Service Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE)
Proposal for Consideration and Development
May 11, 2011
DRAFT
Report Produced by the SLICE Workgroup:
Committee Membership
Eric Alexander
Kathryn Baker
Loren Chavarria
Ryan Collay
Allison Davis-White Eyes
Margie Haak
Jeff Hale
Kate Hunter-Zaworski
Cathy Law
Jennifer Nutefall
Nell O’Malley
Roger Rennekamp
Ann Robinson
Susan Shaw
Jonathan Velez
Jun Xing
Department/College
Co-Chair, Student Leadership & Involvement (SLI)
Administrative Support from SLI
Foreign Languages & Literatures
SMILE Program
Intercultural Student Services
Chemistry Department
College of Liberal Arts
College of Engineering
Human Development & Family Sciences
OSU Library
College of Education
Outreach & Engagement/College of Education
Student Media
Women’s Studies
College of Agricultural Sciences
Co-Chair, Ethnic Studies
Service Learning Initiative 2
Table of Contents
Section
Page
Introduction and Rationale
 Land-grant mission
 University strategic plan and signature areas
 Carnegie classification
 Learning Goals for Graduates
3
3
4
4
4
Definition of Service-Learning
5
Outcomes of Service-Learning Initiative
 Outcomes for Students
 Outcomes for the University
 Outcomes for Community
6
6
7
7
Proposed Model
 Primary recommendation
 Target for student engagement
 Scalable programmatic structure
 Initial personnel considerations
 Consortium and Advisory Board Structure
 Initial budget and partnership consideration
 Operational considerations
 Recognition structuring
8
8
8
8
10
10
10
12
13
References
14
Figures and Tables
 Figure 1. Scalable Model
 Table 1. Proposed SLICE Budget for Startup
9
11
Appendices
 Appendix A – SLICE Charge
 Appendix B – A Vision for Service-Learning at OSU (White Paper)
15
16
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 3
Service Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE)
Proposal for Consideration and Development
Introduction and Rationale: Why does OSU need a Service Learning Initiative?
Oregon State University (OSU) is engaged in systematic institutional change to address
numerous challenges and opportunities simultaneously. These include: academic and community
engagement; academic excellence leading to an engaged and effective citizenry; cultural
competency for diverse populations; and meeting the demands involved in retaining an
increasing number of diverse students locally, statewide, and nationally. These goals must be
met within the context of the following frames:
1) Our mission as a land-grant institution
2) Our Strategic Plan
3) Our recent Community Engagement classification by the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching
4) Our new Learning Goals for Graduates
The Service Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE) workgroup was jointly
commissioned by the Associate Provost for Academic Success and Engagement and the Vice
Provost for Outreach and Engagement to develop a campus-wide service-learning initiative for
OSU (see Appendix A for charge). Numerous reasons for developing a service-learning
initiative at OSU can be found in the white paper entitled A Vision for Service-Learning at OSU
(see Appendix B) with connections to the aforementioned frames being described below.
Overall, as OSU moves toward service-learning as an institution-wide solution, it is important to
note that the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) has deemed servicelearning a “high-impact educational practice” that can help achieve essential student learning
outcomes as outlined by faculty, employers, and accrediting agencies (Kuh, 2008).
The Land Grant Mission
The university’s original mission was set forth in the 1862 Morrill Act to focus on the teaching
of agriculture, science and engineering along with classical studies as a response to the industrial
revolution and the demands of a growing middle class. Now, the emergence of a global
economy and greater cultural diversity in workplaces and communities profoundly influences
this mission.
Much of the responsibility for carrying out the Land Grant Mission of the University falls to the
Division of Outreach and Engagement. Outreach and Engagement view each citizen as a lifelong learner to emphasize the relationship OSU has with Oregonians. Students are encouraged to
co-author contributions that serve external partners; graduate students are granted assistantships
to address community needs, and Outreach and Engagement works to instill a culture of student
engagement throughout their major and baccalaureate core work. Service-learning could serve
to catalyze a deeper commitment to the land grant mission throughout the institution. In fact,
institutions that engage in service-learning practices report enhanced community relations (Gray
et al., 1998), a necessary ingredient in supporting our commitment as the land-grant institution
for the state of Oregon. The SLICE proposal is a university-wide initiative to serve the students
of OSU and the communities of the State of Oregon and beyond. Comparator institutions (e.g.
Washington State University) have successfully integrated service-learning across the statewide
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 4
network of extension offices and within extended campus programs. OSU could further engage
the State of Oregon through similar programs focused on service-learning.
University Strategic Plan and Signature Areas
The OSU Strategic Plan rests on a set of three fundamental goals:
1) provide outstanding academic programs
2) enhance the teaching and learning environment
3) increase investment in academic priorities
Service-learning can lend mightily to these fundamental goals for OSU. There is an abundance
of research that describes the positive impact of service-learning on student-based educational
outcomes such as student persistence in college/retention, student motivation, increased campus
and community involvement, increased awareness of social issues, more focused educational and
career development, decreased racism, etc. (see A Vision for Service Learning at OSU in
Appendix B for references). The proposed initiative will help the University to produce
graduates who can build effective, respectful relationships with people from many backgrounds
and experiences. There is evidence that service-learning efforts increase the quantity, quality
and retention of underrepresented students (Roose, et al., 1997) and students and faculty report
that service-learning improves students’ ability to apply classroom learning to practical
application. These outcomes can be accomplished through increasing the support for cultural
diversity and expanded service-learning opportunities to serve the public and private sectors.
Applied student experiences will place students in partnership with faculty as they address the
OSU Signature Areas of Distinction identified in the strategic plan of 1) Science of Sustainable
Earth Ecosystems, 2) Human Health and Wellness, and 3) Economic Growth and Social
Progress. Collectively, the Signature Areas represent OSU's greatest opportunity to solve
complex societal problems and to create superior learning opportunities for students. To move
forward on these endeavors requires skills and attributes that service-learning specifically and
intentionally fosters in programs, faculty and students.
Carnegie Classification
In 2010, Oregon State University was awarded the prestigious Community Engagement
classification by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Carnegie
Foundation specifically focuses on university activity that “describes the collaboration between
institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national,
global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of
partnership and reciprocity” (Carnegie Foundation website). As part of the application process,
OSU recognized a need to strengthen the level at which we participate in curricular engagement
activities/service-learning in order to more fully live up to our designation. The proposed
service-learning initiative will allow for greater fidelity in living up to the Community
Engagement classification and can be implemented in conjunction with university-wide strategic
realignment and restructuring of undergraduate baccalaureate core curriculum.
