undergraduate.oregonstate.edu · Web viewService Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE) Proposal for Consideration and Development. May 11, 2011. DRAFT. Report Produced

Service Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE)Proposal for Consideration and Development

May 11, 2011DRAFT

Report Produced by the SLICE Workgroup:

Committee Membership Department/CollegeEric Alexander Co-Chair, Student Leadership & Involvement (SLI)Kathryn Baker Administrative Support from SLILoren Chavarria Foreign Languages & LiteraturesRyan Collay SMILE ProgramAllison Davis-White Eyes Intercultural Student ServicesMargie Haak Chemistry DepartmentJeff Hale College of Liberal ArtsKate Hunter-Zaworski College of EngineeringCathy Law Human Development & Family SciencesJennifer Nutefall OSU LibraryNell O’Malley College of EducationRoger Rennekamp Outreach & Engagement/College of EducationAnn Robinson Student MediaSusan Shaw Women’s StudiesJonathan Velez College of Agricultural SciencesJun Xing Co-Chair, Ethnic Studies

Service Learning Initiative 2

Table of Contents

Section Page

Introduction and Rationale 3 Land-grant mission 3 University strategic plan and signature areas 4 Carnegie classification 4 Learning Goals for Graduates 4

Definition of Service-Learning 5

Outcomes of Service-Learning Initiative 6 Outcomes for Students 6 Outcomes for the University 7 Outcomes for Community 7

Proposed Model 8 Primary recommendation 8 Target for student engagement 8 Scalable programmatic structure 8 Initial personnel considerations 10 Consortium and Advisory Board Structure 10 Initial budget and partnership consideration 10 Operational considerations 12 Recognition structuring 13

References 14

Figures and Tables Figure 1. Scalable Model 9 Table 1. Proposed SLICE Budget for Startup 11

Appendices Appendix A – SLICE Charge 15 Appendix B – A Vision for Service-Learning at OSU (White Paper) 16

DRAFT


Service Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE)Proposal for Consideration and Development

Introduction and Rationale: Why does OSU need a Service Learning Initiative?Oregon State University (OSU) is engaged in systematic institutional change to address numerous challenges and opportunities simultaneously. These include: academic and community engagement; academic excellence leading to an engaged and effective citizenry; cultural competency for diverse populations; and meeting the demands involved in retaining an increasing number of diverse students locally, statewide, and nationally. These goals must be met within the context of the following frames:

1) Our mission as a land-grant institution2) Our Strategic Plan 3) Our recent Community Engagement classification by the Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching4) Our new Learning Goals for Graduates

The Service Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE) workgroup was jointly commissioned by the Associate Provost for Academic Success and Engagement and the Vice Provost for Outreach and Engagement to develop a campus-wide service-learning initiative for OSU (see Appendix A for charge). Numerous reasons for developing a service-learning initiative at OSU can be found in the white paper entitled A Vision for Service-Learning at OSU (see Appendix B) with connections to the aforementioned frames being described below. Overall, as OSU moves toward service-learning as an institution-wide solution, it is important to note that the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) has deemed service-learning a “high-impact educational practice” that can help achieve essential student learning outcomes as outlined by faculty, employers, and accrediting agencies (Kuh, 2008).

The Land Grant MissionThe university’s original mission was set forth in the 1862 Morrill Act to focus on the teaching of agriculture, science and engineering along with classical studies as a response to the industrial revolution and the demands of a growing middle class. Now, the emergence of a global economy and greater cultural diversity in workplaces and communities profoundly influences this mission.

Much of the responsibility for carrying out the Land Grant Mission of the University falls to the Division of Outreach and Engagement. Outreach and Engagement view each citizen as a life-long learner to emphasize the relationship OSU has with Oregonians. Students are encouraged to co-author contributions that serve external partners; graduate students are granted assistantships to address community needs, and Outreach and Engagement works to instill a culture of student engagement throughout their major and baccalaureate core work. Service-learning could serve to catalyze a deeper commitment to the land grant mission throughout the institution. In fact, institutions that engage in service-learning practices report enhanced community relations (Gray et al., 1998), a necessary ingredient in supporting our commitment as the land-grant institution for the state of Oregon. The SLICE proposal is a university-wide initiative to serve the students of OSU and the communities of the State of Oregon and beyond. Comparator institutions (e.g. Washington State University) have successfully integrated service-learning across the statewide

DRAFT


network of extension offices and within extended campus programs. OSU could further engage the State of Oregon through similar programs focused on service-learning.

University Strategic Plan and Signature AreasThe OSU Strategic Plan rests on a set of three fundamental goals:

1) provide outstanding academic programs2) enhance the teaching and learning environment3) increase investment in academic priorities

Service-learning can lend mightily to these fundamental goals for OSU. There is an abundance of research that describes the positive impact of service-learning on student-based educational outcomes such as student persistence in college/retention, student motivation, increased campus and community involvement, increased awareness of social issues, more focused educational and career development, decreased racism, etc. (see A Vision for Service Learning at OSU in Appendix B for references). The proposed initiative will help the University to produce graduates who can build effective, respectful relationships with people from many backgrounds and experiences. There is evidence that service-learning efforts increase the quantity, quality and retention of underrepresented students (Roose, et al., 1997) and students and faculty report that service-learning improves students’ ability to apply classroom learning to practical application. These outcomes can be accomplished through increasing the support for cultural diversity and expanded service-learning opportunities to serve the public and private sectors.

Applied student experiences will place students in partnership with faculty as they address the OSU Signature Areas of Distinction identified in the strategic plan of 1) Science of Sustainable Earth Ecosystems, 2) Human Health and Wellness, and 3) Economic Growth and Social Progress. Collectively, the Signature Areas represent OSU's greatest opportunity to solve complex societal problems and to create superior learning opportunities for students. To move forward on these endeavors requires skills and attributes that service-learning specifically and intentionally fosters in programs, faculty and students.

Carnegie ClassificationIn 2010, Oregon State University was awarded the prestigious Community Engagement classification by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Carnegie Foundation specifically focuses on university activity that “describes the collaboration between institutions of higher education 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” (Carnegie Foundation website). As part of the application process, OSU recognized a need to strengthen the level at which we participate in curricular engagement activities/service-learning in order to more fully live up to our designation. The proposed service-learning initiative will allow for greater fidelity in living up to the Community Engagement classification and can be implemented in conjunction with university-wide strategic realignment and restructuring of undergraduate baccalaureate core curriculum.

