Strengthening Institutional
Support for Service Learning
and Civic Engagement
Robert G. Bringle, Ph.D.
Chancellor’s Professor of Psychology and Philanthropic Studies
Director, Center for Service and Learning
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
rbringle@iupui.edu
Boyer’s Civic Engagement
The scholarship of engagement means
connecting the rich resources of the
university to our most pressing social,
civic, and ethical problems, to our
children, to our schools, to our
teachers, and to our cities.
-Boyer (1996)
Boyer’s Civic Engagement
What is needed is not just more
programs, but a larger purpose, a larger
sense of mission, a larger clarity of
direction.
Ultimately, the scholarship of engagement
also means creating a special climate in
which the academic and civic cultures
communicate more continuously and
more creatively with each other.
Criterion Five: Engagement
and Service
• Learn from constituencies and
analyze capacity to serve
• Commitment and capacity to engage
and provide service
• Demonstrate responsiveness to
dependent constituencies
• Internal and external constituencies
value the organization’s services
Engagement, Outreach, and
Public Service
• Civic Education
• Civic Engagement
• Community
engagement
• Community-based
Learning
• Community Service
• Engaged Scholarship
• Experiential Learning
• Outreach
• Participatory Action
Research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Partnerships
Professional Service
Public Scholar
Public Service
Scholarship of
Engagement
Scholarship on
Engagement
Service
Service Learning
Student Engagement
Voluntary Service
Faculty and Student Activities In the
Community
Distance
Education
& CommunityBased Learning
Community
CommunityBased
Research
Engagement
Teaching
Research
Service
Service
Learning
Professional
Participatory
Community
Action
Service/Voluntary
Research
Community Service
Community Involvement
• Teaching, research, and service in the
community
• Occurs in profit, nonprofit, and
government sectors
• Has no geographic boundaries
Differentiation of Terms
Community Involvement
– Defined by location
– Occurs in the community
Civic Engagement
– Defined by location and process
– Occurs in and with the community
– Demonstrates democratic values of
participation
– Impact + Partnerships
IUPUI Definition of Civic Engagement
Civic engagement is active
collaboration that builds on the
resources, skills, expertise, and
knowledge of the campus and
community to improve the quality of
life in communities in a manner that
is consistent with the campus
mission.
Faculty and Student Activities In the
Community
D istance
Education
& C ommunity B ased Learning
C ommunit y
C ommunit yB ased
R esearch
Engagement
Teaching
R esearch
Service
Service
Learning
Professional
Participatory
C ommunit y
A ction
Service/Voluntary
R esearch
C ommunit y Service
AAC&U’s Survey of Employers
Best methods for ensuring that graduates have
knowledge/skills:
• Internship/community-based project where
students apply college learning in real-world
setting.
83% “Very Effective” and “Fairly Effective”
• Senior project incorporating depth of
knowledge, problem-solving, writing, and
analytic reasoning skills.
79%
• Essay tests
60%
• Electronic portfolio
56%
• Multiple Choice Exams
32%
Community-Based Learning
Not all community-based instruction is service
learning
•
•
•
•
Field work experiences (e.g., Museum Studies, Anthropology)
Cooperative Education
Internship
Practicum
• Service Learning
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pre-professional field experiences: Clinicals, Student Teaching
Applied Learning
Experiential Learning
Public Service-Focused Learning
Academically-Based Community Learning
Academic Service Learning
Student Engagement
Service Learning
A course-based, credit bearing educational
experience in which students
• Participate in an organized service activity
that meets identified community goals
• Reflect on the service activity in such a way
as to gain further understanding of course
content, a broader appreciation of the
discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic
responsibility
(Bringle & Hatcher, 1997)
Key Elements of Service Learning
• Reflection
– “Perplexity” (Dewey, 1933)
– Activities to structure learning from the
service experience
• Reciprocity
– Partnerships
– Dialogue to structure the service
experience
• Civic Education
define 4
Distinctions Among Approaches to
Service & Experiential Learning
Recipient
BENEFICIARY
Service
Provider
FOCUS
Learning
SERVICE LEARNING
COMMUNITY SERVICE
VOLUNTEERISM
FIELD EDUCATION
INTERNSHIP
(Furco, 1996)
Why Service Learning in
Higher Education?