Learning Goals for Graduates
Oregon State University is also reevaluating the “baccalaureate core” of undergraduate education
to ensure that all students explore, experience, and reflect upon world views, life situations, and
cultures that are different from their own, as well as create opportunities for students to apply
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 5
their skills and knowledge to complex problems and real-world challenges. Additionally, the
university is increasing access to innovative, relevant educational programs through nontraditional delivery modes that serve place-bound students, address targeted business needs, and
promote lifelong learning. The Learning Goals for Graduates include:
1) Competency and knowledge in multiple fields
2) Critical thinking
3) Pluralism and cultural legacy
4) Collaboration
5) Social responsibility and sustainability
6) Communication
7) Self-awareness and life-long learning
The service-learning initiative is in direct alignment with these goals. Research supports the
effectiveness of service-learning in most of these domains (see A Vision for Service Learning at
OSU in Appendix B for references). In fact, in defining service-learning (see definition below),
the ideals would include every one of these learning goals for graduates. Overall, the proposed
service-learning initiative is in direct alignment with the objectives and strategies of the LandGrant Mission, the Learning Goals for Graduates, University signature areas, Outreach and
Engagement strategic plan, our commitment to internationalization, and community needs at the
local, regional and state levels.
Definition of Service Learning
There are many definitions of “service-learning,” but most academics agree that it is a form of
experiential education in which academic classroom curriculum and instruction is fully
integrated with meaningful service in the community. The overall goal is for students, faculty,
and the community to learn and benefit from positive collaborative and reciprocal experiences,
strengthening communities for the common good. Sigmon (1979) and Furco (1996) suggest
service-learning must include both service and learning goals of equal importance to student,
community, and faculty participants (See Appendix B, Figure 1). Student, community, and
faculty members who participate in these authentic experiences understand how participation in
service advances their learning and how learning results in better service outcomes.
As a Carnegie Foundation designated Community Engagement university, we recommend
adopting the definition of curricular engagement (read “Service Learning”) used by the Carnegie
Foundation which suggests engagement to be “…teaching, learning and scholarship engaging
faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial and respectful collaboration. Their
interactions address authentic, community-identified needs, deepen students’ civic and
academic learning, encourage lifelong civic engagement, enhance community well-being,
and enrich the scholarship of the institution” (Carnegie Foundation, 2011)
Key components of service-learning should include:
1) Curricular connections: Academic ties are clear and build upon and enhance the
disciplinary skills students are learning in the classroom with structured opportunities for
reflection created to think, talk, and write about the service experience;
2) Community partnerships: Partnerships with community agencies and organizations are
essential to identifying authentic community needs, providing mentorship, contributing
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 6
assets and resources towards successfully completing a service project; and, determining
the significance and depth of the service activities;
3) Assessment: Well-structured assessment provides valuable documentation of the
'reciprocal learning' and serving outcomes to encourage sustainability and replication;
and
4) Student voice: Beyond being actively engaged in the service itself, ideally students have
the opportunity to select, design, implement, and evaluate their service activity,
encouraging relevance and sustained interest (Furco, 1996).
Outcomes of a Service-Learning Initiative: What will this initiative create for OSU?
The outcomes and impacts of service-learning provide vital support for the University’s Learning
Goals for Graduates, the three signature areas of distinction, and retention of the Carnegie
Community Engagement classification. Research indicates that student participation in servicelearning will foster a sense of community, improve understanding of diversity, encourage
students to become more holistic and trans-disciplinary and promote student collaboration,
application, and innovation. The outcomes of a service-learning experience will enable students
to recognize and address complex societal issues and will in turn aid the University in reaching
its commitment to develop an informed and capable citizenry.
A committed focus on service-learning will enable the university to better meet the needs of
students, faculty, and the surrounding communities. While the benefits of service-learning are
most often directed first at the students, it is important to recognize the holistic impact of servicelearning. Based on the broad range of potential outcomes, we have separated the service-learning
outcomes into three categories: outcomes for the university, the students, and for the community.
The following sections detail our conceptualizations of some of the key outcomes and indicators
of success resulting from the establishment of a climate of service-learning.
Outcomes for Students

Achievement of learning goals.
Research demonstrates significant benefits to students resulting from participation in
classes that involve service-learning. We see service-learning-based courses as
instrumental in helping students achieve the seven Learning Goals for Graduates (LGGs)
of OSU. However, we also recommend that a supplemental course evaluation be
developed for service-learning-based courses to track outcomes unique to servicelearning.

Work-ready graduates.
Many educational institutions are examining how service-learning helps them produce
work-ready graduates. Ongoing connections to community help students understand the
complex nature of real-world problems they will encounter in the future.

Increased civic development.
Research shows that young adults who volunteer and have strong connections with
communities are more likely to be civically-engaged as adults than those who are not.
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 7
Outcomes for the University

Achievement of a shared definition and understanding of Service Learning.
It is essential that OSU develop and communicate a shared definition of what constitutes
service-learning. Focus groups with faculty, students and community members are
recommended to assess current understanding of service-learning. Faculty development
workshops are effective ways of helping faculty design courses with strong servicelearning elements.

Service-learning courses become “transcript visible.”
Accrediting bodies expect that service-learning courses be clearly identified in the
university catalog or bulletin. They also expect that student participation in servicelearning courses be visible on transcripts. A designator for such courses will allow OSU
to report the number of service-learning courses offered and the number of students who
enroll in service-learning courses.

Increase in the number of Service-learning courses offered by OSU.
In 2010, just over 1% of OSU courses were identified by academic units as having strong
service-learning components representing approximately 2200 students or roughly 10%
of enrolled students. We recommend that OSU establish a minimum goal of doubling the
number of such courses by 2014.

Increased student retention.
Students who perceive their courses as relevant and who understand how the content
learned can be applied in real-world contexts are more likely to be stay enrolled and
complete their education at OSU.
Outcomes for Community

Active participation of faculty, staff, and students in communities.
Service-learning not only catalyzes student involvement in the community, but faculty
and staff involvement as well. Ideally they are involved in co-learning partnerships that
embody principles of reciprocity and respect.

Solutions to local problems.
Through such involvement, both community perspectives and university knowledge are
valued and recognized. Solutions to problems are contextually appropriate and broadly
supported.

Increased public perception of the OSU’s value.
OSU is viewed as authentic, concerned, engaged, and responsive. Oregonians see OSU
as value-added.
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 8
Proposed model: Creating a Service-Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement
The following proposed model from the SLICE workgroup is based on multiple comparator site
visits (including Boise State University, Cornell University, Portland State University, Seattle
University, University of Washington, and Washington State University) as well assessment of
literature focused on creation of and structural considerations for service-learning programs.
Primary recommendation:
OSU should develop a centralized structure that reports directly to the Associate Provost for
Academic Success and Engagement in order to support service-learning for our students,
community, and faculty. This structure will enhance the student experience and push OSU to
more fully integrate our Land-Grant mission and current Carnegie Foundation designation as a
Community Engagement institution.
Target for Student Engagement:
The initial goal of the service-learning initiative is to provide structural support for community
partners, faculty, and students as they engage in curricular and co-curricular service-learning
experiences. A relatively straightforward target for engagement can be established as OSU
continues to develop experiential learning opportunities focused on 1) service-learning, 2)
undergraduate research, 3) internships, and 4) study abroad experiences. Within four years of
the service-learning initiative start-up, 1-in-4 OSU students who graduate will have had a
curricular service-learning experience supplemented by co-curricular opportunities.
