draft

ENGAGE: Building a Culture of Engaged Learning

Quality Enhancement PlanGeorgia College

ENGAGE: Building a Culture of Engaged Learning

[Type text]

Page 3 of 1

Table of ContentsA Glossary31.The Blueprint42.Preparing the Site6Our Institution6Our Community6Community-focused Courses and Majors7Community-focused University Programs83.Building Culture Through Broad-Based Involvement9Stage I: Vision and Quality Enhancement Planning10Stage II: Topic Selection13Stage III: Topic Refinement14Stage IV: Research & Design15Stage V: Planning for Implementation15Conclusion164.Laying the Foundation17Build evidence of student learning17Develop diverse collaborations18Expand opportunities for experiential learning18Sustain a culture of engaged learning19Rationale & Literature Support205.Bricks and Mortar22The Strategy: Community-based Engaged Learning23Implementation Framework23Timeline25Leadership Structure25Budget256.Sustaining the Culture27Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes27The Assessment Toolbox27National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)30Project Evaluation30Build evidence of student learning30Develop diverse collaborations31Expand opportunities for experiential learning31Sustain a culture of engaged learning327.References34Figure 1. ENGAGE Learning Outcomes39Figure 2. ENGAGE Project Tiers39Figure 3. Profiles of Selected Community Partnerships and University Programs40Figure 4. Stages of the ENGAGE Development Process42Figure 5. Stage I Guiding Statements42Figure 6. Stage II Draft QEP Themes43Figure 7. Bowen’s Categories of Engaged Learning43Figure 8. Continuum of Engagement: Individual to Collective Behaviors43Figure 9. The AACU Essential Learning Outcomes44Figure 10. Apprentice Cohort: Sample Agenda44Figure 11. Comprehensive Budget45Figure 12. Timeline of Activities47Figure 13. Diverse Perspectives Rubric48Figure 14. Integrative Learning Rubric49Figure 15. Critical Reflection Rubric50Figure 16. Civic Identity Rubric51Figure 17. Contribution to the Public Good Rubric52Figure 18. Portfolio Comparison53Figure 19. Selected NSSE items mapped to ENGAGE outcomes538.Appendices54Appendix 1.Task Force Membership54Appendix 2.CbEL Director Job Description56Appendix 3.Stage I: Data Collection and Analysis Methods58Appendix 4.Stage II: Topic Selection Data60Appendix 5.Apprentice Cohort Application61Appendix 6.Journeyman Mini-Grants Request for Proposals63Appendix 7.Master Level Grant Program Request for Proposals66

In A Crucible Moment, Martha Kanter, Under Secretary, and Eduardo Ochoa, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, US Department of Education write, “Today’s education for democracy needs to be informed by deep engagement with the values of liberty, equality, individual worth, open mindedness, and the willingness to collaborate with people of differing views and backgrounds toward common solutions for the public good.” “This report therefore urges every college and university to foster a civic ethos that governs campus life, make civic literacy a goal for every graduate, integrate civic inquiry within majors and general education, and advance civic action as lifelong practice.” (National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012). Educating citizens is a Jeffersonian principle valued by liberal arts universities. The GC Quality Enhancement Plan, ENGAGE: Building a Culture of Engaged Learning, seeks to respond to this challenge by developing educational experiences that develop the skills and experiences appropriate to an informed citizen leader.

A GlossaryComment by Dr. J. Metzker: Put this as a fancy glossary at beginning of document

For the purposes of the Georgia College ENGAGE plan, a "CbEL experience" is defined as any community-based engaged learning experience, whether it be course-based or co-curricular, that promotes the integration of theory and practice with direct experiences, mutually beneficial collaborations within the community, and critical reflection. Community refers to the community in which the CbEL experience is located, which is likely to be central Georgia but could also include international and professional communities elsewhere. A “CbEL educator” is defined as any faculty or staff member in the position of designing and leading a CbEL experience. Projects are purposefully designed CbEL experiences supported through one of the ENGAGE project tiers. The Assessment Toolbox refers to a collection of assessment tools intentionally aligned with the ENGAGE Learning Outcomes (Figure 1), student-centered learning outcomes at the heart of the ENGAGE initiative. Mediating and Ultimate are terms used to describe the hierarchical relationship of the ENGAGE Learning Outcomes. Curricular experiences are those for which formal university credit is awarded and Co-Curricular experiences occur outside of structured learning environments and do not necessarily carry academic credit. Assessment refers to measures of student outcomes and evaluation is used in reference to measures of program activities.

