Meet the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Meet the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: a0ed3-OWMwY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Meet the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement

Description:

The self-study tells us that we have much to celebrate. ... celebrations, recognitions, events. Indicator: Institutional Commitment. Documentation Examples: ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:59
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: outreachan
Learn more at: http://louisville.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Meet the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement


1
Meet the Carnegie Classification for Community
Engagement
  • June 13, 2008

2
Meet Why to Do It Serves Multiple Purposes
  • Use for classification, development and
    institutionalization of engagement
  • Useful for applying or preparing to in the
    futureeither way helpful
  • Highlights areas to improve, framework itself
    helpful as an indication of where to focusthe
    development does not stop with classification!
  • Connects to other assessment strategies
  • Connects to accreditationNorth Central Higher
    Learning Commission, WASC,SACS, NEASC,
  • Collaborate UNC system, New England, CSU web
    support,

3
Advantages of Using Carnegie
  • Affirms and documents diversity of approaches to
    community engagement
  • Recognizes good work while encouraging on-going
    development
  • Legitimacy of Carnegie
  • Accountability strategy
  • Catalyst for change
  • Organizational development strategy
  • Institutional identity and market niche

4
(No Transcript)
5
Self Study Process
  • Focuses institution-wide attention
  • Assures public of institutional quality
  • Supports institutional improvement
  • Creates critical data sets and on-going record
    keeping
  • Facilitates decision making and planning
  • Spurs institutional strategic change

6
Models for Assessing Community Engagement at the
Institutional Level
7
Assessment
  • Quality and outcomes can best be measured
    through structured assessment activities that
    generate and use information about performance
    so that it is fed back into the system from which
    it comes to improve that system.
  • Barbara Cambridge (1999). Effective Assessment,
    in Bringle, et al., Colleges and Universities as
    Citizens.

8
Frameworks
  • Kellogg Forum
  • Committee on Institutional Collaboration and
    NASULGC
  • Furco Rubric for Institutionalizing
    Service-Learning
  • Gelmon Rubric Capacity for Community Engagement
  • Holland Matrix on Relevance to Mission
  • Campus Compact
  • - Wingspread Statements
  • - Indicators of Engagement
  • - MN Campus Compact Civic Engagement Indicators
  • NCA Higher Learning Commission
  • Carnegie Elective Classification Community
    Engagement

9
Tools/ Instruments
  • Michigan State University OEM
  • IUPUI
  • Other campus based efforts see the National
    Service-Learning Clearinghouse for examples
    (servicelearning.org)
  • Carnegie Classification Framework

10
  • Despite our commitment to community
    engagement, we had not previously compiled
    information about the many types and examples of
    community engagement that occur here. The
    self-study tells us that we have much to
    celebrate. It also provides us with a tool for
    analyzing where we can further increase and
    improve our efforts.

11
  • The Carnegie process is now informing
    university-wide strategic planning and is being
    turned into a set of recommendations. It has
    revitalized attention to the core urban mission
    of the institution and created widespread energy
    to deep community engagement.

12
Meet the Classification… Origin And Purpose Of
The Carnegie Classification
  • Developed in the early 1970s by the Carnegie
    Commission on Higher Education to inform its
    research program
  • A tool for simplifying the complexity of US
    higher education
  • Based on empirical data on what institutions do
  • Later published for use by others conducting
    research on higher education

13
Rethinking The Classification
  • Responding with several independent parallel
    classification schemes
  • Providing new flexibility and responsibility
  • A multidimensional approach using multiple lenses
  • Better matching of classification to purpose

14
Elective Classification for Community Engagement
  • An elective classification is one that relies on
    voluntary participation by institutions, and does
    not include the full universe of institutions.
  •  
  • The term, community engagement, is proposed
    because it offers the widest coverage, the
    broadest conception of interactions with
    community, and promotes inclusivity in the
    classification.

15
New Elective Carnegie Classification Community
Engagement
  • Community Engagement describes the
    collaboration between higher education
    institutions and their larger communities (local,
    regional/state, national, global) for the
    mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and
    resources in a context of partnership and
    reciprocity.

16
Intentions of Classification of Community
Engagement
  • Affirmation and documentation of the diversity of
    campuses and their approaches to community
    engagement
  • Indicators that recognize the good work that
    has been done while encouraging ongoing
    development toward the ideals of community
    engagement
  • Encouragement of inquiry and learning in the
    process of documentation

17
Intentions (continued)
  • Instrumentation and documentation that provide
    useful information for institutions
  • Documentation that describes the scope of
    institutional engagement
  • A framework that builds on current work of other
    organizations for a shared base of measurement or
    documentation
  • A documentation process that is practical and
    makes use of existing data

18
Inaugural Classification Process (2006-2007)
  • Letters of Intent Received (4-06) 145
  • Applicants Approved (4-06) 107
  • Applications Received (9-06) 88
  • Classified Institutions (12-06) 76

19
Classification Distributions
  • 5 Curricular Engagement
  • 9 Outreach Partnerships
  • 62 Both Areas
  • Total 76 Institutions

20
Newly Classified Institutions
  • 44 public institutions
  • 32 private institutions
  • 36 doctoral granting institutions
  • 21 masters colleges and universities
  • 13 baccalaureate of arts and sciences
  • 5 associates (community) colleges
  • 1 specialized institution with arts focus