Learning Goals for GraduatesOregon State University is also reevaluating the “baccalaureate core” of undergraduate education to ensure that all students explore, experience, and reflect upon world views, life situations, and cultures that are different from their own, as well as create opportunities for students to apply

DRAFT


their skills and knowledge to complex problems and real-world challenges. Additionally, the university is increasing access to innovative, relevant educational programs through non-traditional delivery modes that serve place-bound students, address targeted business needs, and promote lifelong learning. The Learning Goals for Graduates include:

1) Competency and knowledge in multiple fields2) Critical thinking3) Pluralism and cultural legacy4) Collaboration5) Social responsibility and sustainability6) Communication7) Self-awareness and life-long learning

The service-learning initiative is in direct alignment with these goals. Research supports the effectiveness of service-learning in most of these domains (see A Vision for Service Learning at OSU in Appendix B for references). In fact, in defining service-learning (see definition below), the ideals would include every one of these learning goals for graduates. Overall, the proposed service-learning initiative is in direct alignment with the objectives and strategies of the Land-Grant Mission, the Learning Goals for Graduates, University signature areas, Outreach and Engagement strategic plan, our commitment to internationalization, and community needs at the local, regional and state levels.

Definition of Service LearningThere are many definitions of “service-learning,” but most academics agree that it is a form of experiential education in which academic classroom curriculum and instruction is fully integrated with meaningful service in the community. The overall goal is for students, faculty, and the community to learn and benefit from positive collaborative and reciprocal experiences, strengthening communities for the common good. Sigmon (1979) and Furco (1996) suggest service-learning must include both service and learning goals of equal importance to student, community, and faculty participants (See Appendix B, Figure 1). Student, community, and faculty members who participate in these authentic experiences understand how participation in service advances their learning and how learning results in better service outcomes.

As a Carnegie Foundation designated Community Engagement university, we recommend adopting the definition of curricular engagement (read “Service Learning”) used by the Carnegie Foundation which suggests engagement to be “…teaching, learning and scholarship engaging faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial and respectful collaboration. Their interactions address authentic, community-identified needs, deepen students’ civic and academic learning, encourage lifelong civic engagement, enhance community well-being, and enrich the scholarship of the institution” (Carnegie Foundation, 2011)

Key components of service-learning should include: 1) Curricular connections: Academic ties are clear and build upon and enhance the

disciplinary skills students are learning in the classroom with structured opportunities for reflection created to think, talk, and write about the service experience;

2) Community partnerships: Partnerships with community agencies and organizations are essential to identifying authentic community needs, providing mentorship, contributing

DRAFT


assets and resources towards successfully completing a service project; and, determining the significance and depth of the service activities;

3) Assessment: Well-structured assessment provides valuable documentation of the 'reciprocal learning' and serving outcomes to encourage sustainability and replication; and

4) Student voice : Beyond being actively engaged in the service itself, ideally students have the opportunity to select, design, implement, and evaluate their service activity, encouraging relevance and sustained interest (Furco, 1996).

Outcomes of a Service-Learning Initiative: What will this initiative create for OSU?The outcomes and impacts of service-learning provide vital support for the University’s Learning Goals for Graduates, the three signature areas of distinction, and retention of the Carnegie Community Engagement classification. Research indicates that student participation in service-learning will foster a sense of community, improve understanding of diversity, encourage students to become more holistic and trans-disciplinary and promote student collaboration, application, and innovation. The outcomes of a service-learning experience will enable students to recognize and address complex societal issues and will in turn aid the University in reaching its commitment to develop an informed and capable citizenry.

A committed focus on service-learning will enable the university to better meet the needs of students, faculty, and the surrounding communities. While the benefits of service-learning are most often directed first at the students, it is important to recognize the holistic impact of service-learning. Based on the broad range of potential outcomes, we have separated the service-learning outcomes into three categories: outcomes for the university, the students, and for the community. The following sections detail our conceptualizations of some of the key outcomes and indicators of success resulting from the establishment of a climate of service-learning.

Outcomes for Students

Achievement of learning goals.Research demonstrates significant benefits to students resulting from participation in classes that involve service-learning. We see service-learning-based courses as instrumental in helping students achieve the seven Learning Goals for Graduates (LGGs) of OSU. However, we also recommend that a supplemental course evaluation be developed for service-learning-based courses to track outcomes unique to service-learning.

Work-ready graduates.Many educational institutions are examining how service-learning helps them produce work-ready graduates. Ongoing connections to community help students understand the complex nature of real-world problems they will encounter in the future.

Increased civic development.Research shows that young adults who volunteer and have strong connections with communities are more likely to be civically-engaged as adults than those who are not.

DRAFT


Outcomes for the University

Achievement of a shared definition and understanding of Service Learning.It is essential that OSU develop and communicate a shared definition of what constitutes service-learning. Focus groups with faculty, students and community members are recommended to assess current understanding of service-learning. Faculty development workshops are effective ways of helping faculty design courses with strong service-learning elements.

Service-learning courses become “transcript visible.”Accrediting bodies expect that service-learning courses be clearly identified in the university catalog or bulletin. They also expect that student participation in service-learning courses be visible on transcripts. A designator for such courses will allow OSU to report the number of service-learning courses offered and the number of students who enroll in service-learning courses.

Increase in the number of Service-learning courses offered by OSU.In 2010, just over 1% of OSU courses were identified by academic units as having strong service-learning components representing approximately 2200 students or roughly 10% of enrolled students. We recommend that OSU establish a minimum goal of doubling the number of such courses by 2014.

Increased student retention.Students who perceive their courses as relevant and who understand how the content learned can be applied in real-world contexts are more likely to be stay enrolled and complete their education at OSU.

Outcomes for Community

Active participation of faculty, staff, and students in communities.Service-learning not only catalyzes student involvement in the community, but faculty and staff involvement as well. Ideally they are involved in co-learning partnerships that embody principles of reciprocity and respect.

Solutions to local problems.Through such involvement, both community perspectives and university knowledge are valued and recognized. Solutions to problems are contextually appropriate and broadly supported.

Increased public perception of the OSU’s value.OSU is viewed as authentic, concerned, engaged, and responsive. Oregonians see OSU as value-added.

DRAFT


Proposed model: Creating a Service-Learning Initiative for Curricular EngagementThe following proposed model from the SLICE workgroup is based on multiple comparator site visits (including Boise State University, Cornell University, Portland State University, Seattle University, University of Washington, and Washington State University) as well assessment of literature focused on creation of and structural considerations for service-learning programs.

Primary recommendation: OSU should develop a centralized structure that reports directly to the Associate Provost for Academic Success and Engagement in order to support service-learning for our students, community, and faculty. This structure will enhance the student experience and push OSU to more fully integrate our Land-Grant mission and current Carnegie Foundation designation as a Community Engagement institution.

