students of Powell learning a new skill, but the APU students are benefiting as well. “It’s really rewarding to take a creative activity I find so much value in and be able to share that with a child, showing them what a wonderful role art can play in one’s life,” says Sadie Kendrick, Junior, Art student at APU. 


Co-Education Recap

As a means to strengthen the relationships between the Center for Academic Service-Learning and Research, Service-Learning professors and community partners, Michelle LaPorte has initiated a four-part workshop series that addresses various topics related to the academic service-learning experience. This series is the first of its kind for the CASLR Office, and has proven successful and worthwhile. Arturo Ortega, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services for the Azusa Unified School District and faithful partner of service-learning, was honored as a cornerstone community partner. About the initiative, he reflected, “when different stakeholders come together for a common purpose, that has multiple benefits at different levels, it is a win-win situation that we can all celebrate.”

These workshops serve as a platform for all parties to share best practices, brainstorm new ideas, and gain greater access to the many resources available to those involved in facilitating an academic service-learning project on-campus or in the community. Round table discussions at these gatherings have produced fruitful and engaging conversations, as well as developed new project ideas for the Spring semester. 


C.H.A.M.P. Graduation 

College Headed and Mighty Proud presented its annual graduation ceremony for the 4th grade students on Wednesday, November 30th. About 200 students walked across the stage that evening to receive their C.H.A.M.P. diploma and with their future major and career in mind. "The students are always excited and I love seeing the faces of proud parents who may be witnessing a graduation ceremony for the first time," says Jessica Quintara, C.H.A.M.P. Director. The 2017 spring graduation ceremony is scheduled for Wednesday, April 5.


8th Grade Majors Fair

The Center for Academic Service-Learning and Research, in partnership with the Azusa Unified School District, Cal Poly Pomona and Citrus College, is well underway with planning the 6th annual Eighth Grade Majors Fair: Passport to Your Future. This event is scheduled for Friday, March 17th, and will serve as an opportunity for the 8th grade students of A.U.S.D. to be introduced to the many majors they can choose from in college. Students will engage in hands-on activities with department representatives from each of the college campuses. For a glimpse of this event, please click here.

Academic Quality & Reputation Report—Faculty Satisfaction

posted Jan 4, 2017, 2:05 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Jan 4, 2017, 2:08 PM ]

The Faculty Survey is a national survey designed by the Higher Educational Research Institute at UCLA and administered through the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). It assesses faculty satisfaction, values, and practices. The t-score is a composite score of several survey items that statistically group together under one construct and is based on a mean of 50.0 and a standard deviation of 10. Therefore, scores can be assessed by their proximity to the mean, i.e., above or below 50.


Workplace Satisfaction


Compensation Satisfaction


Leadership — Graduate Faculty


Leadership — Undergraduate Faculty

Autonomy — Graduate Faculty


Autonomy — Undergraduate Faculty


Faith — Graduate Faculty


Faith — Undergraduate Faculty

Information Literacy Series—Part 2 of 6

posted Jan 4, 2017, 9:18 AM by Rebecca Cantor


Many college courses require writing and all require reading. But the skills of reading and writing critically at the college level are much different than those of a reading of, say, a popular magazine, or the writing out of directions to a friend’s house, or sending a series of texts to decide which movie to see or restaurant to eat at. To be information literate, according to the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a person needs to understand what’s involved in creating the information received as well as the information he or she intends to deliver. Inside its new Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, ACRL identifies one of six information literacy frames it calls “Information Creation as Process” and defines it:

Information in any format is produced to convey a message and is shared via a selected delivery method. The iterative processes of researching, creating, revising, and disseminating information vary, and the resulting product reflects these differences.

The first thing that may come to mind when considering applications for this frame is a freshmen writing class, or a course with a research paper assignment. A second thing is the feeling that this frame is really more about being able to write a college paper than information literacy. But writing – or communicating – is only part of this frame.

