A MODEL FOR INSTITUTIONALISING SERVICE LEARNING: STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY

1. A MODEL FOR INSTITUTIONALISING SERVICE LEARNING: STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY RONA NEWMARK & ANTOINETTE SMITH-TOLKEN

2. Stellenbosch University

3. Introduction: Our understanding of Service-Learning Service-learning is ‘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).

4. USA • Civic engagement is essential for a democratic society • Not always a priority for social scientists Checkoway (2001:126) • Civic mission, civic renewal civic engagement are not priorities – many universities are inaccessable to community groups

5. USA … • According to Checkoway (2001:125) various American research universities have been established with a ‘civic mission’ • What is the nature of this commitment at South African universities? • Stellenbosch University for instance views itself as a research university where it would be expected that scholarly publications should be produced

6. Service Learning in South Africa • White Paper 1997/HE transformation policy • CHESP research report on community engagement at SA universities • Notion of scholarship of engagement integrating teaching, research and service • Service learning advocated as pedagogy and accepted by HEQC • Capacity building initiatives

7. Realities at Universities • Community activities at perephery of core business • Common model = volunteerism • Reciprocity as challenge to institutions • Satisfy multiple interests • Lack of supporting implementation mechanisms

8. Obstacles to renewing a civic mission: • Faculties do not view their roles in this way (Chekoway, 2001:138) – civic role not viewed as central to the university role • Academic culture shapes perceptions (viewed as contrary to idea of public roles) • Reward structure of the university: to do otherwise than academic discipline and professional expertise is dysfunctional for the individual and the institution. Emphasis on research for its own sake (Chekoway, 2001:138)

9. Building Capacity for SL at SU Consequential to: 2012 Vision/CI policy Role of proposed CCI and CID Imperatives (Bringle): • A clarified mission statement that produces congruence between mission and practice. • Mobilization of infrastructure and enabling resources.

10. Mobilization of infrastructure and enabling resources • Top management support to the model as part of CI typology • Centralized office with SL mission • Human resources release SLCBP/research • Budgetary provision • Appraisal system to include SL • SL code of conduct

11. A clarified mission statement • Interpretation of role-playing pertaining to disadvantaged groups/civic responsiveness of students as part of learning • Interpretation of par 5.1/5.2 of policy as SL • CI Committee as sanctioning and communication vehicle • Affirmation of SL portfolio in CI Division • Partnership cultivation towards sustainability and inter-disciplinary work

12. Envisaged Institutional Initiatives • Formation of partnership between USSC/CI Division, CCPS and developing a SL center of excellence • Implementation of the SL modules • Research output report generated from pilot study • Awareness about SL on campus starting with student leadership in the first semester of 2005. • Hosting of an international symposium on SL on campus • Continuance of the capacity building process

13. VOORGESTELDE WERKSWYSE VIR GEMEENSKAPSINTERAKSIE Viserektor (Bedryf) - Voorsitter van komitee/forum - Verantwoordelik aan US-Bestuur - Beleiduitvoering - Infasering van plan Beleidsdokument oor Gemeenskapsinteraksie Universiteit Stellenbosch Gemeenskapsinterak-sie-afdeling - adviseer VR - beleidsformulering - intra-institusionele netwerke - inter-institusionele netwerke Fakulteite -sanksionering en bestuur van GI-aktiwiteite Gemeenskapsinteraksie-komitee - Fakulteite/Afdelings - Kundiges - Subkomitees - Funksies: Beleiduitvoering Gehalteversekering Bronnetoedeling ANDER FAKULTEITE Projekte in Departemente/ Afdelings/Organisasies CCPS Samewerking met GIA Sekretariaat vir komitee Subkomitees vir spesifieke inisiatiewe bv. skole-uitreike/gesondheidsorg/sport AKADEMIES DIENSVER- SKAFFER GEMEENSKAPS -VENNOTE

14. Convener/Facilitator Partnership USSC (CI Division)/CCPS • Strategic plans include SL mission • Pursue facilitator competence • Networking: Visits to other institutions • Plan/Develop own SL modules • Creating awareness intra-networks • Recruit academic staff for pilot

15. Service Learning at SU (1) Link to management 2012 Vision: • Interpretation of role-playing pertaining to disadvantaged groups/civic responsiveness of students as part of learning • Link to paradigm shift to academic-based CI in CI-Policy • Interpretation of par 5.1/5.2 of policy as SL • Affirmation of SL portfolio in CI Division • Partnership cultivation towards sustainability and inter-disciplinary work

16. Service Learning at SU (2) • Appraisal system to include SL • SL code of conduct • Top management support to the model as part of CI typology • Sanction and support CIC & VRT-M & CTL • Collaboration between CID and CTL • Sanction from deans for SL modules • Re-submission if module changes <50%

17. Triad relationship of Partnerships Community Parties Process Products Service Organization: Services University: Student/Staff

18. Implementation Time Frames (history) • SL informative workshop. • The Strategic plans of CCPS and USSC: February 2005. • A first meeting with community partners to introduce the notion of SL: February 2005. • CHESP workshops July 2004/March 2005. • Meeting with management/mandate: 18 April

19. Content/Participants • 10 Persons from • 9 Departments: Educational Psychology, Psychology, Sociology, Social Work, Sport Science, Occupational Therapy, Human Nutrition, Journalism, Law Practice • 4 Faculties: Arts, Education, Health Sciences and Law • Restructuring total of 9 SL modules in 2006 • Topics according to chapters of manual done in 7-4hour sessions covering 9 themes of which some scheduled on consecutive days • Presented by authors of chapters and coordinators

20. Tips on Structure and Design • Recruitment through awareness creation on campus and follow through with groups and individuals: Bringle workshop/presentations • Preference to modules with practical component • Include participants in planning • Management support enhanced participation • Structure and schedule according to participants unique needs – enhanced commitment and attendance • Schedule orientation and context (Jo and policy) separately from other sessions • Beware of information overload

21. Reflection Participants expressed enthusiasm, committed, motivated and took co-ownership of the program (institutionalizing) Articulated reflection: • CBP provided language/framework to their work and finer details of processes • Could give structure and build on their existing work – not a zero base start-up • Appreciation for diversity of disciplines and advantage to learn from others • Isolated in own Department – great to have support from colleagues with SL passion – potential for collaborative research. • Expressed need for continuation of contact sessions

22. Reflection … • Applauded the timeframe of program • Collective action to improve institutional support on issues like risk management, appraisal etc • Manual and reader provided theoretical base and served as reference guide in trouble shooting • Diverse/conflicting responses on continuation: Different opinions - advantages/disadvantages • Own presenters/other presenters • Follow-up sessions/space to implement • Follow-up on specific topics requested

23. Way forward • All modules to start in 2006 • Follow-up meetings to be scheduled at last session – rationale that participants will only know their needs after restructuring • Address needs in process of implementation • Evaluation: Forms after sessions and video tapes • Need to observe outcome of implementation in 1st semester before 2nd program • Institutional capacity