Target for Student Engagement: The initial goal of the service-learning initiative is to provide structural support for community partners, faculty, and students as they engage in curricular and co-curricular service-learning experiences. A relatively straightforward target for engagement can be established as OSU continues to develop experiential learning opportunities focused on 1) service-learning, 2) undergraduate research, 3) internships, and 4) study abroad experiences. Within four years of the service-learning initiative start-up, 1-in-4 OSU students who graduate will have had a curricular service-learning experience supplemented by co-curricular opportunities.

Scalable Programmatic Structure:OSU should focus on developing a scalable model that will facilitate increased university commitment, student engagement, statewide connections, and faculty involvement throughout expansion (see Figure 1 below). Though reporting directly to the Associate Provost for Academic Success & Engagement, the service-learning initiative will garner energy and support from Academic Affairs, Outreach & Engagement, Student Affairs, and (eventually) International Programs.

STAGE 1 – Supportive Start-up: Throughout the design development phase of this initiative (including site-visits with numerous comparator institutions) it became clear that in order for this to be a successful initiative a centralized model of programmatic support is essential. Understanding the need for scalability, we will begin with a small operational center to include a 1) a full-time director, and 2) a half-time coordinator (or graduate student support). These positions will be bolstered by partnership with the Student Affairs based program within the Department of Student Leadership & Involvement’s Center for Civic Engagement and Service. The CCES will provide support through co-curricular service-learning, student-based programmatic support, risk and liability mitigation, and connection to the community. In addition, the CCES will provide student personnel and programmatic outreach and engagement elements for students. To begin developing a strong connection to the colleges and university programs, the Director will convene a Service-Learning Consortium (see description below).

STAGE 2 – Campus Integration: As service-learning becomes increasingly embedded into the OSU culture, the community, and within the student experience, the OSU service-learning program will need to scale up to support growth with the addition of another full-time coordinator position. The first element of integration will likely include course designations that

DRAFT


are transcript visible. In addition, an uptick in personnel providing support to community and faculty development as well as integration of the student support area (the CCES) will be instituted. As integration evolves, service-learning will become central to our culture at OSU and the surrounding community. The program coordinator will develop and assemble quarterly the Service-Learning Community Advisory Board as a way to strengthen connections with community partners, develop or enhance communication mechanisms, engage in community-based awards programs, and engage community members as co-educators and scholars. Once this system is in place it will be time to further our statewide presence, through extension, and embrace our land-grant standing within Oregon through service-learning.

STAGE 3 – Regional Center: Once established as an OSU hallmark program, the service-learning initiative will be ready for ”Regional Center” status, focused on curricular and co-curricular service-learning, engaged research, broader statewide service-learning initiatives and gain national level standing. Partnerships with other OUS institutions (i.e. Portland State University) to develop the center will add depth and breadth to the program offerings. Most importantly, though, we will be the epicenter of research, practice, service, scholarship, and program development that truly informs and transforms the state of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. The Regional Center will tackle issues pertinent to the state, and work with our communities to solve the most critical problems confronting the social and environmental fabric throughout Oregon.

Figure 1. Scalable model for OSU Service Learning Initiative

DRAFT

Supportive Start-up:Intentional initiation of Service-

Learning Initiative for OSU(1-3 years)

Expected OutcomesCenter development of materials and personnelFaculty development and supportStudent/community connectionsReward structure for faculty and studentsDevelop supporting board structureAcademic Affairs, Student Affairs, O&E PartnershipProgram PersonnelDirector (1.0 FTE)Coordinator (.5 FTE).49 FTE - GTA6-10 work study students

Campus Integration:Integration into curriculum and

cross-discipline collaboration(4-5 years)

Expected OutcomesTargeted support for community, students, and facultyCurricular and co-curricular developmentIntegrated into campus through course designation and requirementsAdditional awards structure for communityAdded Personnel1.0 FTE Community Outreach Coordinator.49 FTE - GTA2 work study students

Regional Center:Center for excellence in engaged

scholarship and learning(6+ years)

Expected OutcomesEngaged research academyGrant attainment and continued developmentFoundational supportProminent statewide distance service-learning programStrong partenrship with OUS schoolsAdded Personnel.5 FTE Grant writer.5 FTE statewide coordinator2 - .49 FTE GTA's2 work study students


Initial Personnel Considerations:

1.0 FTE – Director: This position could be focused on administration and either community development or academic and faculty development. The decision to be made would focus on whether this person is professional faculty or academic faculty.

.5 FTE – program coordinator focused on either academic or community development (depending on role of director). Again, this could be a professional or academic faculty.

1.0 FTE – Coordinator (focused on student curricular and co-curricular support – this could initially be accomplished with the new Coordinator for Civic Engagement and Service with the Department of Student Leadership & Involvement (Student Affairs).

.49 FTE GTA positions to provide support to programmatic elements Administrative support from 6-10 student workers

Consortium & Advisory Board Structures:

Service-Learning Initiative Consortium: Internal working group – made up of people from key areas on campus who are able to

shift position descriptions or currently have position descriptions that would dedicate FTE to S-L

This asks EVERY College to truly commit some level of support to this work (should be Dean appointed)

Membership would come from across campus (Director convenes monthly or every other month – similar to O&E Council)

May include a few community and student members from key stakeholder groups This is a working group that discusses current campus-based initiatives, opportunities for

collaboration across departments, joint funding ventures, etc.

Service-Learning Community Advisory Board: Focus in two areas:

o Community member partnerso On-campus volunteer groups

Community focused coordinator convenes group 1-2 times/term Develops mechanisms for feedback from community Develops annual awards/recognition programs for and from community Continues to develop strong working relationships with community and volunteer base

Initial Budget and Partnership Considerations (table 1):

Initial budget considerations suggest the need for at least 1.5 new FTE as well as .49 FTE for a GTA. This will allow for the service-learning initiative to gain traction through consistent programmatic development and support via personnel. Program partners for these FTE can be spread across Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and Outreach & Engagement. Other needed partners will include the Center for Teaching & Learning as well as numerous colleges to provide additional budgetary and programmatic support.