Just as important – or perhaps more so – is understanding how any information you receive got to you. It also means understanding the implications of the format of a piece of information. What are the differences between a blog and an academic journal article, or a report on a website funded by a pharmaceutical company and a mainstream newspaper article? What sort of review process or gatekeeping is involved? How do you find background on how any information was created (and what does it mean if you can’t)? What happens when the format of a message changes – how do perceptions change when the same information is delivered in the Los Angeles Times versus a radio talk show? And even in similar formats, how is the same information framed differently in each? What are the criteria for credibility, reliability, and authenticity for any given format? How transparent is the process – who can impact it or influence it negatively or positively? When is the immediacy of the format important and when does it impair or corrupt discourse?

The information literate person will know what formats or modes are relevant to any information need and adapt accordingly, both in terms of accepting information as valid or sound and in terms of choosing the right vehicle for communicating his or her created information to others. He or she also has the intellectual skill to evaluate emerging forms and modes of information delivery and to utilize them appropriately and ethically. The information literate individual also has the awareness to detect relevant new modes.

So, like the other five ACRL information literacy frames, this one goes far beyond knowing how to locate an acceptable source and how to properly cite the source in a paper. Whether studying to be a psychologist, or a computer programmer, or a CEO, understanding the culture of communication in a particular field is one of the keys to future career success. For a practical illustration of this frame, let’s look at a classroom exercise on “Information creation as process” in the discipline of biology.

************* 

A librarian and a classroom faculty member are discussing a classroom exercise that the faculty member recently used in class to teach some of the concepts included in the ACRL information literacy frame, Information Creation as Process.

Chuck Warind, classroom faculty: After our discussion on the new information literacy frames, I decided that “Information Creation as Process” was a good fit for an assignment I give to my freshmen biology class.

Dave Harmeyer, librarian: So, how did you introduce the idea within this class assignment?

Chuck: First, I introduced the class to the overall concept of “information creation as process” and discussed how it pertains to the field of biology. I broke the class into small groups to create guidelines for using this lens, as you call it, for managing information in field of biology. We then pooled our ideas together as a class and created a one-page guide for the main assignment.

Dave: You’ve got my interest. What was your big assignment?

Chuck: The term assignment required a self-publishing exercise with two other classmates. Each student needed to create a Wikipedia entry for a newly discovered species of mammals he or she picked from a list.

Dave: I didn’t know there were new species being discovered. Where do you find them?

Chuck: New species are reported by Sci-News.com. I check if they’ve been added to Wikipedia before making a list. Each group of three students regularly met online using Padlet, a digital bulletin board, using the “information creation as process” guide for biology we created as a class to direct their progress and thoughts.

Dave: How did you grade each student and assess their information literacy progress?

Chuck: I used a simple rubric scoring students in three areas, the number and quality of resources they found about their species, the level of relevant postings in Padlet, and their final entry in Wikipedia. The three categories are scored as numbers and entered into my grade book and added to aggregate university data for reports. The rubric was included in the assignment.

Framework for Information Literacy in Biology 

“Information Creation as Process” 

Wikipedia Species Entry Assignment Rubric

Name: ________________________________        Date: ______________________

 

Accomplished

4

Proficient

3

Developing

2

Novice

1

RESOURCES

Number and quality

 

Found up to 3 evidences from highly reputable sources; APA/MLA style correct

Found up to 2 evidences from good sources; APA/MLA style mostly correct

All evidences from mediocre sources and/or APA/MLA style incorrect

All evidences from questionable sources and/or APA/MLA style mostly incorrect

FRAMEWORK POSTINGS IN PADLET

Number and quality mentioning Information Creation as Process

 

More than 3 clear, thoughtful references to Information Creation as Process

Three clear, thoughtful references to Information Creation as Process

Less than 3 references to Information Creation as Process

No references to Information Creation as Process

WIKIPEDIA ENTRY

Inclusion of Information Creation as Process

Clearly included one or more concepts in Information Creation as Process

In between Accomplished and Developing

In between proficient and Developing

No clear evidence that Information Creation as Process was included


Column Scores:

 

 

 

 

 

Total Score:

 

Comments:

 

 

 

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. 

Academic Quality & Reputation Report—Intentional Internationalization

posted Dec 1, 2016, 4:09 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated ]

Faculty Development

The Faculty Survey is a national survey designed by the Higher Educational Research Institute at UCLA and administered through the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). It assesses faculty satisfaction, values, and practices. The t-score is a composite score of several survey items that statistically group together under one construct and is based on a mean of 50.0 and a standard deviation of 10. Therefore, scores can be assessed by their proximity to the mean, i.e., above or below 50.