Scalable Programmatic Structure:
OSU should focus on developing a scalable model that will facilitate increased university
commitment, student engagement, statewide connections, and faculty involvement throughout
expansion (see Figure 1 below). Though reporting directly to the Associate Provost for
Academic Success & Engagement, the service-learning initiative will garner energy and support
from Academic Affairs, Outreach & Engagement, Student Affairs, and (eventually) International
Programs.
STAGE 1 – Supportive Start-up: Throughout the design development phase of this initiative
(including site-visits with numerous comparator institutions) it became clear that in order for this
to be a successful initiative a centralized model of programmatic support is essential.
Understanding the need for scalability, we will begin with a small operational center to include a
1) a full-time director, and 2) a half-time coordinator (or graduate student support). These
positions will be bolstered by partnership with the Student Affairs based program within the
Department of Student Leadership & Involvement’s Center for Civic Engagement and Service.
The CCES will provide support through co-curricular service-learning, student-based
programmatic support, risk and liability mitigation, and connection to the community. In
addition, the CCES will provide student personnel and programmatic outreach and engagement
elements for students. To begin developing a strong connection to the colleges and university
programs, the Director will convene a Service-Learning Consortium (see description below).
STAGE 2 – Campus Integration: As service-learning becomes increasingly embedded into the
OSU culture, the community, and within the student experience, the OSU service-learning
program will need to scale up to support growth with the addition of another full-time
coordinator position. The first element of integration will likely include course designations that
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 9
are transcript visible. In addition, an uptick in personnel providing support to community and
faculty development as well as integration of the student support area (the CCES) will be
instituted. As integration evolves, service-learning will become central to our culture at OSU
and the surrounding community. The program coordinator will develop and assemble quarterly
the Service-Learning Community Advisory Board as a way to strengthen connections with
community partners, develop or enhance communication mechanisms, engage in communitybased awards programs, and engage community members as co-educators and scholars. Once
this system is in place it will be time to further our statewide presence, through extension, and
embrace our land-grant standing within Oregon through service-learning.
STAGE 3 – Regional Center: Once established as an OSU hallmark program, the servicelearning initiative will be ready for ”Regional Center” status, focused on curricular and cocurricular service-learning, engaged research, broader statewide service-learning initiatives and
gain national level standing. Partnerships with other OUS institutions (i.e. Portland State
University) to develop the center will add depth and breadth to the program offerings. Most
importantly, though, we will be the epicenter of research, practice, service, scholarship, and
program development that truly informs and transforms the state of Oregon and the Pacific
Northwest. The Regional Center will tackle issues pertinent to the state, and work with our
communities to solve the most critical problems confronting the social and environmental fabric
throughout Oregon.
Figure 1. Scalable model for OSU Service Learning Initiative
Supportive Start-up:
Campus Integration:
Regional Center:
Intentional initiation of ServiceLearning Initiative for OSU
Integration into curriculum and
cross-discipline collaboration
Center for excellence in engaged
scholarship and learning
(1-3 years)
(4-5 years)
(6+ years)
• Expected Outcomes
• Expected Outcomes
• Expected Outcomes
•Center development of
materials and personnel
•Faculty development and
support
•Student/community
connections
•Reward structure for
faculty and students
•Develop supporting board
structure
•Academic Affairs, Student
Affairs, O&E Partnership
•Targeted support for
community, students, and
faculty
•Curricular and cocurricular development
•Integrated into campus
through course
designation and
requirements
•Additional awards
structure for community
•Engaged research
academy
•Grant attainment and
continued development
•Foundational support
•Prominent statewide
distance service-learning
program
•Strong partenrship with
OUS schools
• Program Personnel
•Director (1.0 FTE)
•Coordinator (.5 FTE)
•.49 FTE - GTA
•6-10 work study students
• Added Personnel
•1.0 FTE Community
Outreach Coordinator
•.49 FTE - GTA
•2 work study students
DRAFT
• Added Personnel
•.5 FTE Grant writer
•.5 FTE statewide
coordinator
•2 - .49 FTE GTA's
•2 work study students
Service Learning Initiative 10
Initial Personnel Considerations:





1.0 FTE – Director: This position could be focused on administration and either
community development or academic and faculty development. The decision to be made
would focus on whether this person is professional faculty or academic faculty.
.5 FTE – program coordinator focused on either academic or community development
(depending on role of director). Again, this could be a professional or academic faculty.
1.0 FTE – Coordinator (focused on student curricular and co-curricular support – this
could initially be accomplished with the new Coordinator for Civic Engagement and
Service with the Department of Student Leadership & Involvement (Student Affairs).
.49 FTE GTA positions to provide support to programmatic elements
Administrative support from 6-10 student workers
Consortium & Advisory Board Structures:
Service-Learning Initiative Consortium:
 Internal working group – made up of people from key areas on campus who are able to
shift position descriptions or currently have position descriptions that would dedicate
FTE to S-L
 This asks EVERY College to truly commit some level of support to this work (should be
Dean appointed)
 Membership would come from across campus (Director convenes monthly or every other
month – similar to O&E Council)
 May include a few community and student members from key stakeholder groups
 This is a working group that discusses current campus-based initiatives, opportunities for
collaboration across departments, joint funding ventures, etc.
Service-Learning Community Advisory Board:
 Focus in two areas:
o Community member partners
o On-campus volunteer groups
 Community focused coordinator convenes group 1-2 times/term
 Develops mechanisms for feedback from community
 Develops annual awards/recognition programs for and from community
 Continues to develop strong working relationships with community and volunteer base
Initial Budget and Partnership Considerations (table 1):
Initial budget considerations suggest the need for at least 1.5 new FTE as well as .49 FTE for a
GTA. This will allow for the service-learning initiative to gain traction through consistent
programmatic development and support via personnel. Program partners for these FTE can be
spread across Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and Outreach & Engagement. Other needed
partners will include the Center for Teaching & Learning as well as numerous colleges to
provide additional budgetary and programmatic support.