DRAFT


Table 1. Proposed SLICE Budget for start-up

Phase Funding Needs Totals and possible sourcesPhase I: Supportive Start up (Years 1-3)

Personnel Needs: FTE Director (68K + benefits @ .43) .5 FTE Coordinator ($34K + benefits

@ .43) .49 FTE Graduate Assistant ($22K) 1 Work study ($2K)

Operations Needs: Office furniture, copying, phone, supplies, computers, fax, etc. (20K)

TOTAL Annual Budget Need:Approx. $150-$190K

Possible sources/partners: Academic Affairs Student Affairs Outreach & Engagement Center for Teaching & Learning

Phase II: Campus Integration (Years 4-5)

Added Personnel Needs: 0.5 FTE Community and Outreach

Coord. ($23K + benefits @ .43) 2 - .49 FTE GA ($44K) 2 - Work Study ($5K)

Added Operations Needs: Library development ($1K) Honoraria/stipend for community

partner($2.5K x 5= $12.5K)

Grant proposals ($10K) Office & Marketing materials ($15K)

TOTAL Annual Budget Need:Approximately $225K-$250K

Additional sources/partners: Student fees Grants OSU Foundation Colleges Federal work study funds

Phase III: Regional Center (6+ years)

Additional Personnel Needs: 1.0 FTE Research/Statewide

Coordinator (65K+ benefits @ .43) 1.0 FTE Community Outreach

Coordinator (46K+ benefits @ .43)(added .5FTE)

2 - .49 FTE GTA ($44K) 2 - Work Study (5K)

Added Operational Needs: Fellowships/Stipends (25K) Student Outreach (12K) Faculty workshops ($7K) Grant writing and research support

(10K)

Total Annual Budget Need:From OSU continued support of approx. $275K - $300K

Expectation of additional funding from grants and OSU Foundation

Additional Sources/partners: INTO OUS Partner schools Extension funding

DRAFT


Operational considerationsIn considering annual and day-to-day operations, the service-learning initiative will need the following upon start-up to ensure success of the program:

1) The physical location and space needed within the center would include:a. Office for Director (120-180 sq. ft.)b. Office for Asst./Dir or coordinator (120-130 sq. ft.)c. Office for second .5 FTE coordinator (110-120 sq. ft.)d. GTA workspaces (2-3 .49 GTA workstations 55 – 75 sq. ft. each)e. Student work stations (2-4 stations at 55 sq ft. each)f. Dedicated meeting spaceg. Community parking spacesh. Transportation/vans for student project transport

2) Technical support is both a practical and financial consideration. Technical support considerations include the following:

a. Initial hardware and software set-upb. Initial website designc. Initial phone set-upd. Internet access and supporte. Email access and supportf. Continued website supportg. Software updatesh. Hardware updatesi. Phone costs, including long-distance

3) Business support considerations include the following:a. Business Center designationb. Accounting supportc. HR supportd. Student worker supporte. Fee processing (i.e. lab fees, class fees)

4) Risk management/liability mitigation considerations include the following:a. Liability waivers for studentsb. Liability waivers for community partnersc. Contracts with community partnersd. Trainings to decrease riske. Special insurance for students when off-site

5) Marketing and communications considerations include the following:a. Departmental marketing versus university wide marketing (i.e. who does it?)b. Marketing to and recruiting students (when, how initially, how over time)c. Marketing to and recruiting faculty (when, how initially, how over time)d. Marketing to and recruiting community partners (when, how initially, how over

time)e. Developing strong social media understanding and communications connections

to statewide partners6) Staff training and development should include the following:

a. Difference Power, & Discrimination Trainingb. Accounting, HR, student workersc. OSU facility usage (room reservations, policies)

DRAFT


d. Liability issues & risk managemente. Media releasesf. Policies regarding working with minorsg. Working with non-OSU entities (including non-profits)h. Training and support for faculty teaching SL classes

Recognition StructuringRecognition is a key asset to a strong service-learning initiative. In particular, the list below should be considered as a way to possibly generate motivation for faculty, students and staff. A complete list is found in Appendix

1) Facultya. Awardsb. Fellowship/Mini-grants/Buy-outsc. GTA awardd. Promotion & Tenure

2) Studentsa. Transcript notationb. “Service Medal”c. Scholarshipsd. Project fundse. Conference feef. Awards nominationsg. Co-authorship

3) Communitya. Partner recognition/awards/proclamationb. Community fellows programc. Honorarium/donation

DRAFT


References

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2011). Community Engagement Classification Description. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php

Eyler , J.S., & Giles, D.E., Jr. (1999). Where's the learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, Inc.

Fitch, P. (2004). Effects of intercultural service-learning experiences on intellectual development and intercultural sensitivity. In S. Billig & M. Welch (Eds.), Advances in Service-Learning Research (p. 107–126). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Furco, Andrew. (1996). Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education. Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National Service.

Gray, M.J., Ondaatje, E.H., Fricker, R., Geschwind, S., Goldman, C.A., Kaganoff, T., Robyn, A., Sundt, M., Vogelgesang, L., & Klein, S.P. (1998). Coupling Service and Learning in Higher Education: The Final Report of the Evaluation of the Learn and Serve America, Higher Education Program. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact education practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.

Oregon State University (n.d.). Strategic Plan - Phase II: 2009-2013. Retrieved October 25, 2009

from Oregon State University Website: http://oregonstate.edu/leadership/strategicplan/.

Seifer, S.D., & Connors K. (Eds.)(2007). Community Campus Partnerships for Health. Faculty Toolkit for Service Learning in Higher Education. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service Learning Clearinghouse, 2007.

DRAFT

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php


Appendix A

The charge to the Service Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE) workgroup is to develop a campus-wide Service Learning initiative that seeks to celebrate OSU’s existing strengths in Service Learning opportunities and to expand and extend opportunities to engage more students, faculty and community partners. Closely linked to the University’s Strategic Plan, the charge of the SLICE workgroup is to recommend a programmatic structure to promote excellence in Service Learning at OSU. Topics to be addressed include:

1) Programmatic goals and alignment and intersection with broader student learning objectives, including the Learning Goals for Graduates proposed by the Bacc Core Review Committee for consideration of the Faculty Senate during spring 2010, Bacc Core learning outcomes, and outcomes in colleges and major programs.

2) Administrative structure/support (this may include 2-3 options based on varying funding/support models or a graduated plan)

a. Funding sources/resourcesb. Program administration/staffing needsc. Location (within University structure)d. Partnerships and roles within and outside of OSU

3) Programmatic priorities a. Definitions of Service Learningb. Defining/describing liabilityc. Faculty/staff training and development needsd. Learning outcome and curricular development standardse. Student curricular and co-curricular opportunities

DRAFT


Appendix B

A Vision for Service Learning at Oregon State UniversityThis white paper introduces the notion of service learning: defines it, discusses its importance, provides implementation examples from other comparable institutions and offers suggestions for a comprehensive and strategic approach to university-wide service learning at Oregon State University (OSU). Service learning is one essential aspect of the Carnegie Designation - Engaged University OSU seeks to obtain and can play a vital role in the OSU mission to promote economic, social, cultural and environmental progress for people across Oregon, the nation and the world through their graduates, research, scholarship, outreach and engagement. OSU can become a recognized leader in service learning as part of the overall drive to be a Top 10 Land Grant university.

