Role of Provosts in promoting Civic & Community Engagement

1. Role of Provosts in promotingCivic & Community Engagement Academic Council 30 November 2006 Season Eckardt Administrative Director, CSU Office of Community Service Learning Gerald Eisman CSU, Service-Learning Faculty Scholar

2. Definition of Civic Engagement :(personal) “Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, valuesand motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes.” - (Thomas Ehrlich, 2000)

3. SL Defined Service learning is the combination of community service with academic learning so that each is enhanced by the other. Central to the pedagogy is the practice of structured reflection to bring the two components together.

4. internship civics class Academic SL Civic Experiential volunteer SL Venn Diagram

5. Academic SL Civic Experiential SL Venn Diagram Academic

6. Academic SL Civic Experiential SL Venn Diagram Civic

7. Service Learning for Civic Engagement “Service learning is the most potent method for achieving civic learning if civic learning outcomes are a part of the curricular goals” - J. Saltmarsh, 2004 Campus Compact White Paper

8. Definition of Civic Engagement (institutional) “Civic engagement refers to the many ways an academic institution demonstrates through mutually-beneficial partnerships the alignment between the teaching, research, [and service] agenda of the university and the self-identified interests of the communities of its region.” - (B. Holland, 2004)

9. Save the Date

10. Civic Mission of Education • In June 2002, Learn and Serve America awarded the • CSU a $1.2 M three-year grant for “Realizing the Civic • Mission of Education in the California State University” • (CME). • The central objective of the CME program was to • advance academic culture and civic engagement on • each campus as measured by 14 indicators.

11. Campus Compact Indicators of Engagement and CME Areas

12. Campus Compact Indicators of Engagement and CME Areas[2]

13. Self-Assessment For each indicator, campuses were asked to assess their current status as either: undeveloped (0) emerging (1) transforming (2) in each of 14 categories

14. Total Ratings Campuses Self-assessment table Ratings in Descending Order mean = 8.65

15. Analysis • The Curriculum and Pedagogy (CP) Cluster and the • Institutional Culture (IC) Cluster were highly correlated • with each other at the 99% confidence level. Thus, in an • environment where institutional leadership supports • engagement, curriculum development in service learning • tends to flourish. • On the other hand, Faculty Roles and Rewards (FR), • Mechanisms and Resources (MR) and Community • Campus Exchange (CC) produced no significant • correlation with Institutional Culture.

16. Carnegie Classification 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

17. Carnegie Criteria for Community Engaged Institution • Foundational Indicators • A. Institutional Identity and Culture • B. Institutional Commitment • II. Categories of Community Engagement • C. Curricular Engagement • D. Outreach and Partnership