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 11
Table 1. Proposed SLICE Budget for start-up
Phase
Phase I:
Supportive
Start up
(Years 1-3)
Funding Needs
Personnel Needs:
 FTE Director (68K + benefits @ .43)
 .5 FTE Coordinator ($34K + benefits
@ .43)
 .49 FTE Graduate Assistant ($22K)
 1 Work study ($2K)
Operations Needs:
Office furniture, copying, phone,
supplies, computers, fax, etc. (20K)
Phase II:
Campus
Integration
(Years 4-5)
Added Personnel Needs:
 0.5 FTE Community and Outreach
Coord. ($23K + benefits @ .43)
 2 - .49 FTE GA ($44K)
 2 - Work Study ($5K)
Added Operations Needs:
 Library development ($1K)
 Honoraria/stipend for community
partner
($2.5K x 5= $12.5K)
 Grant proposals ($10K)
 Office & Marketing materials ($15K)
Phase III:
Regional
Center
(6+ years)
Additional Personnel Needs:
 1.0 FTE Research/Statewide
Coordinator (65K+ benefits @ .43)
 1.0 FTE Community Outreach
Coordinator (46K+ benefits @
.43)(added .5FTE)
 2 - .49 FTE GTA ($44K)
 2 - Work Study (5K)
Added Operational Needs:
 Fellowships/Stipends (25K)
 Student Outreach (12K)
 Faculty workshops ($7K)
 Grant writing and research support
(10K)
DRAFT
Totals and possible sources
TOTAL Annual Budget Need:
Approx. $150-$190K
Possible sources/partners:
 Academic Affairs
 Student Affairs
 Outreach & Engagement
 Center for Teaching & Learning
TOTAL Annual Budget Need:
Approximately $225K-$250K
Additional sources/partners:
 Student fees
 Grants
 OSU Foundation
 Colleges
 Federal work study funds
Total Annual Budget Need:
From OSU continued support of
approx. $275K - $300K
Expectation of additional funding
from grants and OSU Foundation
Additional Sources/partners:
 INTO
 OUS Partner schools
 Extension funding
Service Learning Initiative 12
Operational considerations
In considering annual and day-to-day operations, the service-learning initiative will need the
following upon start-up to ensure success of the program:
1) The physical location and space needed within the center would include:
a. Office for Director (120-180 sq. ft.)
b. Office for Asst./Dir or coordinator (120-130 sq. ft.)
c. Office for second .5 FTE coordinator (110-120 sq. ft.)
d. GTA workspaces (2-3 .49 GTA workstations 55 – 75 sq. ft. each)
e. Student work stations (2-4 stations at 55 sq ft. each)
f. Dedicated meeting space
g. Community parking spaces
h. Transportation/vans for student project transport
2) Technical support is both a practical and financial consideration. Technical support
considerations include the following:
a. Initial hardware and software set-up
b. Initial website design
c. Initial phone set-up
d. Internet access and support
e. Email access and support
f. Continued website support
g. Software updates
h. Hardware updates
i. Phone costs, including long-distance
3) Business support considerations include the following:
a. Business Center designation
b. Accounting support
c. HR support
d. Student worker support
e. Fee processing (i.e. lab fees, class fees)
4) Risk management/liability mitigation considerations include the following:
a. Liability waivers for students
b. Liability waivers for community partners
c. Contracts with community partners
d. Trainings to decrease risk
e. Special insurance for students when off-site
5) Marketing and communications considerations include the following:
a. Departmental marketing versus university wide marketing (i.e. who does it?)
b. Marketing to and recruiting students (when, how initially, how over time)
c. Marketing to and recruiting faculty (when, how initially, how over time)
d. Marketing to and recruiting community partners (when, how initially, how over
time)
e. Developing strong social media understanding and communications connections
to statewide partners
6) Staff training and development should include the following:
a. Difference Power, & Discrimination Training
b. Accounting, HR, student workers
c. OSU facility usage (room reservations, policies)
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 13
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Liability issues & risk management
Media releases
Policies regarding working with minors
Working with non-OSU entities (including non-profits)
Training and support for faculty teaching SL classes
Recognition Structuring
Recognition is a key asset to a strong service-learning initiative. In particular, the list below
should be considered as a way to possibly generate motivation for faculty, students and staff. A
complete list is found in Appendix
1) Faculty
a. Awards
b. Fellowship/Mini-grants/Buy-outs
c. GTA award
d. Promotion & Tenure
2) Students
a. Transcript notation
b. “Service Medal”
c. Scholarships
d. Project funds
e. Conference fee
f. Awards nominations
g. Co-authorship
3) Community
a. Partner recognition/awards/proclamation
b. Community fellows program
c. Honorarium/donation
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 14
References
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2011). Community Engagement
Classification Description. Retrieved from
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php
Eyler , J.S., & Giles, D.E., Jr. (1999). Where's the learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass, Inc.
Fitch, P. (2004). Effects of intercultural service-learning experiences on intellectual development
and intercultural sensitivity. In S. Billig & M. Welch (Eds.), Advances in ServiceLearning Research (p. 107–126). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Furco, Andrew. (1996). Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education.
Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National
Service.
Gray, M.J., Ondaatje, E.H., Fricker, R., Geschwind, S., Goldman, C.A., Kaganoff, T., Robyn, A.,
Sundt, M., Vogelgesang, L., & Klein, S.P. (1998). Coupling Service and Learning in
Higher Education: The Final Report of the Evaluation of the Learn and Serve America,
Higher Education Program. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact education practices: What they are, who has access to them, and
why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.
Oregon State University (n.d.). Strategic Plan - Phase II: 2009-2013. Retrieved October 25, 2009
from Oregon State University Website: http://oregonstate.edu/leadership/strategicplan/.
Seifer, S.D., & Connors K. (Eds.)(2007). Community Campus Partnerships for Health. Faculty
Toolkit for Service Learning in Higher Education. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service
Learning Clearinghouse, 2007.
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 15
Appendix A
The charge to the Service Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE) workgroup is
to develop a campus-wide Service Learning initiative that seeks to celebrate OSU’s existing
strengths in Service Learning opportunities and to expand and extend opportunities to engage
more students, faculty and community partners. Closely linked to the University’s Strategic
Plan, the charge of the SLICE workgroup is to recommend a programmatic structure to promote
excellence in Service Learning at OSU. Topics to be addressed include:
1) Programmatic goals and alignment and intersection with broader student learning
objectives, including the Learning Goals for Graduates proposed by the Bacc Core
Review Committee for consideration of the Faculty Senate during spring 2010, Bacc
Core learning outcomes, and outcomes in colleges and major programs.
2) Administrative structure/support (this may include 2-3 options based on varying
funding/support models or a graduated plan)
a. Funding sources/resources
b. Program administration/staffing needs
c. Location (within University structure)
d. Partnerships and roles within and outside of OSU
3) Programmatic priorities
a. Definitions of Service Learning
b. Defining/describing liability
c. Faculty/staff training and development needs
d. Learning outcome and curricular development standards
e. Student curricular and co-curricular opportunities
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 16
Appendix B
A Vision for Service Learning at Oregon State University
This white paper introduces the notion of service learning: defines it, discusses its importance,
provides implementation examples from other comparable institutions and offers suggestions for
a comprehensive and strategic approach to university-wide service learning at Oregon State
University (OSU). Service learning is one essential aspect of the Carnegie Designation Engaged University OSU seeks to obtain and can play a vital role in the OSU mission to
promote economic, social, cultural and environmental progress for people across Oregon, the
nation and the world through their graduates, research, scholarship, outreach and engagement.
OSU can become a recognized leader in service learning as part of the overall drive to be a Top
10 Land Grant university.
What is Service Learning?