Global Competence Development

The College Senior Survey (CSS) is a national instrument designed by the Higher Educational Research Institute at UCLA and administered through the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). It assesses college senior experiences, satisfaction, values, and practices. The t-score is a composite score of several survey items that statistically group together under one construct and is based on a mean of 50.0 and a standard deviation of 10. Therefore, scores can be assessed by their proximity to the mean, i.e., above or below 50.

CIRP surveys are run every two to three years and provide national norms by which peer or target benchmarks may be established. The target benchmarks for these charts represent the CIRP/APU peer data from 2012-13, which was determined by the taskforce.

Midnight Breakfast

posted Dec 1, 2016, 11:29 AM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Dec 1, 2016, 11:30 AM ]


As part of our continuing commitment to Christ-centered academic excellence and student success, the Learning Enrichment Center is partnering with the Office of Communiversity to provide Tutors and SI Leaders for Midnight Breakfast study sessions. We are honored to have the opportunity to assist the more than 1,000 students who are expected to attend this event.

The LEC has more than 60 student tutors and SI Leaders trained to provide assistance to students in more than 100 Undergraduate and Graduate subjects. Professors who are interested in having a study session hosted by the LEC at Midnight Breakfast will be matched with a tutor or SI Leader in their field of study who will consult with them to develop the study session, ensuring that the information covered in the study session is both course- and professor-specific.

If you are interested in having a study session hosted for your students, or if you have questions about our Tutoring and Supplemental Instruction programs, please contact Mary Mercurio Santos, LEC Tutoring Coordinator, at (626) 815-6074 or mmercuriosantos@apu.edu.

Thank you!

Alex Oh M.S.
Director of Campus Activities
Office of Communiversity
Azusa Pacific University
alexoh@apu.edu
626-812-3053

Academic Quality & Reputation Report—Faith Integration

posted Nov 18, 2016, 3:41 PM by Rebecca Cantor

Faculty deep learning: IDEA faith integration item scores

IDEA scores are part of APU’s faculty evaluation system. The IDEA system was developed by The IDEA Center and is a national instrument used to collect student evaluations of faculty and their courses, providing national benchmark data for the institution to use in the faculty evaluation process. The following IDEA charts reflect faculty scores from 3 APU specific faith integration questions. 

The following IDEA metrics are based on a 5-point scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree


Faculty: Faith integration articulated and applied

Information Literacy Series—Part 1 of 6

posted Nov 17, 2016, 3:13 PM by Rebecca Cantor   [ updated Nov 18, 2016, 3:46 PM ]


What is information literacy? Many times faculty think of it as library instruction. But in fact it is a much broader idea today both in education and in library and information science. Information literacy is now considered a set of intellectual skills that students need to successfully navigate their lives as citizens, consumers, and individuals in pursuit of happiness. All decisions – medical, financial, civic, career, etc. - are predicated on a person’s ability to define, choose and gather relevant information, evaluate and analyze that information, and then synthesize and create new information – in a world overflowing with information from countless sources utilizing myriad technologies. Accrediting bodies like WASC and global agencies like UNESCO recognize that education should prepare the individual to be lifelong learners in part through being information literate. 

Here at APU, faculty are familiar with the six Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education as approved by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) in 2000 and from which faculty select a relevant portion to insert into all syllabi. These standards are skills based: 

An information literate person is able to
  • Determine the extent of information needed 
  • Access the needed information effectively and efficiently 
  • Evaluate information and its sources critically 
  • Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base 
  • Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose 
  • Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally 

But last year that changed – radically. ACRL has replaced the five Standards with the six frames of the Framework for Information Literacy Standards for Higher Education, based on the idea of threshold concepts, “those ideas in any discipline that are passageways or portals to enlarged understanding or ways of thinking and practicing within that discipline.” That is, there are now six concepts that are said to encompass information literacy, and these concepts change the very nature of information literacy instruction. These frames are theoretical, rather than practical: 
  • Authority Is Constructed and Contextual 
  • Information Creation as a Process 
  • Information Has Value 
  • Research as Inquiry 
  • Scholarship as Conversation 
  • Searching as Strategic Exploration 

Thus, each frame is adaptable and relevant to any discipline. Let’s take a closer look at the first one listed: Authority is constructed and contextual. ACRL says: 

Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the information will be used. Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority. It is contextual in that the information need may help to determine the level of authority required.