• Good Pedagogy
• Structures Educationally Meaningful
Service
• Addresses Community Needs
• Promotes Civic Responsibility
• Student Development
• Student Persistence and Retention
• Supports an Expanding Role of Higher
Education
Promoting Learning for
Understanding
• Active Engagement
• Frequent Feedback
• Collaboration
• Cognitive Apprenticeship
• Practical Application
Marchese
Why do we need more than
a vocational education?
In part, because we live
more than a vocational
life: we live a larger civic
life and we have to be
educated for it.
- D. Mathews
What is Good Citizenship?
Battistoni (2002)
• Civic Professionalism
• Social Responsibility
• Social Justice
• Connected Knowing: Ethic of Care
• Public Leadership
• Public Intellectual
• Engaged/Public Scholarship
Faculty and Student Activities In the
Community
Distance
Education
& CommunityBased Learning
Community
CommunityBased
Research
Engagement
Teaching
Research
Service
Service
Learning
Professional Participatory
Action
Commun ity Research
Service/Vo luntary
Commun ity Service
Professional Service
Service applies a faculty member’s knowledge,
skills, and expertise as an educator, a
member of a discipline or profession, and a
participant in an institution to benefit
students, the institution, the discipline or
profession, and the community in a manner
consistent with the mission of the university.
Service @ Indiana University: Defining, documenting, and
evaluating.
(http://csl.iupui.edu/servicelearning/facultydevelopment.html)
Unsatisfactory
(Documentation of) Service?
• Only listing university committees
• No evidence of nature of activities or
results
• Evidence on outcomes, but no evidence
of individual role
• No review by others
• No evidence on how service work is
consistent with professional
development or goals
Issues Related to Service
• Time on task: Difficult to use as a
criterion, although scope may be
relevant
• Remuneration: Typically not relevant
• Process vs. Outcomes: Must be
balanced, but process should not be
emphasized to the detriment of
demonstrating outcomes
Differentiation of Terms
Doing An Activity
– Teaching, Research, or Service
Well-informed
– Scholarly Teaching
– Scholarly Discovery
– Scholarly Service
Contributing to Knowledge
– Scholarship of Teaching
– Scholarship of Service
– Scholarship of Discovery
Advancement And Tenure Are Decisions
About The Academic Nature Of Work
There are differences between
professional service as scholarship and
• Doing good
• Doing one’s job well
• Administrative work
• Clerical work
• Evaluation for a merit increase
• Collegiality
• Citizenship
Promotion & Tenure
for Professional Service
• Service documented as academic work
• Evidence of significance and impact from
multiple sources
• Evidence of individual contributions
• Evidence of growth and leadership
• Dissemination, including publications (some
of which are peer-reviewed academic ones)
• Dissemination to peers, clients, patients
• Peer review of professional service, including
process and outcomes
Faculty and Student Activities In the
Community
Distance
Education
& CommunityBased Learning
Community
CommunityBase d
Re se arch
Engagement
Teaching
Research
Service
Service
Learning
Professional
Participatory
Community
Service/Voluntary
Action
Community Service
Re se arch
Participatory Action Research
• Collaboration between the campus
and community Partnerships
• Democratization of knowledge that
acknowledges different ways of
knowing and different types of
knowledge
• Social change through actions based
on the research that promote social
justice.
Strand et al., 2003
Participatory Action Research
• Focus on the adequacy of the process
as well as the outcomes
• Peer review by multiple stakeholders,
including academic
• Outcomes for multiple stakeholders
• Dissemination to multiple stakeholders
Harkavy: Why Emphasize
Civic Engagement?