There are many definitions of service learning, but most academics agree that it is a form of
experiential education in which academic classroom curriculum and instruction is fully
integrated with meaningful service in the community. The overall goal is for students, faculty,
and the community to learn and benefit from positive collaborative and reciprocal experiences,
strengthening communities for the common good. Sigmon (1979) and Furco (1996) suggest
service learning must include both service and learning goals of equal importance to student,
community, and faculty participants (See Appendix A, Figure 1). Student, community, and
faculty members who participate in these authentic experiences understand how participation in
service advances their learning and how learning results in better service outcomes.
Given our desire to attain the Engaged University Carnegie Designation, we recommend
adopting the definition of curricular engagement (service learning) used by the Carnegie
Foundation: “…teaching, learning and scholarship engage faculty, students, and community
in mutually beneficial and respectful collaboration. Their interactions address authentic,
community-identified needs, deepen students’ civic and academic learning, encourage
lifelong civic engagement, enhance community well-being, and enrich the scholarship of the
institution.”
Key components of service learning include:
5) Curricular connections— Academic ties are clear and build upon and enhance the
disciplinary skills students are learning in the classroom with structured opportunities for
reflection created to think, talk, and write about the service experience;
6) Community partnerships – Partnerships with community agencies and organizations are
essential to identifying authentic community needs, providing mentorship, contributing
assets and resources towards successfully completing a service project; and, determining
the significance and depth of the service activities;
7) Assessment—Well-structured assessment provides valuable documentation of the
'reciprocal learning' and serving outcomes to encourage sustainability and replication;
and
8) Student voice—Beyond being actively engaged in the service itself, ideally students have
the opportunity to select, design, implement, and evaluate their service activity,
encouraging relevance and sustained interest (Furco, 1996).
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 17
Why is Service Learning Important?
The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) through the Liberal Education
and Americas Promise (LEAP) initiative (a multi-year, multi-institutional qualitative and
quantitative study) have identified a set of student learning outcomes for higher education
deemed essential by faculty, employers, and accrediting agencies. Those learning outcomes
include 1) engaged study in and knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural
world; 2) practicing intellectual and practical skills (i.e. inquiry, analysis, written/oral
communication, critical/creative thinking, etc.); 3) being anchored by personal and social
responsibility (i.e. civic engagement, intercultural competence, ethical reasoning and action,
etc.); 4) demonstration of integrative and applied learning (Kuh, 2008). Service learning
provides a vehicle and a high-impact educational practice that can help achieve these essential
learning outcomes (Kuh, 2008).
For example, there are observed positive influences on students’ persistence in college/retention,
student motivation, increased campus and community involvement, increased awareness of
social issues, more focused educational and career development, decreased racism and often job
offers that result from quality service learning programs and participation (Astin & Sax, 1998;
Balsano, 2005; Bringle, Hatcher, & Muthiah, 2002; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Fitch, 2004; MarstellerKowalewski, 2004; McClam, Diambra, Burton, Fuss, & Fudge, 2008; Roldan, Strage, & David,
2004; Warchal & Ruiz, 2004). In addition, student and faculty report that service learning
improves students’ ability to apply classroom learning to practical application (Eyler & Giles,
1999). Also, because service learning opportunities often require several departments or colleges
to work together, there is evidence that such programs help to break down the silos that exist on
many campuses (personal communication, Pam Kiser of Elon University, September 16, 2009)-clearly an important goal of OSU’s new strategic plan. Lastly, institutions report enhanced
community relations (Gray et al., 1998 ), a necessary ingredient in supporting our commitment
as the land-grant institution for the state of Oregon. The three Signature Areas of Distinction
identified in the strategic plan include: Advancing the Science of Sustainable Earth Ecosystems;
Improving Human Health and Wellness; and Promoting Economic Growth and Social Progress.
Collectively, the Signature Areas represent OSU's greatest opportunity to solve complex societal
problems and to create superior learning opportunities for students. To move forward on these
endeavors requires skills and attributes that service learning specifically and intentionally fosters
in programs, faculty and students.
There is evidence that service learning efforts increase the quantity, quality and retention of
underrepresented students (Roose, Daphne, Miller, Norris, Peacock, White, & White, 1997).
Ellen Momsen, Director of Women and Minorities in Engineering at OSU suggests that her
Ambassador program keeps diverse students engaged and provides a supportive community in
which to learn. The front page of the University of Chicago’s Community Service Center (an
exemplary program recognized nationally) website features an excerpt from Michelle Obama’s
keynote address, in which she indicates that she did not feel that the University was a viable
option for her because no one there reached out to the people in her Chicago community.
Oregon State University can learn from this lesson. Service learning provides accessible paths to
student leadership development and engagement opportunities (Perreault, 1997) open to anyone
and not dependant on popular election, status, or standing. OSU can leverage its role as a land
grant university with presence in every county in the state, by adding to and enhancing service
learning opportunities that already exist. Through a comprehensive and strategic service
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 18
learning program, OSU can have an even stronger and more meaningful presence,
communicating that we are an institution that accepts hard-working students, no matter their
community or background. There is one other aspect of the service learning arena in which OSU
can lead statewide, regionally, nationally and internationally. Currently, there is a lack of
rigorous and long-term scholarship and research about service learning and its impacts on
students, faculty, the university as a whole and communities, short-term and particularly long
term (Billig & Eyler, 2003; Ziegert & McGoldrick, 2004). This is an important niche that OSU
could fill.
Service Learning at Oregon State University
Currently, Oregon State University offers Service Learning opportunities in a few areas within
the curricular and co-curricular landscape. Through Outreach & Engagement, numerous
programs are in place that directly or indirectly supports the concept of service/community-based
learning. Currently students participate in OSU service learning through programs such as the
Extension Services, 4-H, the Sun, Space, and Sea Grant programs, the SMILE Program, InsideOut, and agriculture experimental stations. These programs offer opportunities for students to
actively and experientially learn and apply learning that cannot be matched with classroom-only
approaches.
Other examples can be found across particular colleges and departments. For instance, the
College of Engineering’s participation in Engineers without Borders, and the College of
Engineering/College of Science Pre-College programs offer opportunities to engage with the
community and provide service to the state and the world. In the College of Health & Human
Sciences, engagement with state agencies, such as the local Public Health Departments, offer
rewarding learning. In addition, individual and collective groups of instructors are intentionally
building course curriculum focused on service learning, including Dr. Jun Xing in Ethnic
Studies, Steve Cook in Geology, Dr’s. Juan Trujillo, Susana Rivera-Mills, and Loren Chavarria
in Foreign Language, Dr. Michele Inderbitzin and Jeff Hale in Sociology to name a few. Finally,
our campus houses a student-run and student-fee-funded Community Service Center (the CSC)
that offers students a conduit to service opportunities in the community. Due to funding cuts,
this program lacks professional staff oversight; however, the CSC is currently operating under
the advising structure of the Department of Student Leadership and Involvement. Service
learning opportunities at OSU are present, though they are both sporadic and episodic in their
delivery and thus underutilized and undervalued.