What is Service Learning?There are many definitions of service learning, but most academics agree that it is a form of experiential education in which academic classroom curriculum and instruction is fully integrated with meaningful service in the community. The overall goal is for students, faculty, and the community to learn and benefit from positive collaborative and reciprocal experiences, strengthening communities for the common good. Sigmon (1979) and Furco (1996) suggest service learning must include both service and learning goals of equal importance to student, community, and faculty participants (See Appendix A, Figure 1). Student, community, and faculty members who participate in these authentic experiences understand how participation in service advances their learning and how learning results in better service outcomes.

Given our desire to attain the Engaged University Carnegie Designation, we recommend adopting the definition of curricular engagement (service learning) used by the Carnegie Foundation: “…teaching, learning and scholarship engage faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial and respectful collaboration. Their interactions address authentic, community-identified needs, deepen students’ civic and academic learning, encourage lifelong civic engagement, enhance community well-being, and enrich the scholarship of the institution.”

Key components of service learning include: 5) Curricular connections — Academic ties are clear and build upon and enhance the

disciplinary skills students are learning in the classroom with structured opportunities for reflection created to think, talk, and write about the service experience;

6) Community partnerships – Partnerships with community agencies and organizations are essential to identifying authentic community needs, providing mentorship, contributing assets and resources towards successfully completing a service project; and, determining the significance and depth of the service activities;

7) Assessment —Well-structured assessment provides valuable documentation of the 'reciprocal learning' and serving outcomes to encourage sustainability and replication; and

8) Student voice —Beyond being actively engaged in the service itself, ideally students have the opportunity to select, design, implement, and evaluate their service activity, encouraging relevance and sustained interest (Furco, 1996).

DRAFT


Why is Service Learning Important?The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) through the Liberal Education and Americas Promise (LEAP) initiative (a multi-year, multi-institutional qualitative and quantitative study) have identified a set of student learning outcomes for higher education deemed essential by faculty, employers, and accrediting agencies. Those learning outcomes include 1) engaged study in and knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world; 2) practicing intellectual and practical skills (i.e. inquiry, analysis, written/oral communication, critical/creative thinking, etc.); 3) being anchored by personal and social responsibility (i.e. civic engagement, intercultural competence, ethical reasoning and action, etc.); 4) demonstration of integrative and applied learning (Kuh, 2008). Service learning provides a vehicle and a high-impact educational practice that can help achieve these essential learning outcomes (Kuh, 2008).

For example, there are observed positive influences on students’ persistence in college/retention, student motivation, increased campus and community involvement, increased awareness of social issues, more focused educational and career development, decreased racism and often job offers that result from quality service learning programs and participation (Astin & Sax, 1998; Balsano, 2005; Bringle, Hatcher, & Muthiah, 2002; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Fitch, 2004; Marsteller-Kowalewski, 2004; McClam, Diambra, Burton, Fuss, & Fudge, 2008; Roldan, Strage, & David, 2004; Warchal & Ruiz, 2004). In addition, student and faculty report that service learning improves students’ ability to apply classroom learning to practical application (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Also, because service learning opportunities often require several departments or colleges to work together, there is evidence that such programs help to break down the silos that exist on many campuses (personal communication, Pam Kiser of Elon University, September 16, 2009)-- clearly an important goal of OSU’s new strategic plan. Lastly, institutions report enhanced community relations (Gray et al., 1998 ), a necessary ingredient in supporting our commitment as the land-grant institution for the state of Oregon. The three Signature Areas of Distinction identified in the strategic plan include: Advancing the Science of Sustainable Earth Ecosystems; Improving Human Health and Wellness; and Promoting Economic Growth and Social Progress. Collectively, the Signature Areas represent OSU's greatest opportunity to solve complex societal problems and to create superior learning opportunities for students. To move forward on these endeavors requires skills and attributes that service learning specifically and intentionally fosters in programs, faculty and students.

There is evidence that service learning efforts increase the quantity, quality and retention of underrepresented students (Roose, Daphne, Miller, Norris, Peacock, White, & White, 1997). Ellen Momsen, Director of Women and Minorities in Engineering at OSU suggests that her Ambassador program keeps diverse students engaged and provides a supportive community in which to learn. The front page of the University of Chicago’s Community Service Center (an exemplary program recognized nationally) website features an excerpt from Michelle Obama’s keynote address, in which she indicates that she did not feel that the University was a viable option for her because no one there reached out to the people in her Chicago community. Oregon State University can learn from this lesson. Service learning provides accessible paths to student leadership development and engagement opportunities (Perreault, 1997) open to anyone and not dependant on popular election, status, or standing. OSU can leverage its role as a land grant university with presence in every county in the state, by adding to and enhancing service learning opportunities that already exist. Through a comprehensive and strategic service

DRAFT


learning program, OSU can have an even stronger and more meaningful presence, communicating that we are an institution that accepts hard-working students, no matter their community or background. There is one other aspect of the service learning arena in which OSU can lead statewide, regionally, nationally and internationally. Currently, there is a lack of rigorous and long-term scholarship and research about service learning and its impacts on students, faculty, the university as a whole and communities, short-term and particularly long term (Billig & Eyler, 2003; Ziegert & McGoldrick, 2004). This is an important niche that OSU could fill.

Service Learning at Oregon State UniversityCurrently, Oregon State University offers Service Learning opportunities in a few areas within the curricular and co-curricular landscape. Through Outreach & Engagement, numerous programs are in place that directly or indirectly supports the concept of service/community-based learning. Currently students participate in OSU service learning through programs such as the Extension Services, 4-H, the Sun, Space, and Sea Grant programs, the SMILE Program, Inside-Out, and agriculture experimental stations. These programs offer opportunities for students to actively and experientially learn and apply learning that cannot be matched with classroom-only approaches.

Other examples can be found across particular colleges and departments. For instance, the College of Engineering’s participation in Engineers without Borders, and the College of Engineering/College of Science Pre-College programs offer opportunities to engage with the community and provide service to the state and the world. In the College of Health & Human Sciences, engagement with state agencies, such as the local Public Health Departments, offer rewarding learning. In addition, individual and collective groups of instructors are intentionally building course curriculum focused on service learning, including Dr. Jun Xing in Ethnic Studies, Steve Cook in Geology, Dr’s. Juan Trujillo, Susana Rivera-Mills, and Loren Chavarria in Foreign Language, Dr. Michele Inderbitzin and Jeff Hale in Sociology to name a few. Finally, our campus houses a student-run and student-fee-funded Community Service Center (the CSC) that offers students a conduit to service opportunities in the community. Due to funding cuts, this program lacks professional staff oversight; however, the CSC is currently operating under the advising structure of the Department of Student Leadership and Involvement. Service learning opportunities at OSU are present, though they are both sporadic and episodic in their delivery and thus underutilized and undervalued.

