Institutionalizing Service-Learning Canadian Association of Community Service-Learning Jeffrey Howard June 21, 2007 Jeffrey Howard June 21, 2007

Review of Goals  Broaden thinking about institutionalizing service-learning  Build capacity to assess service-learning institutionalization  Facilitate idea and strategy sharing  Begin to plan strategic next steps to advance service-learning

Review of Plan  Lecturette  Review one assessment model  Individual and group work at tables  Reporting in  Question and answer

About Institutionalization  Institutionalization is the integrating and incorporating into everyday practices and norms of the university  From margins to the mainstream  Institutionalization is a vision or long-term goal; it involves a long-term process often unachievable  Alternative goal – improve, broaden, cohere, and sustain all university efforts to educate students for active community involvement

About Service-Learning  Service-learning is a pedagogical model that integrates community service with campus- and community-based learning  Service-learning is a means, not an end  Alternative goals  graduate students with knowledge, skills, values, and aspirations to contribute to their communities, nation, world  create a campus culture committed to improve communities, nation, world

Motivations to Institutionalize (Advance) Service-Learning  Improve undergraduate education  Strengthen relations with the community (town-gown)  Promote interdisciplinary teaching and learning  Honor higher education’s responsibility for preparing next generation of active citizens  What’s your university’s motivation?

Impediments to Institutionalizing Service-Learning  Higher education institutions tend to be loosely coupled organizations (precludes institutionalizing anything new!)  Faculty and students are busy, and service-learning takes time  Higher education sees academic and not civic education as the priority  Faculty not trained/socialized in service-learning pedagogy  Faculty reward system doesn’t value service-learning teaching  Students want to do community service more so than service-learning

Select Research on Assessing Service-Learning Institutionalization  Ward (1996)  Holland (1997)  Driscoll et al. (1996)  Bell et al. (2000)  Bringle et al. (2000)  Furco (1999, 2003, 2007?)  Hartley et al. (2006?)

Aggregated Salient Findings  Faculty support is greatest predictor  Tie service-learning to educational goals and initiatives  Tie service-learning to institution’s existing priorities (e.g., town-gown relations)  There is no one way to proceed – institutionalization is institution-specific  Institutionalization is institution-type specific (e.g., liberal arts colleges)

Aggregated Salient Findings (cont.)  Likelihood of institutionalization is inversely correlated with the institution’s recognition for its “specialty”  Likelihood of institutionalization is inversely correlated with emulation of research universities  Increasing recognition of role of departments (and disciplines)  We know the least about the role of community partnerships  A coordinating entity (e.g., service-learning center) is often identified as pivotal  What’s your university’s experience?

Furco’s Assessment Rubric  5 dimensions 1.Philosophy and mission of service-learning 2.Faculty support for and involvement in service-learning 3.Student support for and involvement in service-learning 4.Community participation and partnerships 5.Institutional support for service-learning

Furco’s Assessment Rubric (cont.)  How does change happen in your institution?  One way to use Furco’s rubric is to engage strategic campus members in assessing status/progress of service-learning and using the results to inform service-learning strategic plans

Small Group Work  Independently familiarize yourself with Furco’s Rubric  identify the particular row in which you would like to see progress on your campus because it would advance service-learning at your university  Each person shares their respective focus with their tablemates and why they chose that one  Each table reports 1-2 salient outcomes from the discussion

Select Strategic Next Steps to Strengthen Service-Learning  Identify short-term goals to advance service- learning (rather than thinking about long-term institutionalization)  Quality trumps quantity  Consider a wider set of means than service-learning  Arrange for faculty development  Establish a faculty advisory council  Involve students  Develop a strategic plan

Select Strategic Next Steps to Strengthen Service-Learning (cont.)  Identify potential faculty rewards  Inform the institutional development office about service-learning  Improve, expand, cohere (across experiences), sustain existing service-learning efforts  Investigate establishing a service-learning center or support system for faculty  Build strong, sustained community partnerships  Consider undertaking research and assessment

Final Thoughts  Service-learning has become a world-wide phenomenon  Service-learning has grown without commensurate research findings  There are a number of new higher education organizations dedicated to service-learning and implicitly its institutionalization (IARSLCE, HENCE, Research 1 universities)  Not only do institutions affect service-learning, but service-learning may affect institutions

Final Thoughts (cont.)  “Engaged institution” is an alternative institutionalization goal  “Engaged scholarship” is gaining steam; in some ways it is to faculty what service- learning is to students  No uniform understanding of service-learning challenges institutionalization assessment