21
Observations Strength and Consistencies
  • Mission Vision Values
  • Marketing catalogs, websites
  • Celebration, awards
  • Budgetary support
  • Infrastructure
  • Strategic Plan
  • Leadership Chancellor, Pres.
  • Faculty Development

22
Strengths of Successfully Classified Institutions
  • Alignment of institutional identity, culture, and
    commitments
  • Common definitions, language, and priorities
  • Attention to record keeping and reporting

23
Areas Needing Improvement
  • Assessment that is intentional, systematic,
    institutionalized, and used for improvement
  • Multi-levels of assessment student learning
    outcomes, programmatic effectiveness, and
    institutional intentions
  • Support of and for recruit/hiring practices and
    promotion/tenure rewards

24
Relationships with Community Improvements Needed
  • Assessing community perceptions of institutional
    engagement
  • Promoting community involvement in the
    institutional agenda
  • Ensuring mutuality and reciprocity in community
    partnerships

25
Tips from Recently Classified Institutions
  • Identify leadership for project
  • Customize to advance campus goals
  • Build upon institutional research/processes
  • Identify multiple purposes
  • Use as motivation for change or new directions
  • Conduct interviews, scan websites, develop
    instruments, etc.
  • Block out time and resources

26
Meet the Framework…
27
Framework
  • Foundational Indicators
  • Categories of Community Engagement

28
The first stage meeting these Foundational
Indicators
  • 1. Institutional Identity and Culture
  • 2. Institutional commitment
  • These indicators must be demonstrated by both
    required and optional documentation.

29
Indicator Institutional Identity and
Culture
  • Documentation Examples
  • missions (institutional, departmental)
  • marketing materials (brochures, etc.)
  • website
  • community perceptions
  • celebrations, recognitions, events

30
Indicator Institutional Commitment
  • Documentation Examples
  • executive leadership
  • strategic plan
  • budgetary allocations (internal/external)
  • infrastructure (Centers, Offices, etc.)
  • community voice in planning
  • faculty development
  • assessment/recording mechanisms

31
Indicator Institutional Commitment (continued)
  • Documentation Examples
  • promotion and tenure policies
  • transcript notations of student engagement
  • student voice or leadership role
  • search/recruitment priorities

32
The second stage selecting a category of
Community Engagement
  • Curricular Engagement (5 institutions)
  • Outreach and Partnerships (9 institutions)
  • Both (62 institutions)
  • The documentation process is extensive and
    substantive, focused on significant qualities,
    activities, and institutional provisions that
    insure an institutionalized approach to community
    engagement.

33
Curricular Engagement
  • …teaching, learning, and scholarship engage
    faculty, students, and community in mutually
    beneficial and respectful collaboration. Their
    interactions address community-identified needs,
    deepen students civic and academic learning,
    enhance community well-being, and enrich the
    scholarship of the institution.

34
Examples Of Curricular Engagement
  • Service learning or Community-based
  • learning
  • Internships
  • Community Leadership programs
  • Community-based capstones
  • Faculty scholarship related to curricular
    engagement

35
Outreach and Partnership
  • Outreach focuses on the application and provision
    of institutional resources for community use with
    benefits to both campus and community.
  • Partnership focuses on collaborative interactions
    with community and related scholarship for the
    mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, and
    application of knowledge, information, and
    resources (research, economic development,
    capacity building, etc.).

36
Examples Of Outreach and Partnerships
  • Professional Development Centers
  • Program evaluations
  • Collaborative Libraries, Museums
  • Extension courses
  • Co-curricular service
  • Partnerships
  • Scholarship related to outreach and partnerships

37
Using Carnegie… Questions???
38
What was hardest to answer? Issues? What
strategies need to be employed to make needed
changes? How can intermediaries and networks
help?
39
Meet Contacts Resources…
  • Carnegiefoundation.org
  • driscoll_at_carnegiefoundation.org
  • Lorilee Sandmann sandmann_at_uga.edu
  • James Zuiches
  • James_Zuiches_at_ncsu.edu

40
  • www.compact.org/resources/ Carnegie
    Applications, examples of the 2006 successful
    Carnegie applications for Community Engagement.
  • Campus Compact. (2004). The communitys
    college Indicators of engagement at two year
    institutions. Providence, RI Campus Compact.
  • Campus Compact. (2001). Assessing
    service-learning and civic engagement Principles
    and techniques. Providence, RI Campus Compact.

41
  • http//www.pdx.edu/cae/ A Guide to Reciprocal
    Community-Campus Partnerships, a introductory
    guide to describing, developing and sustaining
    reciprocal partnerships. The guide provides
    understandings and practices that emerged from
    Portland State Universitys Partnership Forum
    that brought together higher education and
    community partners to study partnerships.
  • www.ccph.info Achieving the Promise of
    Authentic Community-Higher Education
    Partnerships Community Partners Speak Out, a
    comprehensive report from Community/Campus
    Partnerships for Health and the 2006 Wingspread
    Summit to advance authentic community-higher
    education partnerships. The report contains
    observations of todays partnerships, analysis of
    whats working and whats not, challenges,
    and a vision for the future.
  • www.communityengagedscholarship.info The
    Community Engaged Scholarship Toolkit from
    Community/Campus Partnerships for Health is to
    provide health professional faculty with a set of
    tools to carefully plan and document their
    community-engaged scholarship and produce strong
    portfolios for promotion and tenure.
About PowerShow.com