Documenting Engagement and Service

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 eds 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
  missionand
• 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?
• Whats the carrot?
• Tied to institutional planning, budget
• Deans annual reporting on CE
• Chancellors 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
  institutions 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 transitionassociations/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_at_iupui.edu