Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The Carnegie Classification for Institutions Engaged with Community: Challenges, Benefits, and Understandings from the Documentation Process Amy Driscoll,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The Carnegie Classification for Institutions Engaged with Community: Challenges, Benefits, and Understandings from the Documentation Process Amy Driscoll,"— Presentation transcript:

1 The Carnegie Classification for Institutions Engaged with Community: Challenges, Benefits, and Understandings from the Documentation Process Amy Driscoll, Associate Senior Scholar Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching SHEEO Chicago, IL August, 2006

2 Elective Classification for Community Engagement An elective classification is one that relies on voluntary participation by institutions, and does not include the full universe of institutions. The term, community engagement, is proposed because it offers the widest coverage, the broadest conception of interactions with community, and promotes inclusiveness in the classification.

3 Definition Community Engagement describes the collaboration between higher education institutions 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.

4 Definition (continued) Community Engagement may achieve the following: Enhanced teaching and learning of relevant curriculum Expanded research and scholarship Preparation of engaged citizens Response to societal issues Contributions to the public good Strengthened civic responsibility

5 Intentions Of Classification Of Community Engagement Affirmation and documentation of the diversity of campuses and their approaches to community engagement Indicators that recognize the “good work” that has been done while encouraging ongoing development toward the ideals of community engagement Encouragement of inquiry and learning in the process of documentation

6 Intentions (continued) Instrumentation and documentation that provide useful information for institutions Documentation that describes the scope of institutional engagement A framework that builds on current work of other organizations for a shared base of measurement or documentation A documentation process that is practical and makes use of existing data

7 Foundational Indicators Institutional Identity and Culture Institutional Commitment

8 Indicator: Institutional Identity and Culture Documentation Examples: missions (institutional, departmental) marketing materials (brochures, etc.) website community perceptions celebrations, recognitions, events

9 Indicator: Institutional Commitment Documentation Examples: executive leadership strategic plan budgetary allocations (internal/external) infrastructure (Centers, Offices, etc.) community voice in planning faculty development assessment/recording mechanisms

10 Indicator: Institutional Commitment (continued) Documentation Examples:  promotion and tenure policies transcript notations of student engagement student “voice” or leadership role search/recruitment priorities

11 Categories Of Community Engagement Curricular Engagement Outreach and Partnerships

12 Examples Of Curricular Engagement Service learning or Community-based learning Internships Community Leadership programs Community-based capstones Faculty scholarship related to curricular engagement

13 Examples Of Outreach and Partnerships Professional Development Centers Program Evaluations & Community Based Action Research Collaborative Libraries, Museums Extension courses Co-curricular service Partnerships

14 Benefits of the New Classification Public recognition and visibility Accountability Catalyst for change Institutional Identity Self-assessment and self-study

15  Federal and State policy, funding  Nonprofit organizations, funding  Educational Associations, programs  Community conditions/context  Institutional rankings  Accreditation standards (Brukardt, 2005) External Pulls towards Engagement

16  Mission (differentiation)  Campus leadership  Deep, active, relevant learning  Expanding view of scholarship  Public accountability  Accreditation standards Internal Push towards Engagement

17  Focuses institution-wide attention  Assures public of institutional quality  Supports institutional improvement  Creates critical data sets  Facilitates decisions, planning  Spurs institutional, strategic change (Brukardt, 2005) Accreditation Process and/or Carnegie Pilot Project

18 Faculty Work “In and With” the Community: IUPUI Model

19 Enhance Capacity for Civic Engagement  Advocacy and support in all aspects of institutional work  Internal resources and infrastructure  External funding for civic engagement  Documented quality and impact Visit Performance Measures for CE: IUPUI

20 Enhance Civic Activities, Partnerships, and Patient Client Services  Academic community-based learning in variety of settings  Community-based research, scholarship and creative activity  Professional service “in and with”  Participation in community service Performance Measures for CE: IUPUI

21  Intensify Commitment and Accountability to Indianapolis, Central Indiana, and Indiana  Community participation in development, implementation, evaluation of CE  Campus participation in ….  Regular forums on the campus community agenda  Contributions to the climate for diversity Performance Measures for CE: IUPUI

22 Carnegie Project: IUPUI Refined our thinking/doing How to gather information Who’s responsible National recognition New colleagues/projects Campus strengths/weaknesses Action steps for Council on CE Feedback loop to Deans


Download ppt "The Carnegie Classification for Institutions Engaged with Community: Challenges, Benefits, and Understandings from the Documentation Process Amy Driscoll,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google