• Responsible and Moral Choice
• Improve the Quality of All Academic
Work
• Self-interest
Mission
President
University Administration
Promotion & Tenure
School
Dean
Department
Chair
Faculty
Students
Staff
Support Services
Two Types of Engagement
Institutionalization of
Low
Low
High
Institutionalization
Of Other Types
Of Engagement
Service Learning
High
Research I
Liberal Arts
Liberal Arts
Community
Colleges
Land Grant
Boyer’s New
American
College
To institutionalize service-learning
effectively, service-learning must be
viewed not as a discrete “program”
but as a means to accomplish other
important goals for the campus.
Furco & Holland
Comprehensive Action Plan for Service
Learning (CAPSL)
Institution
Faculty
Students
Community
Planning
Awareness
Prototype
Resources
Expansion
Recognition
Monitoring
Evaluation
Research
Institutionalization
Bringle, R.G., & Hatcher, J.A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher
Education, 67, 221-239.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher
Education, 71(3), 273-290.
Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., Hamilton, S., & Young, P. (2001). Planning and assessing campus/community
engagement. Metropolitan Universities, 12(3), 89-99.
Holland’s Areas of Development
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission,
Organizational structure
Faculty Involvement
Promotion and Tenure
Student Involvement
Community Involvement
Publications and University Relations
Service Learning as a
Subversive Activity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develops the public purposes of higher education
Change the traditional assumptions about faculty work
Change the way faculty teach
Increase interdisciplinary work
Contribute to the nature of first-year, honors,
scholarships, capstones
Promote democratic values in the academy and with the
community
Broaden assessment
Broaden promotion and tenure
Increase the salience of service in the campus culture
Change campus/community relationships
Change institutional accreditation and quality assurance
NCA Accreditation Process and
Carnegie Documentation
• Focuses institution-wide attention
• Assures public of institutional quality
• Supports institutional improvement
• Expands literacy and understanding
• Creates critical data sets
• Facilitates decisions, planning
• Spurs institutional, strategic change
•Connects CE to other institutional work
IUPUI NCA: Three Primary Tasks*
•
What are we doing in CE?
•
How well are we doing CE?
•
What should we, as a campus, be doing in
central Indiana?
*NOTE: Prior to release of 2003 Criterion 5
NCA Self-Study of Civic Engagement
I. Enhance capacity for civic engagement
A. Demonstrate advocacy and support
B. Expand internal resources and infrastructure
C. Secure external funding
D. Document the quality and impact
II. Enhance civic activities, partnerships, and patient and client
services
A. Offer academic community-based learning opportunities
B. Engage in community-based research
C. Provide professional services
D. Create opportunities for community service
III. Intensify commitment and accountability to Indianapolis
Central Indiana, and Indiana
A. Establish widespread community participation
B. Establish widespread campus participation
C. Conduct regular forums on the campus community agenda
for central Indiana.
IV. Identify strengths and challenges for future work
Civic Engagement Inventory
• Document/categorize CE activities
– Topical issues (e.g., homeless)
– Academic unit
• Increase understanding of CE
– Internally (e.g., planning, collaboration)
– Externally
• Provide recognition for CE
– Schools/campus reports
– Individual faculty
• Contribute to quality and impact
• Hope to replace with eFAR
Institutional Portfolio
A focused selection of real work,
combined with narrative interpretation
and reflection, that demonstrates
institutional achievements and shows
learning and improvement over time—
i.e., “institutional effectiveness.”
Why Electronic?
