1 / 31

Documenting Engagement and Service

Documenting Engagement and Service. Susan Kahn Director, Office of Institutional Effectiveness, IUPUI Campus Compact Engagement and Service: Focusing on Criterion 5 November 10, 2005. Definitions.

Download Presentation

Documenting Engagement and Service

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Documenting Engagement and Service Susan Kahn Director, Office of Institutional Effectiveness, IUPUI Campus Compact Engagement and Service: Focusing on Criterion 5 November 10, 2005

  2. Definitions • What do “engagement” and “service” mean on your campus? Through what activities are they enacted? (e.g., service learning, work with PK-12, contributions to community economic development, collaborations, etc.)

  3. Why engagement and service? Why now? • Higher education as a public, rather than a private good (NCA) • Return to land grant ideal • Emphasis on higher ed’s responsibility to educate leaders and citizens (service learning as powerful pedagogy) • Changing ideas about faculty roles (“Scholarship of engagement”)

  4. Organized around • Mission • Goals • Performance indicators • Evidence (from individual, unit, and institutional levels)

  5. Portfolio audiences • Accrediting agencies • Community leaders and members • State governments • Prospective/current students • Prospective/current faculty, administrators, staff • Employers

  6. Why institutional portfolios?Why now? Current ideas about organizing for learning and accountability: • Focus on learning as a primary mission of the whole institution • Emphasis on continuous assessment and improvement • Emphasis on specific institutional mission and circumstances • Interest in integrating accountability with ongoing internal improvement

  7. Urban UniversitiesPortfolio Project(UUPP) • California State University, Sacramento • Georgia State University • IUPUI • Portland State University • University of Illinois at Chicago • University of Massachusetts Boston Sponsor: AAHE Funded by: The Pew Charitable Trusts (1998-2001)

  8. IUPUI • Founded 1969 • Commuter campus, with strong local mission • 30,000 students • 22 schools • Structured planning and assessment processes • Well-developed IR function and technology infrastructure • Open information environment

  9. Assessment at IUPUI • 1992: Division of Planning and Institutional Improvement • 1998: Principles of Undergraduate Learning (PULs) • 1998: UUPP • 2000: Campus-wide study of PULs • 2001: Decision to use portfolio as self-study platform • 2002: HLC/NCA Accreditation visit • 2002-present: Annual performance report published in institutional portfolio

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

  11. Internal Push towards Engagement • Campus mission (differentiation) • Campus leadership • Deep, active, relevant learning • Expanding view of scholarship • Public accountability • Accreditation standards

  12. Accreditation Process • 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)

  13. Assessment of Civic Engagement • Increased ownership of the work • Increased understanding of the work for variety of stakeholders • “Goldsmith” factor • Faculty Council “ah-hah” • Additional resources (internal and external) to support the work

  14. IUPUI Pivotal Events • 1993 Office of Service Learning • 1995 Campus Task Force on Service • 1996 I.U. Def./Doc./Eval. Prof. Service • 2001 Center for Service and Learning • 2002 P & T Guidelines approved • 2002 Civic Engagement NCA Self-Study • 2003 “Civic Collaborative” Tuition Funds • 2004 Council on Civic Engagement • 2005 Carnegie Classification Pilot Project

  15. Civic Engagement Task Force • Prepare for NCA accreditation, 2002 • Establish efficient institutional mechanisms • Document CE activities in centralized way • Identify ways to evaluate quality of CE • Envision a “Civic Agenda” for Indianapolis and Central Indiana • Ongoing, post-accreditation activities (e.g., campus dialogue series, reports)

  16. Faculty Work “In and With” the Community

  17. Civic Engagement • Teaching, research, and service in and with the community • Occurs in profit, nonprofit, and government sectors • Has no geographic boundaries

  18. Definition of Civic Engagement Civic engagement is • active collaboration • that builds on the resources, skills, expertise, and knowledge of the campus and community • to improve the quality of life in communities • in a manner that is consistent with the campus mission…and • demonstrates democratic values of participation for all participants. (IUPUI, 2002)

  19. Performance Measures for CE 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 http://www.iport.iupui.edu

  20. Performance Measures for CE 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

  21. Performance Measures for CE Intensify commitment and accountability to Indianapolis, Central Indiana, and Indiana • Campus participation in …. • Regular forums on the campus community agenda • Contributions to the climate for diversity

  22. Civic Engagement Inventory • Document/categorize CE activities • Topical issues (e.g., homeless) • Increase understanding of CE • Internally (e.g., planning, collaboration) • Externally • Provide recognition for CE • Schools/campus reports • Individual faculty • Contribute to quality and impact

  23. Post-NCA • Who is responsible? • What’s the carrot? • Tied to institutional planning, budget • Deans annual reporting on CE • Chancellor’s Doubling Initiative • Council on Civic Engagement • Carnegie Classification Pilot

  24. Council on Civic Engagement • Assessment (student learning, community impact, institutional portfolio) • Academic Affairs (curriculum, Faculty Roles & Rewards, academic policy) • Strategic Planning (“civic agenda”) • Publicity/Communications • International Civic Engagement

  25. Carnegie Classification Pilot • Twelve diverse institutions • Definitional issues • “Community Engagement” • Types of information most easily gathered • Reconvene Fall 2005 • Voluntary classification

  26. With Academic Leadership • Value the perplexity of the task • Focus on literacy – definitions • Involve faculty – scholarly work • Tie to institutional assessment • Link to planning and budget • Prod the elephant

  27. Without Academic Leadership • Align to campus mission • Know accreditation (e.g. NCA Criterion 5) • Conduct activities to meet criteria • Count what you can – measure if you can • Meet with faculty, campus leaders • Produce and circulate reports • “Peanuts for the elephant”

  28. Discussion of IUPUI Case-Study • What appears to be the benefits of having an electronic institutional portfolio? • What appears to be the challenges of having an electronic institutional portfolio? • Is it worth the effort?

  29. Benefits • Can foster ongoing conversation about learning, improvement, and assessment • Catalyst for making improvement efforts more continuous, coordinated, collaborative, and complete • Promotes faculty development in ways compatible with institutional needs • Enhances stakeholder understanding of institution’s special mission, roles. and accomplishments • Demonstrates accountability and credibility

  30. Disadvantages • More work than a paper self-study or report • Need for infrastructure • Accreditation in transition—associations/teams may need to be oriented to this approach • Blurs “boundaries” of self-study

  31. On the Internet… • IUPUI institutional portfolio: www.iport.iupui.edu • Susan Kahn skahn@iupui.edu

More Related