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

 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 Universities Portfolio 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

External Pulls towards Engagement

 Federal and State policy, funding  Nonprofit organizations, funding  Educational Associations, programs  Community conditions/context  Institutional rankings  Accreditation standards (Brukardt, 2005)

Internal Push towards Engagement

 Campus mission (differentiation)  Campus leadership  Deep, active, relevant learning  Expanding view of scholarship  Public accountability  Accreditation standards

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)

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

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

Distance Education Teaching Community

Engagement

Service Research Site Research Service Learning Professional Community Service Participatory Action Research

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)

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

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

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

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

Carnegie Classification Pilot

 Twelve diverse institutions  Definitional issues  “Community Engagement”  Types of information most easily gathered  Reconvene Fall 2005  Voluntary classification

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

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”

Discussion of IUPUI Case-Study

 What appears to be the

benefits

an electronic institutional portfolio?

of having  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

On the Internet…

 IUPUI institutional portfolio: www.iport.iupui.edu

 Susan Kahn [email protected]