photostrip
  Resources: Service Learning

INSTITUTIONALIZING SERVICE LEARNING: A MACC PRIORITY
by Janice S. Green

INTRODUCTION

Schopenhauer told us that "...our true reality is an interconnectedness with all forms of life." (1) The form of life that most affects the reader professionally is the institution of higher learning, whatever its type, size, or mission. And we recognize, perhaps with some reluctance, that each and every institutional decision and activity connects to and therefore impacts in varying degrees upon the whole. The burgeoning presence of service learning on our campuses is no exception to this truth. The number of colleges and universities offering course-based service learning opportunities increases annually. On some campuses, this mode of education is a relatively new practice; elsewhere it is well-developed and much in evidence. Whatever its status, a significant question must be posed: to what extent has service learning become integrated into institutional mission and culture? This query is vital in that, without solid institutionalization, enthusiasm and support may well wane or be overshadowed by new priorities or pressing needs. While it is a fact of life that change is inevitable and often necessary, those key factors recognized as particularly conducive to student maturation and understanding are most apt to endure. There is a growing realization nationwide that curriculum-based student learning is one of those factors.

Recognizing the centrality of institutionalization, Massachusetts Campus Compact initiated a yearlong program of education and support targeted at helping campuses to achieve this objective. The program aimed to assist its members with the task of assessing the degree to which service learning has become embedded in campus goals and practices, and to develop plans for insuring both longevity and excellence for service learning activities. In the following pages we will describe the several phases of the program, examine and analyze program outcomes, and offer observations and conclusions that may prove useful. Service learning, like all facets of education, is a work in progress. We hope that the many hours contributed to this project by MACC staff and by membership faculty and administrators will provide momentum to the task of preparing undergraduates for informed, involved citizenship over a lifetime.

PHASE ONE: Project Preparation and Tools
The project kicked off with a daylong workshop in January, 2004, led by Dr. Andrew Furco of the University of California at Berkley. Dr. Furco is recognized nationally for his research and accomplishments in the service learning field, most particularly in the area of assessing and evaluating the status of service learning, both generally and on individual campuses. Teams of participating faculty and administrators were introduced to an evaluative tool developed by Dr. Furco titled "Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Higher Education" (to be referred to as the rubric). The rubric "is designed to measure the status of a campus' level of institutionalization at a particular point in time." The assessment process centers upon five dimensions of service learning and on the several components of each dimension. These dimensions include: 1) the philosophy and mission of service learning; 2) faculty support and involvement; 3) student support and involvement; 4) community participation and partnerships; 5) institutional support. Three stages of progress are cited: critical mass building; quality building; and sustained institutionalization. Users can then identify those dimensions and components that are developing well and those that require further attention. In short, Dr. Furco offered a blueprint for factfinding, analysis, interpretation, and planning.

As a followup to the workshop, MACC members were invited to submit applications for minigrants of $500 to assist with the cost of carrying out a self-assessment process examining the institutionalization of service learning on their campuses. Grants were awarded to eight Massachusetts colleges and universities representing a spectrum of institutions, public and private, large and small. These institutions were, as follows:

  • Brandeis University
  • Bridgewater State College
  • Emmanuel College
  • Lasell College
  • Pine Manor College
  • Simmons College
  • University of Massachusetts - Boston
  • University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth
The institutions were asked to establish a self-assessment team that would use the guidelines of the Furco rubric to examine and evaluate the status of service learning on their campuses. The exercise would provide the basis for discussion of short- and longer-term goals and needs, and, equally important, to stimulate the dissemination of findings to the broader campus community and, as appropriate, to community partners.

PHASE TWO; Campus Teams At Work
Selection of mini-grant participants was made on the basis of demonstrated interest and the presentation of clear and appropriate project goals. It should not be assumed, however, that the eight institutions selected had reached a uniform level of development in providing course-based service learning to their students. Quite the contrary, in fact. Existing offerings ranged from exploratory and even tentative ventures to quite sophisticated and well-structured programs involving considerable numbers of students, faculty, and administrators. The point, it must be stressed, was not to offer brownie points for program breadth at a given moment in time, but rather to examine and assess the level of program institutionalization in the multiple contexts of mission, commitment, broadbased involvement, support, and leadership. Not an easy task, but a vital one if service learning was to take its place among the fundamental educational principles espoused by the college or university. Whatever their position on the experiential scale, the mini-grant project offered vehicle and the opportunity to assess the present and potential depth of institutionalization. Whether this opportunity was realized as fully as possible by all grant holders is a question to be explored below,

As noted, each institution organized a committee of faculty and administrators to carry out the task of assessment. Committee membership ranged from five to eleven persons. Only one group included a student representative, an omission that could be perceived as overlooking the opportunity for input from the student perspective. Where a formal structure already existed for the oversight of service learning, or more broadly, community service, that structure was represented on the assessment committee.