What does this mean to your discipline and what does it look like in your classroom? 

Librarians today will need to help faculty and administrators explore and determine how these “habits of mind” will be developed and assessed through their courses, their programs, and their schools. The concepts are meant to be embedded in learning outcomes, threaded through course assignments, and explicitly addressed in curriculum. 

So, to help begin this new conversation, let’s look at a practical classroom example in the field of English Literature that investigates the frame Authority Is Constructed and Contextual:

A librarian and a classroom faculty member are discussing a classroom exercise that the faculty member recently used in class to teach the ACRL information literacy frame Authority Is Constructed and Contextual. 

Jack Lewis, classroom faculty: Of the six IL frames the first one, Authority Is Constructed and Contextual, seemed to be a good fit for my English Literature class. 

Dave Harmeyer, librarian: So, what did you do to start off? 

Jack: I divided the class into groups of four or five and had one student in each group take notes on a Word document from an email I sent everyone before class. The document had a place for student names plus two columns. One column was labeled AUTHOR GUIDELINES and the other RATIONALE. The guidelines were broken into sections titled Mission, Scope, Style, and so on. 

Then I explained that each group represents an editorial board for a scholarly journal called The Journal of Christianity & English Literature. I also sent them, ahead of time, a link to APU’s Christianity & Literature’s journal actual author guidelines as a model to follow in order to create their own set of guidelines. After 25 minutes, note takers shared with the entire class one section of their group’s AUTHOR GUIDELINES and its corresponding RATIONALE. 

Dave: How were you able to teach about the context of an author’s authority? 

Jack:
 That was easy. Based on what students learned in the exercise, I then led them in a discussion of what items a curriculum vitae of a potential author of the journal might include. I listed each criteria as a bulleted item on the whiteboard. 

Dave: That’s impressive, Jack. But how did you measure student learning? 

Jack: Like you said, IL is only as good as what you can assess. During the last few minutes of class, I gave them a prompt for a reflective exercise where they wrote one new thing learned from the theme Authority is Constructed and Contextual, which they turned in. Also, this exercise was followed up with further reflection in that week’s threaded discussions in Sakai. 

Dave: OK, so you ended up with three artifacts for measuring learning: first, the group-designed Author Guidelines; second, the list of author criteria; and third, the students’ written reflections. How did you work out an assessment of all that? 

Jack: I created a simple rubric. Then, for each student I checked the relevant box and wrote a few thoughts in the comment box. So this assignment ended up being an element of the entire course grade, yet it is also individual data that could be used for other assessment needs including accreditation.

Authority is Constructed and Contextual

Framework for Information Literacy

Author Guideline Exercise Rubric


Name: ________________________________        Date: ______________________


 

Accomplished

4

Proficient

3

Developing

2

Novice

1

GROUP:

ANALYZE

At what level did the student’s group cover: 1. mission, 2. scope, 3. style and 4. authority in the new author guideline

Brief but clear mission; clearly defined scope of English Lit (dates), style of writing MLA, APA; a sense of author authority

Strong in 3 of the 4 areas

Strong in 2 of the 4 areas

Strong in none or one of the 4 areas

GROUP:

EVALUATE

Level of convincing argument in the RATIONALE column

1. Thoughtful, 

2. persuasive,

3. often multiple parts, 

4. all parts of the model guidelines mentioned

Strong in 3 of the 4 areas

Strong in 2 of the 4 areas

Strong in none or one of the 4 areas

INDIVIDUAL:

COMPREHENSION

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

Clearly stated one of the important parts of the lesson

Stated one important part of the lesson but not clearly

Stated something that was of minor importance

Missed stating any important parts of the lesson

Column Scores:

 

 

 

 

 

Total Score:

 

Comments:

 

 

 


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.

1-10 of 49