• Information more accessible, transparent,
authentic, dynamic, interactive—you can
show something, not just describe it
• Can be updated
• Accommodates multiple types of evidence
• Focus on evidence and alignment
• Information accessed/linked more efficiently
(e.g., to support recommendations and
conclusions, contextualize information)
• Facilitates campus involvement
www.iport.iupui.edu
Contents
• Primary materials from students and
faculty
• Assessment and performance data and
reports
• Survey results and reports
• Statistical information
• Narrative analysis, interpretation, and
reflection
Levels of Aggregation
• Individual (examples)
• Program or other unit (reports)
• Institution (performance indicators)
Portfolio Audiences
•
•
•
•
•
Accrediting agencies
Community leaders and members
State governments
Prospective/current students
Prospective/current faculty,
administrators, staff
• Employers
Purposes
• Internal Objectives (e.g., strategic
planning, reports, exemplars)
• External Representations
• Accreditation
• Carnegie Pilot Project
• Quality Assessment
• Research
Benefits
• Can foster ongoing conversation about
learning, improvement, and assessment
• Catalyst for making improvement efforts
more continuous, coordinated,
collaborative, and complete
• Promotes faculty development in ways
compatible with institutional needs
• Enhances stakeholder understanding of
institution’s special mission, roles. and
accomplishments
• Demonstrates accountability and credibility
• Can be updated
Institutional Maturity
• Lots of counting
• Lots of counting of what’s available
• Look for the intersection of (a) practical
to collect and (b) meaningful
• Need more on outcomes, evaluation,
impact
• Developing partners to help (e.g.,
Institutional Research)
Tips
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify leadership for CE assessment
Customize process to advance campus
goals
Use to expand capacity of institutional
research
Use to develop community voice and
participation
Identify multiple purposes
Analysis must be mission driven
What we see
in IUPUI’s future
1. Assessing knowledge, skills,
and dispositions of civic
outcomes through narratives from
–
–
–
Service learning classes
Civic engagement programs
School-based curricular outcomes
2. Developing a campus/community
agenda
3. Community impact– 1 study completed
4. Faculty outcomes (e.g., publications)
Fundamental Issue!
In what significant ways is the
intellectual culture of YOUR
CAMPUS incompatible with
programs that embrace civic
engagement?
Walshok
• Are you asking faculty to account for the
PUBLIC MEANING and impact of their
scholarship beyond the discipline or
profession?
• How is civic engagement presented as an
INTELLECTUAL IMPERATIVE?
• How is the institution INTENTIONALLY
supporting faculty (e.g., enabling
infrastructures) with an interest in civic
engagement activities?
Resources for Civic Engagement
Battistoni, R. (2001). Civic engagement across the curriculum: A resource
book for service-learning faculty in all disciplines. Providence, RI: Campus
Compact.
Boyer, E. (1991, March 9). Creating the new American college. Chronicle of
Higher Education, A18.
Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. The Journal of Public
Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11-20.
Bringle, R., Games, R., & Malloy, E. (1999) Colleges and universities as
citizens. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Checkoway, B. (2001). Renewing the civic mission of the American research
university. Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 125-147.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., Stephens, J.(2003). Educating citizens.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Driscoll, A., & Lynton, E. (1999). Making outreach visible: A guide to
documenting professional service outreach. Washington, DC: American
Association of Higher Education.
Resources for Civic Engagement
Ehrlich, T. (Ed.) (2000). Higher education and civic responsibility. Phoenix, AZ:
Oryz Press.
Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed:
Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
IUPUI institutional portfolio on civic engagement: North Central Association
accreditation. (www.iport.iupui.edu).
Langseth, M., & Plater, W. M. (in press). Public work and the academy: A
guidebook for academic administrators on civic engagement and servicelearning. Anker Press.
Lynton, E. (1995). Making the case for professional service. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement
(http://schoe.coe.uga.edu/about/FAQs.html)
Service @ Indiana University: Defining, documenting, and evaluating.
(http://csl.iupui.edu/servicelearning/facultydevelopment.html)
Websites
IUPUI P&T Guidelines
• http://www.academicaffairs.iupui.edu/appd/faculty_appts.htm
Center for Service and Learning
• http://csl.iupui.edu
Community-Campus Partnership for Health
• http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/ccph.html
National Review Board Scholarship of Engagement
• http://www.scholarshipofengagement.org
Committee on Institutional Cooperation
• http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/groups/CommitteeOnEngagement/arch
ive/documents/EngagementReportREV2-22-05.pdf
Campus Compact
• www.compact.org
National Clearinghouse for Service Learning
• http://www.servicelearning.org/