the hendrix college odyssey program as case study hendrix college odyssey program as case study...
TRANSCRIPT
The Hendrix College Odyssey Program as Case Study
Context and Process
Jay Barth and Peter GessAAC&U Annual MeetingWashington, DCJanuary 22, 2015
The Big Questions Grappled With During the Spring of 2004
• How to corral the variety of “hands-on” learning taking place on campus into a coherent program?
• What are the relative educational (and marketable) merits of “requirements” vs. “guarantees” vs. “opportunities”?
• If “requirements” are the answer, what shouldbe required of students?
• How should the students’ work be recognized?
• What should the program be called?
JB1
Slide 2
JB1 Jay Barth, 3/26/2006
And, the Biggie…
How do we balance the capacity of the campus resources through relying upon experiential work already taking place on campus with the need to do something NEW and EXCITING?
The April 2004 Policy Statement
“Starting with the 2005-2006 academic year, new students will participate in a distinctive program entitled …. This program expands and formalizes currently available options for undergraduate research, study abroad, artistic development, internships, service experiences, and other hands-on activities. Through the program every Hendrix student will develop a personalized program of at least three active learning experiences from the following categories:
• Artistic Creativity• Global Awareness• Professional and Leadership Development• Service to the World• Undergraduate Research• Special Projects”
For each category, a short descriptor was also voted on by the Faculty
Also part of the policy:
• Students would receive an “experiential learning transcript” that records all of their experiences in such endeavors while at Hendrix
The Name of the Program(Announced April 2004)
Your Hendrix Odyssey:
Engaging in Active Learning
The Fall 2004 Challenges
• Putting Meat on the Bones of the Categories
• Administration of the Program
The Events of Fall 2004
• Fall Faculty Conference: Dedicated to faculty input on what should be entailed in the requirements of each category.
• The (renamed) Task Force then moves towards developing “checklists” for each category.
• December 2004 Faculty Meeting: Faculty approves criteria for each category (hours required, etc.) as well as related policies (double-counting, etc.)
• Task Force lobbies for sufficient administrative staff for the program, then develops job description for the director.
The Events of Spring 2005
• Task Force interviews director candidates and makes recommendation to Senior Staff.
• The Task Force develops and presents to the Faculty for their approval processes for coding for five types of Odyssey experiences: Standing Recurring Odyssey-Fulfilling Courses, One-Time Courses, Courses with Optional Odyssey Modules; Standing Recurring Noncourse Experiences; and Individualized Odyssey Experiences.
• The recurring courses and experiences are coded and approved by the Faculty.
The Events of Spring 2005 (cont.)
• The Task Force develops and presents to the Faculty for their approval funding processes and deadlines.
• The Task Force develops a proposal for a new standing committee to play an ongoing role in the Program’s policies and activities. This is presented to Committee on Committees and subsequently approved by the Faculty.
• A draft of an “Odyssey Guide” is developed by the Task Force.
• Working with IT, a format for the Odyssey transcript is developed.
From Theory to PracticeSummer 2005
• Creating an office
• Creating a guide
• Creating a web presence
Three Ways of Earning Credits
19%
55%
26%
Activities Courses Projects
41%
8%12%
8%
20%
11%
AC GA PL SW UR SP
Distribution of Credits Earned
Odyssey as Ethos
• Institutionalizing a concept, not an office
• Engaged experiences as a continuum
• Parallel Activities
– Odyssey Professorships
– Odyssey Medals
– First-Year Course: The Engaged Citizen
Continued Faculty Buy-In
• Recruiting/hiring processes
• Professional Development (and administrative staff!)
• Tenure and Review
– Student development
– Professional development
– Community development
Funding
• $3 mil awarded to students and faculty
• Committee on Engaged Learning drives funding decisions
• Combination of endowed funds and operating budget
• Capital campaign needs
– Ongoing projects (community partnerships)
– Departmental needs
Program Assessment
• Learning Goals1. Enhancement of learning—both what they know and
how they come to know
2. Vocational Self-Discovery and Professional Development through
3. Development of a sense of ownership over one’s educational pursuits and of the habits conducive to life-long learning
4. Increased awareness of one’s responsibility for linking action and understanding in the effort to respond effectively “to the social, spiritual, and ecological needs of our time”
Program Assessment
• Regular review of Odyssey courses and activities
• Applying Assessment Rubric
– Senior dinners
– “Exemplar” presentations
– Recent alumni survey
• Assessment as faculty/staff development
Lessons for Faculty/Administration
• Where top-down meets bottom-up
• Initial/continued faculty (and staff!) buy-in
• Student engagement (creation and administration)
• Appropriate funding
• Requirement
• Faculty/staff development opportunities (mentoring of students)
Thank You
Jay BarthDistinguished Professor
Director of Civic Engagement Projects
Peter GessAssistant Professor
Director of the Odyssey and Int’l Programs
http://www.hendrix.edu/Odyssey