Presentation on theme: "Not Just for Undergraduates Community Engaged Teaching and Learning Current Data and Prospects Graduate Affairs Committee Tuesday, January 28, 2014 Mary."— Presentation transcript:
Not Just for Undergraduates Community Engaged Teaching and Learning Current Data and Prospects Graduate Affairs Committee Tuesday, January 28, 2014 Mary F. Price, PhD. Director of Faculty Development IUPUI Center for Service and Learning
Community-Based Learning Not all community-based instruction is service learning. Field work experiences Cooperative Education Internship Practicum Service Learning Pre-professional field experiences, Clinicals, Student Teaching Applied Learning Experiential Learning Student Engagement Location of activity is insufficient….
Distinctions Among Approaches to Service & Experiential Learning Recipient Provider Service LearningService Learning Service-Learning Community Service Field Education VolunteerismInternships (adapted from Furco, 1996)
What do we mean by “service learning”? Service learning is a course or competency based, credit-bearing educational experience in which students a) participate in mutually identified service activities that benefit the community, and b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course/academic content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal/professional values and civic responsibility. (Bringle and Clayton, 2012, adapted from Bringle and Hatcher, 1995)
Flavors of Service Learning Amount of service Community partner selection Direct/indirect service Domestic/international setting Community-based research Disciplinary/ Interdisciplinary Some internships Both undergraduate & graduate/professional level
Historic emphasis on undergraduates Issues of language (service, community-based, community-engaged, participatory, etc.) Masks key curricular and faculty issues for research universities and professions Faculty pipeline (preparing future faculty) Preparing future professionals, researchers and faculty for future societal conditions and demands (includes but is not limited to labor conditions) Social trustees of knowledge Conceptual Limitations
Institutionally, how do we connect connect the dots? How do we know we are doing “it” well? What are the “its” we are trying to accomplish? How do we know if the “it” aligns with our institutional, departmental, organizational values related to community engagement and graduate/professional T/L? How do we best deploy resources of the right types to enhance/diffuse/expand/sustain instances where “it” is working? How can these processes be monitored at various scales at the Center or institutional level? How do we support critical reflection on the process and outcomes of engagement?
Sample Experiential Learning Transcript Notations (refer handout) Organized Community Service Significant Time in Community Immersed in Different Culture Community-Based Resrch & Org'd Community Service Significant Time in Community-Based Research Community-Based Research in Different Culture Significant Time in Organized Community Service Org'd Community Service Immersed in Different Culture Significant Community Time Immersed in Different Culture Pre-date RISE Challenge course tags.
New Approaches to Monitoring Needed… No single data source on campus captures the information our Center needs to connect the dots related to SL…
Data Sources Course NameNumberSectionSemester offered Service Service required/optional # of students participating in service Avg. minimum number of service hours per student per semester Students Enrollment data Section tags… gateway to student specific data Partner Information Names of up to 6 community partners per course section Type of workZip code Faculty NameRole/appt. type Department and school affiliation EmailRelationship to CSL
An unexpected development…
Service Learning at IUPUI 2012-13
What Does This Effort Yield? Course Sections Undergrad428 Graduate73 Total501 TOTAL N BY LEVEL CountEnrollmentService Hours 100 Level812,27121,205 200 Level962,58528,218 300 Level1291,90163,531 400 Level1221,418131,485 Graduate7389633,208 Total5019,071277,647
Contributions to Community Capacity Building Calculations based on the standard volunteer rate (Ugrad) and Pro Bono rates (Grad/prof.).