Education that Engages: Enhancing Service Learning Opportunities at OSUService learning is an obvious opportunity for institutions around the country to more thoroughly engage students, become stronger partners with their communities, and to enhance learning by students. Our comparators around the country, including public land-grant institutions, as well as those in the Pacific-10 conference, have trended towards well integrated/campus-wide approaches to service learning initiatives or programs, some dating back well over 35 years. At OSU, the current Strategic Plan outlines our goal to be amongst the Top 15 Land-Grant Institutions in the country (OSU Strategic Plan, 2009). Our University mission and the land grant mission, established by the Morrill Act (1862) and bolstered by the establishment of Agriculture Experimental Stations (Hatch Act of 1887) and the expansion of outreach through Cooperative Extension (Smith-Lever Act of 1914) compels OSU to act to advance “economic, social, cultural and environmental progress for the people of Oregon, the nation and the world,”

DRAFT


(OSU Mission Statement, 2009). By serving the community of Corvallis and the state of Oregon more fully through integrated service learning and civic engagement in the curricular and co-curricular learning environments of student, we can more completely live our core values and confirm our commitment to becoming a Top 10 Land-Grant Institution.

In addition to developing as one of the Top 10 Land-Grant Institutions, we are focusing our current Strategic Plan on three primary goal areas : 1) Provide outstanding academic programs that further strengthen performance and pre-eminence in the three Signature Areas of Distinction: Advancing the Science of Sustainable Earth Ecosystems; Improving Human Health and Wellness; and Promoting Economic Growth and Social Progress; 2) Provide an excellent teaching and learning environment and achieve student access, persistence and success through graduation and beyond that matches the best land grant universities in the country; and 3) Substantially increase revenues from private fundraising, partnerships, research grants, and technology transfers while strengthening our ability to more effectively invest and allocate resources to achieve success (OSU Strategic Plan, 2009). An integrated service/community-based learning initiative will undoubtedly and demonstrably add to each of these goal areas by providing opportunities to serve the community/state in the three signature areas of distinction, enhance teaching and learning through a more fully engaged pedagogy, build partnerships and mobilize support for OSU throughout the state of Oregon.

The following sections will detail 1) models of successful service-learning initiatives from both comparator and inspirational institutions; and 2) outline for consideration a synthesis of recommended component parts of a service learning initiative for Oregon State University. In addition, directional recommendations will be forwarded on from this white paper in order to spur Oregon State University to increased action that advances the practice of service/community-based learning.

Comparator Institutions The following institutions were used as the benchmark for comparison drawn from the OSU sample of comparator institutions (see Appendix A-Table 1) and others that offer additional inspirational practices and successful models of integrated service learning initiatives. Data was collected using a standardized interview protocol with key informants at each institution (see Appendix B). Those institutions in italics have been highlighted in this white paper. Sample Institutions (* = land-grant peer institute):

Cornell University* Colorado State University* Elon University Georgetown University Michigan State University* Ohio State University* Portland State University Purdue University Stanford University University of Chicago Washington State University* Willamette University

DRAFT

SLICE Report 20

Institutional Data

Cornell University* (Ithaca, NY): Students: 21,325 (13, 846 undergrad)Institution Type: Private, Land-GrantWebsite: http://www.psc.cornell.edu/default.html The Cornell Public Service Center, which began in 1991 through a Corporation for National Service Grant, is the home of service learning for Cornell University. Their goal is to “champion the conviction that the Cornell University experience confirms service as essential to active citizenship.” The initial goal of the Center was to transform the institution, to shift the ethos. They quickly realized that they simply needed to grow a meaningful program that crosses academic and co-curricular bounds and the ethos change has taken care of itself - the program has grown from its inception, serving over 6000 students and over 100 faculty. In addition, they are seen as a part of the Ithaca service community and have developed a coveted “Cornell Civic Leadership Fellow Program” that directly engages community partners as fellows at Cornell. Cornell Programmatic structure/operations:

Report to VP – Student Academic Support 9 full-time staff Approx. $700K operating budget Faculty/Student/Community Coordination

Cornell Points of interest/lessons learned: No link to T&P – can make it tough to engage faculty initially No specific course designation, but feel it is needed Research mini-grants for course creation help to support faculty Annual faculty symposium increases interest

Elon University (Elon, NC):Students: 5,666 (4,995 undergrad)Institution Type: PrivateWebsite: http://www.elon.edu The Kernodle Center for Service-Learning, named in 1997, has been a part of Elon University since the late 1980s. The Kernodle Center houses Elon Volunteers!, a student-led program offering a range of volunteer activities; coordinates Elon’s signature academic service-learning programs and courses; and sponsors alternative break service trips, among other services. Elon students have both curricular and co-curricular transcripts, a required experiential learning course and transcript-visible service-learning courses. Last year’s report announced that Elon students logged over 92,000 hours of service. Along with the Center, there are a lot of faculty designations focused on service-learning efforts. There is a Faculty Development Fellow named who leads service-learning courses and lunchtime talks as well as educates other faculty about the benefits of service learning. There is great support for faculty interested in creating service-learning courses. A group of six to seven faculty members are named each year as Service-Learning Faculty Fellows and support each other while developing new service-learning opportunities for students. Elon Programmatic structure/operations:

The Kernodle Center is part of the division of Student Life and also has a faculty fellow for Academic Service Learning that reports to Academic Affairs.

DRAFT

http://www.elon.edu/

http://www.psc.cornell.edu/default.html

SLICE Report 21

Staffing: 2 full-time staff, 2 part-time staff, and 1 Americorps/VISTA Approximately $30K operating budget plus Student Government gives Elon Volunteers!

approximately $15K per year for programs.

Elon Points of interest/lessons learned: Center has full time employee devoted to building community partnerships Stipends allotted to instructors interested in creating service-learning courses

Georgetown University (Washington, DC)Students: 15,318 (7, 092 undergraduate)Institution Type: Private Catholic/JesuitWebsite: http://socialjustice.georgetown.edu/ The Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching & Service is the cornerstone of service learning initiatives at Georgetown. Led by faculty member, they are approve Community-Based Learning (CBL) courses that are notated on students academic transcripts (currently 19 official CBL courses). The Center focuses on curriculum and pedagogy, community partnering, service events, and supporting research that is community-based. Nationally, they are known for their 4th Credit Option, a program that allows students to add a 4th Service Learning credit to any class via their approval. Though this provides some transcript visible service learning, they do not feel the add-on philosophy truly accentuates a service learning model.