Education that Engages: Enhancing Service Learning Opportunities at OSU
Service learning is an obvious opportunity for institutions around the country to more thoroughly
engage students, become stronger partners with their communities, and to enhance learning by
students. Our comparators around the country, including public land-grant institutions, as well
as those in the Pacific-10 conference, have trended towards well integrated/campus-wide
approaches to service learning initiatives or programs, some dating back well over 35 years. At
OSU, the current Strategic Plan outlines our goal to be amongst the Top 15 Land-Grant
Institutions in the country (OSU Strategic Plan, 2009). Our University mission and the land
grant mission, established by the Morrill Act (1862) and bolstered by the establishment of
Agriculture Experimental Stations (Hatch Act of 1887) and the expansion of outreach through
Cooperative Extension (Smith-Lever Act of 1914) compels OSU to act to advance “economic,
social, cultural and environmental progress for the people of Oregon, the nation and the world,”
DRAFT
Service Learning Initiative 19
(OSU Mission Statement, 2009). By serving the community of Corvallis and the state of Oregon
more fully through integrated service learning and civic engagement in the curricular and cocurricular learning environments of student, we can more completely live our core values and
confirm our commitment to becoming a Top 10 Land-Grant Institution.
In addition to developing as one of the Top 10 Land-Grant Institutions, we are focusing our
current Strategic Plan on three primary goal areas : 1) Provide outstanding academic programs
that further strengthen performance and pre-eminence in the three Signature Areas of
Distinction: Advancing the Science of Sustainable Earth Ecosystems; Improving Human Health
and Wellness; and Promoting Economic Growth and Social Progress; 2) Provide an excellent
teaching and learning environment and achieve student access, persistence and success through
graduation and beyond that matches the best land grant universities in the country; and 3)
Substantially increase revenues from private fundraising, partnerships, research grants, and
technology transfers while strengthening our ability to more effectively invest and allocate
resources to achieve success (OSU Strategic Plan, 2009). An integrated service/communitybased learning initiative will undoubtedly and demonstrably add to each of these goal areas by
providing opportunities to serve the community/state in the three signature areas of distinction,
enhance teaching and learning through a more fully engaged pedagogy, build partnerships and
mobilize support for OSU throughout the state of Oregon.
The following sections will detail 1) models of successful service-learning initiatives from both
comparator and inspirational institutions; and 2) outline for consideration a synthesis of
recommended component parts of a service learning initiative for Oregon State University. In
addition, directional recommendations will be forwarded on from this white paper in order to
spur Oregon State University to increased action that advances the practice of
service/community-based learning.
Comparator Institutions
The following institutions were used as the benchmark for comparison drawn from the OSU
sample of comparator institutions (see Appendix A-Table 1) and others that offer additional
inspirational practices and successful models of integrated service learning initiatives. Data was
collected using a standardized interview protocol with key informants at each institution (see
Appendix B). Those institutions in italics have been highlighted in this white paper.
Sample Institutions (* = land-grant peer institute):
 Cornell University*
 Colorado State University*
 Elon University
 Georgetown University
 Michigan State University*
 Ohio State University*
 Portland State University
 Purdue University
 Stanford University
 University of Chicago
 Washington State University*
 Willamette University
DRAFT
SLICE Report 20
Institutional Data
Cornell University* (Ithaca, NY):
Students: 21,325 (13, 846 undergrad)
Institution Type: Private, Land-Grant
Website: http://www.psc.cornell.edu/default.html
The Cornell Public Service Center, which began in 1991 through a Corporation for National
Service Grant, is the home of service learning for Cornell University. Their goal is to “champion
the conviction that the Cornell University experience confirms service as essential to active
citizenship.” The initial goal of the Center was to transform the institution, to shift the ethos.
They quickly realized that they simply needed to grow a meaningful program that crosses
academic and co-curricular bounds and the ethos change has taken care of itself - the program
has grown from its inception, serving over 6000 students and over 100 faculty. In addition, they
are seen as a part of the Ithaca service community and have developed a coveted “Cornell Civic
Leadership Fellow Program” that directly engages community partners as fellows at Cornell.
Cornell Programmatic structure/operations:
 Report to VP – Student Academic Support
 9 full-time staff
 Approx. $700K operating budget
 Faculty/Student/Community Coordination
Cornell Points of interest/lessons learned:
 No link to T&P – can make it tough to engage faculty initially
 No specific course designation, but feel it is needed
 Research mini-grants for course creation help to support faculty
 Annual faculty symposium increases interest
Elon University (Elon, NC):
Students: 5,666 (4,995 undergrad)
Institution Type: Private
Website: http://www.elon.edu
The Kernodle Center for Service-Learning, named in 1997, has been a part of Elon University
since the late 1980s. The Kernodle Center houses Elon Volunteers!, a student-led program
offering a range of volunteer activities; coordinates Elon’s signature academic service-learning
programs and courses; and sponsors alternative break service trips, among other services. Elon
students have both curricular and co-curricular transcripts, a required experiential learning course
and transcript-visible service-learning courses.
Last year’s report announced that Elon students logged over 92,000 hours of service. Along with
the Center, there are a lot of faculty designations focused on service-learning efforts. There is a
Faculty Development Fellow named who leads service-learning courses and lunchtime talks as
well as educates other faculty about the benefits of service learning. There is great support for
faculty interested in creating service-learning courses. A group of six to seven faculty members
are named each year as Service-Learning Faculty Fellows and support each other while
developing new service-learning opportunities for students.
Elon Programmatic structure/operations:
 The Kernodle Center is part of the division of Student Life and also has a faculty fellow
for Academic Service Learning that reports to Academic Affairs.
DRAFT
SLICE Report 21


Staffing: 2 full-time staff, 2 part-time staff, and 1 Americorps/VISTA
Approximately $30K operating budget plus Student Government gives Elon Volunteers!
approximately $15K per year for programs.
Elon Points of interest/lessons learned:
 Center has full time employee devoted to building community partnerships
 Stipends allotted to instructors interested in creating service-learning courses
Georgetown University (Washington, DC)
Students: 15,318 (7, 092 undergraduate)
Institution Type: Private Catholic/Jesuit
Website: http://socialjustice.georgetown.edu/
The Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching & Service is the cornerstone of service
learning initiatives at Georgetown. Led by faculty member, they are approve Community-Based
Learning (CBL) courses that are notated on students academic transcripts (currently 19 official
CBL courses). The Center focuses on curriculum and pedagogy, community partnering, service
events, and supporting research that is community-based. Nationally, they are known for their
4th Credit Option, a program that allows students to add a 4th Service Learning credit to any class
via their approval. Though this provides some transcript visible service learning, they do not feel
the add-on philosophy truly accentuates a service learning model.