Of the eight institutions in question, six reported use of the rubric as the basis for evaluation and planning, while two did not report any use of the rubric. Of those two, the first group set out intending to use the rubric to develop a definition of service learning and a long range plan, but was sidetracked to focus on the matter of incorporating service learning into freshman courses in order to foster adjustment to campus life and increase timely graduation rates. The second grout, representing a more larger and more complex institution, chose to focus upon the multiple functions of the parent administrative structure, including those bearing directly on service learning.

It should be noted here that certain institutions enjoyed available funding in addition to the $500 minigrant; additional dollars came from other grants or from endowments and budget lines earmarked for community service activities. These additional funds made a difference, permitting such expenditures as conference attendance, faculty stipends, etc.

PHASE THREE: Project Findings
A very basic question surfaced early in the deliberations of several groups, a question that at first might be seen as simplistic. What, exactly, is service learning? Can we formulate a definition common to all aspects of the curriculum and acceptable to all faculty and administrators? How do we differentiate service learning from volunteerism and from internships? In short, how do we arrive at a definition that will serve as the foundation stone for development, assessment, and planning? This issue, at several institutions, became the catalyst for controversy and disagreement, and has yet to be resolved. Even recognizing that 100% of campus faculty will see eye to eye only in Never-Never Land, it is essential that a majority understand and accept a definition appropriate to mission and educational purpose. Those who remain unconvinced will either decline to participate in service learning or will gradually, albeit reluctantly, fall in line. It is clear, however, that without achieving a definition of service learning subscribed to by a majority on campus, it will be extremely difficult to attain the goals set out in level three of the rubric. In this regard we note as well that, at institutions where service learning is in the very early stages of development, there was confusion as to the distinction between course-related service learning and internships. Here again, clarification requires precise definition.

Among needs cited in institutional reports was that of improving communication strategies both campuswide and with community partners. It is generally assumed that smaller colleges enjoy a built in advantage regarding communication, that smallness of itself promotes widespread knowledge and understanding. This, however, is a fallacy. No matter what the number of faculty and students, communication results from planned and ongoing activities of which the most successful involve face-to-face meetings and discussion, e.g. department meetings, faculty and committee meetings, etc. At one institution in the early stages of developing service learning a presentation was made to the board of trustees that proved highly successful in gaining support and interest. Another institution, wishing to foster direct communication with its community partners moved to initiate networking meetings and symposia and to offer an annual faculty/partner award. Insuring that academic advisors are knowledgeable concerning service learning and ready to inform students about this opportunity may be yet another route to improved communication. In sum, the participating institutions recognized that the strength and longevity of service learning is firmly linked to the understanding, support, and promotion of service learning on and off the campus. These features can only be achieved through successful communication.

An important finding by almost all grant participants concerned the need to collect information. Many found that necessary data was unavailable as they sought to analyze and assess results following the rubric guidelines. What percentage of students were or had been involved in service learning? What percentage of faculty by discipline offered course-based service learning? How many community partners expressed satisfaction with their involvement and continued to participate? How did students evaluate their service learning experience? What measures of support were provided by senior administration and did that support signal strong commitment to service learning initiatives? None of these questions could be answered other than anecdotally without accurate and timely information. Thus, data collection appeared among the planning needs reported by most groups. The rubric was particularly helpful in pointing out gaps in information retrieval.

Noted above was the fact that only six of the eight participating institutions took advantage of the rubric as an assessment guide. It may well be that the two groups in question were not ready to use the rubric, that it was too early in the game to analyze discrete aspects of service learning. Whatever the reason, we hope that the rubric will prove itself an effective tool for those institutions in the future. The six users of the rubric reported a spectrum of results. Of those, three saw themselves predominantly at Stage One: Critical Mass Building with inroads at Stage Two: Quality Building. The remaining three reported themselves at Stage Two and Stage Three: Sustained Institutionalization. It is of interest that those three shared the common elements of an existing administrative structure responsible for community partnerships and the promotion of civic responsibility and also substantial experience over time in the delivery of service learning. Most telling, however, is the finding that use of the rubric as an assessment tool led to identification of strengths and weaknesses and to strategic planning decisions.

CONCLUSION:
A minigrant of $500 can encourage efforts and stimulate progress. It cannot of itself guarantee results over the long term. Program growth and improved results require the support and commitment of senior leadership. Faculty and mid-level administrators can and do make a difference, but without the public endorsement of the president and/or chief academic officer it will be difficult to sustain a gradual institutionalization of curriculum-based service learning. The president's bully pulpit is available; we hope that he or she will use it both on and off campus to make the case. Surely the importance of preparing students for active, knowledgeable citizenship must come high on the institutional agenda.

To faculty and administrators who have given time and energy to this project we offer thanks and congratulations. Whether your campus is in the earliest or more advanced stages of institutionalizing service learning, you have moved the effort forward. You have recognized the need for better communication, better information, and better recognition of participants, whether students, faculty, or community partners. You have established objectives and made plans to achieve them. And you have understood that one size does not fit all, that campus mission and culture must guide your decision-making and determine the appropriateness of next steps. We wish you well as you move forward and stand ready to assist in all possible ways. Your graduates will surely join the growing ranks of involved, committed citizens, ready to help, prepared to take an active role within their community and their nation.

Back to Service Learning Articles main page.