Reported Mode of Service Inclusion 2012-13 SL Course Inventory Service Inclusion Num. of Course Sections Required325 Optional32 Blank*144 Total501 *non or partial response
What does this effort yield? Participation Rates by Faculty
Table Role Type Instructor Count Course Sections Avg. # service hours (per student) Avg. # service hours (per section) Total Service Hours Total Section Enrollment Student SL Participants Tenured/Tenure- Track/Emeritus7116751.53372.056213223742245 Associate Faculty/Staff/Graduate Students7616927.39326.675520731473143 Lecturers/Clinical4816560.64971.5616030835503323 Total195501 27764790718711
An Opportunity and a Challenge to Get at Process CodesN=SectionsActivityPercent EL01/EL056Community Based Research3.17% EL02/EL0684Organized Community Service44.44% EL03/EL0770Significant Time in the Community37.04% EL045Immersed in a Different Culture2.65% EL12/EL564Comm Rsrch & Org'd Comm. Service2.12% EL137Significant Time in Comm Rsrch3.70% EL24/EL687Immsd Diff Cultr Org. Comm. Serv.3.70% EL676Significant Time in the Community3.17% Totals 189 38% (n=189/501) of course sections included in the 2012-13 Inventory included additional descriptive tags. The rate is higher for graduate and professional level course sections (N=35/73); 48% include additional tags
An Opportunity and a Challenge to Get at Process CodesN=SectionsActivityPercent EL01/EL056Community Based Research3.17% EL02/EL0684Organized Community Service44.44% EL03/EL0770Significant Time in the Community37.04% EL045Immersed in a Different Culture2.65% EL12/EL564Comm Rsrch & Org'd Comm. Service2.12% EL137Significant Time in Comm Rsrch3.70% EL24/EL687Immsd Diff Cultr Org. Comm. Serv.3.70% EL676Significant Time in the Community3.17% Totals 189 38% (n=189/501) of course sections included in the 2012-13 Inventory included additional descriptive tags. Most of these descriptors likely inherited from previous semesters… We have a basic structure but… Do faculty know about it? Do chairs and course recorders? Do they understand the structure and what it implies? Do they want to know…question of relevance? Is the system flexible to allow for shifts in the deployment of specific teaching strategies? Is there agreement on what these terms mean in practice and within departments?
Why More May Not Always Be Good…. Ever increasing numbers of students in SL may not be the best goal: –For partners –For students –For faculty/staff –For campuses/ communities Efficient & effective must be considered in the context of workload, roles, values and capacities for all involved…… This question is not unique to SL as an HIP…
Questions Raised For GAC Awareness? Relevance? Recruitment and Retention (faculty and students)? Policy Issues and Faculty Oversight? Best Practices? Outcomes and Monitoring? Impact? Is there a way the CSL can better support your individual or collective goals?
Upcoming 2013-14 SL Inventory Data Collection—begins in mid-March Call to Action - to Deans and chairs, mid-late February Want to learn more or to inform the process? Monday, February 24 th, 2014 (noon – 1:30 p.m.) Wednesday, February 26 th, 2014 (9 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.)
SCALAR PERSPECTIVES: Departmental GWCHS/IUPUI Partnership - Partial Network View…using SL Course Data One of IUPUI’s signature comprehensive partnerships: University-Assisted Community School model Institutional resources: staff, funds, scholarships Significant community buy-in and participation: School liaison, parent network, community advisory council
IUPUI/GWCHS Partnership: Digging into a collaboration Nursing Sociology Education Geography Health, Phys Ed, & Recreation Circles = faculty Squares = community partners Line thickness = number of course sections Variable Number Course Sections25 Students174 Hours11,963 (GWCHS only) Inclusive Hours14, 625 (includes PARCS 3,562 hrs) Questions Raised: Many faculty sending their students to multiple partners…implications for practice? How engaged are these faculty with GWCHS? Is there a tendency toward more transactional connections working a specific levels of the curriculum? Is the weight of student supervision falling to teachers and staff at GW? With so many students, is the load too much? How might IUPUI and GWCHS work together to enhance scaffolding of SL at GWCHS?
2012-13 IUPUI SL Inventory Participation Rates by Faculty
Male Female Faculty Workload (gender concerns) Icon Size= total student service hours supervised by an individual faculty member.