Georgetown Programmatic structure/operations:
 Report to Provost – Academic Affairs
 Dotted line to Student Affairs (by the Associate Director)
 11 Total staff
 Approximately $1.0 million budget ($300K of which is through contracts with local
schools)
Georgetown Points of interest/lessons learned:
 Extensive use of work study (over 200)
 Love/hate relationship with the 4th Credit Option
 Growing faculty development and community partner programs…buy-outs for both
Michigan State University* (East Lansing, MI)
Students: 46,648 (36,337 undergraduate)
Institution Type: Public, Land-Grant
Website: http://www.servicelearning.msu.edu/
The Center for Service Learning & Civic Engagement at MSU is the oldest/longest running
program nationally (est. 1968). The center serves both a curricular and co-curricular mission and
has seen a massive expansion over the past seven years (2002: 7073 students → 2009: 15,021
students). In addition, the Center works with all 17 Academic Colleges and MSU offers 550
service learning courses per year, though they are not transcript visible nor is there a
clearinghouse for designation. However, some majors do require students to have taken a
Community Service Learning course for graduation. Staff of the Center are trained as faculty
consultants focused on pedagogy and course design and also play a role in helping to draft
Community Partnering Agreements for community-based learning courses.
DRAFT
SLICE Report 22
MSU Programmatic structure/operations:
 Dual Reporting Lines to the VP for Student Services and the Assoc. Provost for Outreach
& Engagement
 7 staff members focus on Community Outreach/Academic Specialists/Student Service
 Approximately $400k annual budget
MSU Points of interest/lessons learned:
 Undergrads take on student leadership for student programs
 Credit in classes based on evidence of service learning (learning outcomes) not on hours
of service or service projects
The Ohio State University* (Columbus, OH)
Students: 53, 715 (40, 212 undergraduate)
Institution Type: Public, Land-Grant
Website: http://service-learning.osu.edu/
The Service Learning Initiative (SLI) at OSU was initiated in 1998 and stemmed from white
paper/vision statement and 8 dedicated faculty known for being deeply committed to
undergraduate education. The initial impetus behind the SLI was a desire to improve OSU as a
neighbor in Columbus and improve the quality of the student experience. The Service Learning
Initiative is primarily focused on support of the faculty in creating a service learning course as
well as training of pedagogy and practice – all separate from student initiatives focused on
service (i.e. community service leadership programs mainly found within Student Affairs
offices). They offer some faculty course development grants (three per year for $3000 each) and
currently support service-learning courses for 125-150 faculty across campus. This has been an
increasing number since the approval of a specific designation for service learning courses that
began in 2007.
Ohio State Programmatic structure/operations:
 The SLI is housed within Academic Affairs in the Office of Outreach and Engagement.
 Personnel include a .5 FTE Director, .5 FTE Program Coordinator, .33FTE
Communications Coordinator, .25FTE Fiscal Officer, and a shared Office Associate.
 Budget: $260K-$275K ($150K - $175K external funding)
Ohio State Points of interest/lessons learned:
 Challenged to sustain external funding
 Broker community partnerships (for faculty and student opportunities)
Portland State University (Portland, OR)
Students: 26,587 (20,515 Undergraduate)
Institution Type: Public-State
Website: CAE: www.pdx.edu/cae/; Senior Capstone: www.pdx.edu/unst/
With the institutional motto “Let Knowledge Serve the City,” PSU – through the Center for
Academic Excellence (CAE) and Senior Capstone – have truly infused community based/service
learning into their ethos. Following the passage of Measure 5 in the state of Oregon, PSU’s
president commissioned a General Education Committee charged with differentiating PSU and
making it distinct for the state of Oregon. From this work, the committee re-developed their
DRAFT
SLICE Report 23
University Studies (similar to OSU’s Baccalaureate Core) to include a more engaged pedagogy
throughout the student lifecycle at the institution as well as mandatory service learning based
Senior Capstone beginning in 1994 (developed upwards of 240 courses). Through the
Community-University Partnership program, the Student Leaders for Service program, and the
Capstone program, as well as strong research and academic programs in Metropolitan Studies,
School of Social Work, and Urban Studies programs, PSU has integrated a way to connect
faculty to community, students to community, and embed service learning into the graduation
requirements for every student in every college and department.
Portland State Programmatic structure/operations:
 CAE is Under Co-Direction of the Associate Vice-Provost for Engagement and the
Associate Vice-Provost for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment and University Studies
is under Vice-Provost for Undergraduate Education.
 CAE budget $448K (grant funding)/Community-University Partnership budget of
$200K/will roughly cost $5,521.00 per course transferred to Departments from
University Studies ($1.3 million from tuition and fees for classes).
 12 Staff (AVP’s, Asst. Directors, Program Coordinator, Instructional Designers, and
admin. support)
Portland State Points of interest/lessons learned:
 Annually broker $20k in mini-grants to faculty for course design
 Faculty drive relationship with community
 CAE simply provides resources, connections, and instructional design
 Still need to find a better way for the community to connect to PSU
University of Chicago (Chicago, IL):
Students: 15,149 (10,122 undergrad)
Institution Type: Private
Website: http://www.uchicago.edu
The Community Service Center at the University of Chicago has been operating for 14 years in
the Department of Student Services. Michelle Obama worked to first build the Center as a result
of her lack on interaction with the university while she was growing up in a Chicago community.
The staff takes pride in working with faculty to develop service-learning opportunities for
students. The goal of the Center is to “foster the development of civic-minded students by
providing substantive community service opportunities through community partnerships based
on mutual trust and respect.” There are 60+ groups on campus that have service-learning in their
mission statement.
Chicago Programmatic structure/operations:
 4 professional staff plus 25 student employees
Chicago Points of interest/lessons learned:
 There is no central place that deals with all service-learning
 They are currently piloting a design program that gives faculty a stipend as well as a paid
graduate student to help create and facilitate a service-learning course.
DRAFT
SLICE Report 24
Washington State University* (Pullman, WA)
Students: 25,352 (21,149 undergraduate)
Institution Type: Public, Land-Grant
Website(s): CCE: http://cce.wsu.edu ;
The Center for Civic Engagement at WSU was established in 1993 and is housed within the
Division of Student Affairs, Equity and Diversity. With specific learning outcomes focused on
Self-Efficacy, Academic Development, Civic Responsibility, and Community Partnerships that
extend regionally and nationally, the CCE is the hub of service learning programs and
opportunities for students, faculty, and the community. The Center offers numerous, curricular
and co-curricular service learning programs for students, annual events that raise awareness on
campus, and provide faculty support, training, and advising. In addition, they have partnered
with WSU Extension and the Distant Degree Program to broaden the reach and diversify the
opportunities for WSU to serve its communities.
WSU Programmatic structure/operations:
 Staffing: 7 professional staff, 6 graduate students, and 20-25 undergraduate student
employees.
 Budget: approx. $600K
WSU Points of interest/lessons learned:
 Advisory board support/develop program (1997-2005)
 Numerous sources of funding (including state, student fees, statewide fund drive, job
locator fund, work study, foundation, campus compact, mini-grants, etc.)