Georgetown Programmatic structure/operations: Report to Provost – Academic Affairs Dotted line to Student Affairs (by the Associate Director) 11 Total staff Approximately $1.0 million budget ($300K of which is through contracts with local

schools)

Georgetown Points of interest/lessons learned: Extensive use of work study (over 200) Love/hate relationship with the 4th Credit Option Growing faculty development and community partner programs…buy-outs for both

Michigan State University* (East Lansing, MI)Students: 46,648 (36,337 undergraduate)Institution Type: Public, Land-GrantWebsite: http://www.servicelearning.msu.edu/ The Center for Service Learning & Civic Engagement at MSU is the oldest/longest running program nationally (est. 1968). The center serves both a curricular and co-curricular mission and has seen a massive expansion over the past seven years (2002: 7073 students → 2009: 15,021 students). In addition, the Center works with all 17 Academic Colleges and MSU offers 550 service learning courses per year, though they are not transcript visible nor is there a clearinghouse for designation. However, some majors do require students to have taken a Community Service Learning course for graduation. Staff of the Center are trained as faculty consultants focused on pedagogy and course design and also play a role in helping to draft Community Partnering Agreements for community-based learning courses.

DRAFT

http://www.servicelearning.msu.edu/

http://socialjustice.georgetown.edu/

SLICE Report 22

MSU Programmatic structure/operations: Dual Reporting Lines to the VP for Student Services and the Assoc. Provost for Outreach

& Engagement 7 staff members focus on Community Outreach/Academic Specialists/Student Service Approximately $400k annual budget

MSU Points of interest/lessons learned: Undergrads take on student leadership for student programs Credit in classes based on evidence of service learning (learning outcomes) not on hours

of service or service projects

The Ohio State University* (Columbus, OH)Students: 53, 715 (40, 212 undergraduate)Institution Type: Public, Land-GrantWebsite: http://service-learning.osu.edu/ The Service Learning Initiative (SLI) at OSU was initiated in 1998 and stemmed from white paper/vision statement and 8 dedicated faculty known for being deeply committed to undergraduate education. The initial impetus behind the SLI was a desire to improve OSU as a neighbor in Columbus and improve the quality of the student experience. The Service Learning Initiative is primarily focused on support of the faculty in creating a service learning course as well as training of pedagogy and practice – all separate from student initiatives focused on service (i.e. community service leadership programs mainly found within Student Affairs offices). They offer some faculty course development grants (three per year for $3000 each) and currently support service-learning courses for 125-150 faculty across campus. This has been an increasing number since the approval of a specific designation for service learning courses that began in 2007.

Ohio State Programmatic structure/operations: The SLI is housed within Academic Affairs in the Office of Outreach and Engagement. Personnel include a .5 FTE Director, .5 FTE Program Coordinator, .33FTE

Communications Coordinator, .25FTE Fiscal Officer, and a shared Office Associate. Budget: $260K-$275K ($150K - $175K external funding)

Ohio State Points of interest/lessons learned: Challenged to sustain external funding Broker community partnerships (for faculty and student opportunities)

Portland State University (Portland, OR)Students: 26,587 (20,515 Undergraduate)Institution Type: Public-StateWebsite: CAE: www.pdx.edu/cae/; Senior Capstone: www.pdx.edu/unst/ With the institutional motto “Let Knowledge Serve the City,” PSU – through the Center for Academic Excellence (CAE) and Senior Capstone – have truly infused community based/service learning into their ethos. Following the passage of Measure 5 in the state of Oregon, PSU’s president commissioned a General Education Committee charged with differentiating PSU and making it distinct for the state of Oregon. From this work, the committee re-developed their

DRAFT

http://www.pdx.edu/unst/

http://www.pdx.edu/cae/

http://service-learning.osu.edu/

SLICE Report 23

University Studies (similar to OSU’s Baccalaureate Core) to include a more engaged pedagogy throughout the student lifecycle at the institution as well as mandatory service learning based Senior Capstone beginning in 1994 (developed upwards of 240 courses). Through the Community-University Partnership program, the Student Leaders for Service program, and the Capstone program, as well as strong research and academic programs in Metropolitan Studies, School of Social Work, and Urban Studies programs, PSU has integrated a way to connect faculty to community, students to community, and embed service learning into the graduation requirements for every student in every college and department.

Portland State Programmatic structure/operations: CAE is Under Co-Direction of the Associate Vice-Provost for Engagement and the

Associate Vice-Provost for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment and University Studies is under Vice-Provost for Undergraduate Education.

CAE budget $448K (grant funding)/Community-University Partnership budget of $200K/will roughly cost $5,521.00 per course transferred to Departments from University Studies ($1.3 million from tuition and fees for classes).

12 Staff (AVP’s, Asst. Directors, Program Coordinator, Instructional Designers, and admin. support)

Portland State Points of interest/lessons learned: Annually broker $20k in mini-grants to faculty for course design Faculty drive relationship with community CAE simply provides resources, connections, and instructional design Still need to find a better way for the community to connect to PSU

University of Chicago (Chicago, IL):Students: 15,149 (10,122 undergrad)Institution Type: PrivateWebsite: http://www.uchicago.edu The Community Service Center at the University of Chicago has been operating for 14 years in the Department of Student Services. Michelle Obama worked to first build the Center as a result of her lack on interaction with the university while she was growing up in a Chicago community. The staff takes pride in working with faculty to develop service-learning opportunities for students. The goal of the Center is to “foster the development of civic-minded students by providing substantive community service opportunities through community partnerships based on mutual trust and respect.” There are 60+ groups on campus that have service-learning in their mission statement.

Chicago Programmatic structure/operations: 4 professional staff plus 25 student employees

Chicago Points of interest/lessons learned: There is no central place that deals with all service-learning They are currently piloting a design program that gives faculty a stipend as well as a paid

graduate student to help create and facilitate a service-learning course.

DRAFT

http://www.uchicago.edu/

SLICE Report 24

Washington State University* (Pullman, WA)Students: 25,352 (21,149 undergraduate) Institution Type: Public, Land-GrantWebsite(s): CCE: http://cce.wsu.edu ; The Center for Civic Engagement at WSU was established in 1993 and is housed within the Division of Student Affairs, Equity and Diversity. With specific learning outcomes focused on Self-Efficacy, Academic Development, Civic Responsibility, and Community Partnerships that extend regionally and nationally, the CCE is the hub of service learning programs and opportunities for students, faculty, and the community. The Center offers numerous, curricular and co-curricular service learning programs for students, annual events that raise awareness on campus, and provide faculty support, training, and advising. In addition, they have partnered with WSU Extension and the Distant Degree Program to broaden the reach and diversify the opportunities for WSU to serve its communities.

WSU Programmatic structure/operations: Staffing: 7 professional staff, 6 graduate students, and 20-25 undergraduate student

employees. Budget: approx. $600K

WSU Points of interest/lessons learned: Advisory board support/develop program (1997-2005) Numerous sources of funding (including state, student fees, statewide fund drive, job

locator fund, work study, foundation, campus compact, mini-grants, etc.)

