documenting engagement and service susan kahn director, office of institutional effectiveness, iupui...
TRANSCRIPT
Documenting Engagement and Service
Susan KahnDirector, Office of Institutional Effectiveness,
IUPUI
Campus CompactEngagement and Service:
Focusing on Criterion 5
November 10, 2005
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.)
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”)
Organized around
Mission
Goals
Performance indicators
Evidence (from individual, unit, and institutional levels)
Portfolio audiences
Accrediting agencies Community leaders and members State governments Prospective/current students Prospective/current faculty,
administrators, staff Employers
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
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)
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
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
Federal and State policy, funding
Nonprofit organizations, funding
Educational Associations, programs
Community conditions/context
Institutional rankings
Accreditation standards
(Brukardt, 2005)
External Pulls towards Engagement
Campus mission (differentiation)
Campus leadership
Deep, active, relevant learning
Expanding view of scholarship
Public accountability
Accreditation standards
Internal Push towards Engagement
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
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
Assessment of Civic Engagement
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
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)
Faculty Work “In and With” the Community
Research
Community
Teaching
DistanceEducation
Service Learning
ResearchSite
Participatory Action
Research
Professional Community
Service
Service
Engagement
Civic Engagement
Teaching, research, and service
in and with the community
Occurs in profit, nonprofit, and government sectors
Has no geographic boundaries
Definition of Civic Engagement
Civic engagement is a) active collaboration b) that builds on the resources, skills,
expertise, and knowledge of the campus and community
c) to improve the quality of life in communities
d) in a manner that is consistent with the campus mission…and
e) demonstrates democratic values of participation for all participants.
(IUPUI, 2002)
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
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
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
Performance Measures for CE
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
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
Assessment (student learning, community impact, institutional portfolio)
Academic Affairs (curriculum, Faculty Roles & Rewards, academic policy)
Strategic Planning (“civic agenda”)
Publicity/Communications
International Civic Engagement
Council on Civic Engagement
Twelve diverse institutions
Definitional issues
“Community Engagement”
Types of information most easily gathered
Reconvene Fall 2005
Voluntary classification
Carnegie Classification Pilot
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
With 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”
Without Academic Leadership
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?
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
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