Programmatic Overtones for Consideration @ OSU
Findings from the survey of comparator institutions reveal the multitude of approaches to
develop and create a Service Learning Initiative at Oregon State University. Below is a list of
considerations that will increase the probably of long –term success as OSU moves to improve
the student experience in education through a service learning initiative.
1. Centralized Community-Based/Service Learning Efforts: In order to bring clarity, form,
and structure to the concept of service learning/community-based learning to OSU,
developing a centralized operation or centralized initiative will foster the cohesion needed to
meld together programs focused on students, faculty, and community. Each of these
programmatic areas need not be housed in one singular department (though that seems to be
ideal) but the consortium does need to be intimately intertwined at least in terms of
leadership.
2. The Golden Triad - Faculty/Students/Community: Any service or community-based
learning program must pay attention to faculty development, student engagement, and
community partnership. If any one of the legs of this three legged stool is not attended to,
then the model fails.
3. Share leadership and ownership between Academic and Student Affairs: Regardless of
the physical location of the initiative, in terms of housing/ownership, the Service Learning
Initiative at OSU should be a critical to the mission of both Academic Affairs and Student
Affairs. Some institutions have located the administration of a Service-Learning Initiative in
one or the other and some have co-located them or had “dotted line” reporting structures.
DRAFT
SLICE Report 25
4.
5.
6.
7.
Regardless of the structure at OSU, the sharing, reflecting, and assessing this work between
Academic and Student Affairs is essential for success on our campus. By acknowledging the
shared role of curricular and co-curricular learning, providing a seamless structure for
students, they and their advisors are better able to navigate the University. One possible
model would include a collaborative structure between Outreach & Engagement, Student
Affairs, and the Center for Teaching and Learning in Academic Affairs.
Funding needs to be embedded in budget: By embedding a Service Learning Initiative
into the budget (i.e. not relying solely on grant dollars) it ensures the continued vitality of the
initiative and an acknowledged commitment by the University.
Expand on current work/highlight/acknowledge: Currently, there are numerous service
learning opportunities at OSU that are either being underutilized, under-supported or underacknowledged. Some programs that are currently operating, if refined slightly, could easily
deliver a high quality service-learning experience. Further, through efforts campus-wide,
there needs to be a mechanism to honor and assess these efforts as integral pieces the overall
OSU Strategic plan.
Consider a range of opportunities for service learning, civic engagement, and
experiential learning as part of a dynamic and engaging student learning environment:
Though this white-paper focuses on service learning as a vehicle, developing more
opportunity, expectation, integration, and recognition for the positive educational impact of
experiential learning opportunities is paramount to the future success and engagement of our
OSU student body and external communities. The linking of research, academics and
outreach is core to the mission of the university and should be an integral to the university
experience.
Oregon…bring us your problems and together we will solve them! OSU can deliver a
robust and meaningful service learning agenda based upon the strategic initiatives to more
fully meet its mission to the state, benefits Oregon communities and fosters heart-felt ties to
OSU throughout the state – to make operational for the state our new slogan "Powered by
Orange!"
Recommendations for Next Steps
The following are offered as next steps to begin the process of developing a strong service
learning component at OSU:
1. Present “A Vision for Service Learning at Oregon State University” to the Outreach &
Engagement Council - this will serve as an opportunity to raise the question of how a more
robust service learning initiative can help place OSU amongst the top 10 land-grant
institutions in the country.
2. Assure initial commitment by the Provost, the Vice Provosts for Academic Affairs, Student
Affairs and the Division for Outreach and Engagement for the proposed structures for
leadership (above).
3. Create a full committee charged with developing a clear vision and action plan for a Service
Learning Initiative at OSU (partnership and stakeholders may include the Baccalaureate
Review Committee, Faculty Senate, ASOSU, University Cabinet, the Vice-Provost’s
Advisory Council (Student Affairs), the Student Affairs Leadership Team, and the Office of
the President.
DRAFT
SLICE Report 26
Respectfully submitted by:
Eric Alexander, Director
Student Leadership & Involvement
Michele Crowl & Lynne Dierking
College of Science, Free-Choice Learning
DRAFT
SLICE Report 27
References
Astin, A.W., & Sax, L.J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation.
Journal of College Student Development, 39, 251-263.
Balsano, A. B. (2005). Youth civic engagement in the United States: Understanding and
addressing the impact of social impediments on positive youth and community
development. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 88–201.
Billig, S. H., & Eyler, J. (2003). Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context,
participation, and impacts. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2009). Community Engagement
Classification Description. Retrieved from
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php
Eyler , J.S., & Giles, D.E., Jr. (1999). Where's the learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass, Inc.
Fitch, P. (2004). Effects of intercultural service-learning experiences on intellectual development
and intercultural sensitivity. In S. Billig & M. Welch (Eds.), Advances in ServiceLearning Research (p. 107–126). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Furco, Andrew. (1996). Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education.
Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National
Service.
Gray, M.J., Ondaatje, E.H., Fricker, R., Geschwind, S., Goldman, C.A., Kaganoff, T., Robyn, A.,
Sundt, M., Vogelgesang, L., & Klein, S.P. (1998). Coupling Service and Learning in
Higher Education: The Final Report of the Evaluation of the Learn and Serve America,
Higher Education Program. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact education practices: What they are, who has access to them, and
why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.
Marsteller-Kowalewski, B. (2004). Service-learning taken to a new level through community
based research: a win-win for campus and community. In S. Billig & M. Welch (Eds.),
Advances in Service-Learning Research (p. 127–147). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
McClam, T., Diambra, J. F., Burton, B., Fuss, A., & Fudge, D. L. (2008). An Analysis of a
Service-Learning Project: Students. Journal of Experiential Education, 30, 14.
Oregon State University (n.d.). Strategic Plan - Phase II: 2009-2013. Retrieved October 25, 2009
from Oregon State University Website: http://oregonstate.edu/leadership/strategicplan/.
DRAFT
SLICE Report 28
Perreault, G.E. (1997). Citizen leader: A community service option for college students.
NASPA Journal, 34, 147-156.
Roldan, M., Strage, A., & David, D. (2004). A framework for assessing academic servicelearning across disciplines.. In M. Welch and SH Billig (Eds.), New Perspectives in
Service Learning. . Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.
Sigmon, R. L. (1979). Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist, 8, 9-11.
University of Chicago Community Service Center (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2009 from
University of Chicago Website: http://communityservice.uchicago.edu/
Warchal, J., & Ruiz, A. (2004). The long term effects of undergraduate service-learning
programs on postgraduate employment choices, community engagement and civic
leadership. New Perspectives in Service-Learning: Research to Advance the Field.
Greenwich, CT.: Information Age Publishing.
Ziegert, A. L., & McGoldrick, K. (2004). Adding rigor to service-learning research: An armchair
economists’ approach. In New perspectives in service-learning: Research to advance the
field, 23–36.
DRAFT