Programmatic Overtones for Consideration @ OSUFindings from the survey of comparator institutions reveal the multitude of approaches to develop and create a Service Learning Initiative at Oregon State University. Below is a list of considerations that will increase the probably of long –term success as OSU moves to improve the student experience in education through a service learning initiative.

1. Centralized Community-Based/Service Learning Efforts: In order to bring clarity, form, and structure to the concept of service learning/community-based learning to OSU, developing a centralized operation or centralized initiative will foster the cohesion needed to meld together programs focused on students, faculty, and community. Each of these programmatic areas need not be housed in one singular department (though that seems to be ideal) but the consortium does need to be intimately intertwined at least in terms of leadership.

2. The Golden Triad - Faculty/Students/Community: Any service or community-based learning program must pay attention to faculty development, student engagement, and community partnership. If any one of the legs of this three legged stool is not attended to, then the model fails.

3. Share leadership and ownership between Academic and Student Affairs: Regardless of the physical location of the initiative, in terms of housing/ownership, the Service Learning Initiative at OSU should be a critical to the mission of both Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. Some institutions have located the administration of a Service-Learning Initiative in one or the other and some have co-located them or had “dotted line” reporting structures.

DRAFT

http://cce.wsu.edu/

SLICE Report 25

Regardless of the structure at OSU, the sharing, reflecting, and assessing this work between Academic and Student Affairs is essential for success on our campus. By acknowledging the shared role of curricular and co-curricular learning, providing a seamless structure for students, they and their advisors are better able to navigate the University. One possible model would include a collaborative structure between Outreach & Engagement, Student Affairs, and the Center for Teaching and Learning in Academic Affairs.

4. Funding needs to be embedded in budget: By embedding a Service Learning Initiative into the budget (i.e. not relying solely on grant dollars) it ensures the continued vitality of the initiative and an acknowledged commitment by the University.

5. Expand on current work/highlight/acknowledge: Currently, there are numerous service learning opportunities at OSU that are either being underutilized, under-supported or under-acknowledged. Some programs that are currently operating, if refined slightly, could easily deliver a high quality service-learning experience. Further, through efforts campus-wide, there needs to be a mechanism to honor and assess these efforts as integral pieces the overall OSU Strategic plan.

6. Consider a range of opportunities for service learning, civic engagement, and experiential learning as part of a dynamic and engaging student learning environment: Though this white-paper focuses on service learning as a vehicle, developing more opportunity, expectation, integration, and recognition for the positive educational impact of experiential learning opportunities is paramount to the future success and engagement of our OSU student body and external communities. The linking of research, academics and outreach is core to the mission of the university and should be an integral to the university experience.

7. Oregon…bring us your problems and together we will solve them! OSU can deliver a robust and meaningful service learning agenda based upon the strategic initiatives to more fully meet its mission to the state, benefits Oregon communities and fosters heart-felt ties to OSU throughout the state – to make operational for the state our new slogan "Powered by Orange!"

Recommendations for Next Steps

The following are offered as next steps to begin the process of developing a strong service learning component at OSU:

1. Present “A Vision for Service Learning at Oregon State University” to the Outreach & Engagement Council - this will serve as an opportunity to raise the question of how a more robust service learning initiative can help place OSU amongst the top 10 land-grant institutions in the country.

2. Assure initial commitment by the Provost, the Vice Provosts for Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and the Division for Outreach and Engagement for the proposed structures for leadership (above).

3. Create a full committee charged with developing a clear vision and action plan for a Service Learning Initiative at OSU (partnership and stakeholders may include the Baccalaureate Review Committee, Faculty Senate, ASOSU, University Cabinet, the Vice-Provost’s Advisory Council (Student Affairs), the Student Affairs Leadership Team, and the Office of the President.

DRAFT

SLICE Report 26

Respectfully submitted by:

Eric Alexander, DirectorStudent Leadership & Involvement

Michele Crowl & Lynne DierkingCollege of Science, Free-Choice Learning

DRAFT

SLICE Report 27

References

Astin, A.W., & Sax, L.J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 251-263.

Balsano, A. B. (2005). Youth civic engagement in the United States: Understanding and addressing the impact of social impediments on positive youth and community development. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 88–201.

Billig, S. H., & Eyler, J. (2003). Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2009). Community Engagement Classification Description. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php

Eyler , J.S., & Giles, D.E., Jr. (1999). Where's the learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, Inc.

Fitch, P. (2004). Effects of intercultural service-learning experiences on intellectual development and intercultural sensitivity. In S. Billig & M. Welch (Eds.), Advances in Service-Learning Research (p. 107–126). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Furco, Andrew. (1996). Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education. Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National Service.

Gray, M.J., Ondaatje, E.H., Fricker, R., Geschwind, S., Goldman, C.A., Kaganoff, T., Robyn, A., Sundt, M., Vogelgesang, L., & Klein, S.P. (1998). Coupling Service and Learning in Higher Education: The Final Report of the Evaluation of the Learn and Serve America, Higher Education Program. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact education practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.

Marsteller-Kowalewski, B. (2004). Service-learning taken to a new level through community

based research: a win-win for campus and community. In S. Billig & M. Welch (Eds.), Advances in Service-Learning Research (p. 127–147). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

McClam, T., Diambra, J. F., Burton, B., Fuss, A., & Fudge, D. L. (2008). An Analysis of a Service-Learning Project: Students. Journal of Experiential Education, 30, 14.

Oregon State University (n.d.). Strategic Plan - Phase II: 2009-2013. Retrieved October 25, 2009 from Oregon State University Website: http://oregonstate.edu/leadership/strategicplan/.

DRAFT

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php

SLICE Report 28

Perreault, G.E. (1997). Citizen leader: A community service option for college students. NASPA Journal, 34, 147-156.

Roldan, M., Strage, A., & David, D. (2004). A framework for assessing academic service-learning across disciplines.. In M. Welch and SH Billig (Eds.), New Perspectives in Service Learning. . Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Sigmon, R. L. (1979). Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist, 8, 9-11.

University of Chicago Community Service Center (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2009 from University of Chicago Website: http://communityservice.uchicago.edu/

Warchal, J., & Ruiz, A. (2004). The long term effects of undergraduate service-learning programs on postgraduate employment choices, community engagement and civic leadership. New Perspectives in Service-Learning: Research to Advance the Field. Greenwich, CT.: Information Age Publishing.

Ziegert, A. L., & McGoldrick, K. (2004). Adding rigor to service-learning research: An armchair economists’ approach. In New perspectives in service-learning: Research to advance the field, 23–36.

DRAFT

Documents

undergraduate.oregonstate.edu · Web viewService Learning Initiative for Curricular Engagement (SLICE) Proposal for Consideration and Development. May 11, 2011. DRAFT. Report Produced