The Blueprint

ENGAGE, The Georgia College Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), provides a roadmap for building a culture of engaged learning through the development of structured and assessable community-based engaged learning (CbEL) experiences that connect students with the liberal arts and the wider community. Through participation in engaged learning experiences, in and beyond the classroom, Georgia College students will develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become informed citizen leaders who are prepared to serve the public good, locally and globally. This plan is the result of an inclusive and deliberative two-year process that sought input from university constituents (students, staff, faculty and community members) through discussions and surveys. The chosen theme and goals (Figure 1) are closely aligned with the university’s unique mission as Georgia’s Public Liberal Arts University, which strives to provide an education that will “develop the intellectual, professional, and civic skills and dispositions that enable graduates to thrive in an information- intensive and diverse global society” that will “[enrich] the lives of students and their local and global communities.”

Although Georgia College has a rich tradition of learning in and beyond the classroom and an exceptionally high level of student volunteerism, the institution has not intentionally connected the academic experience with community engagement beyond a few isolated programs that impact relatively few students. Additionally, assessment of the impact of community engagement on students has not been previously linked to institutional effectiveness planning at Georgia College. During implementation, individuals and teams will build intentional collaborations among academic departments, student support units and community organizations in order to design learning environments that will provide rich information about student development in community contexts as well as student-generated contributions to the public good. The institutional goals of ENGAGE are to

Build evidence of student learning through direct and indirect measures.

Develop diverse collaborations between community and campus organizations.

Expand opportunities for experiential learning by constructing experiences for students to synthesize knowledge, skills and dispositions in community settings.

Sustain a culture of engaged learning by planning for a future where engaged learning is woven into every aspect of the student’s experience and Georgia College is an authentic partner with the local and global community.

The strategy through which these goals will be achieved is, in part, an increase in the number and quality of Community-based Engaged Learning (C-bEL) experiences in and beyond the classroom. ENGAGE provides a framework that will deliver the resources and support needed to create structured and assessable experiences that incorporate community-based learning. Four ENGAGE project tiers have been identified (Figure 2) to scaffold changes to the learning environment and support a diverse population of faculty, staff and community members as they develop transformative learning experiences for students. In Spring 2014, initial solicitations for the ENGAGE project tiers will be distributed to faculty, staff and community organizations in order to establish the Fall 2014 cohort groups. Over the five years of implementation, emphasis will shift from Apprentice and Journeyman to the Master and Fellow levels as individuals, departments, co-curricular units and community organizations develop the capacity to incorporate C-bEL and assessment into their programming.

In order to understand how these C-bEL experiences impact student learning, each experience will incorporate assessments from an Assessment Toolbox, aligned with the ENGAGE learning outcomes. These assessments consist of rubrics to provide direct measures of student learning supported by pre- and post-survey that provides indirect measures of changes in student attitudes and behaviors. These measures will yield important data regarding student learning and the efficacy of the measures as well as meaningful comparison to existing institutional effectiveness data.

Building a culture requires establishing a flexible yet robust system for assessing student-learning data and evaluating programmatic activities. Furthermore, a cultural change will only be realized if a significant portion of the university is involved and the data collected is used to drive continuous improvement. Thus, the ENGAGE initiative will be coordinated by a full-time Director who is supported by an advisory team composed of key constituents from the faculty, staff and community.

Gains in student learning through direct and indirect measures, dynamic CbEL experiences and collaborations with community organizations will be the observable consequences of “building a culture of engaged learning”. In addition, we strive to develop a culture in which students graduate with the expectation they will continue to apply academic constructs to contribute to the public good after graduation.

Preparing the Site

“Thankfully, I found The Leadership Community [TLC] where I made lifelong friendships, wonderful memories and collected valuable experience. The TLC model, where we initially worked as volunteers and then gradually assumed leadership roles, was very effective. My friends and I still marvel at the countless hours we spent working in the community, but we agreed that we wouldn't want it any other way. I am so grateful for The Leadership Community and the positive effect it has had on my life.” This is the voice of one student, Rachel, who reflected on her two years in a civic engagement residential learning committee. Comment by Dr. J. Metzker: These profiles should be set apart as visually appealing profiles. We have pictures of both Brandon and Rachel

Rachel, currently teaching in Tulsa, OK through the Teach For America program, excelled in political science scholarship while at GC. She was an active participant in several community-based learning projects including a journalism mentoring project in an afterschool program, a Peace Corps Correspondence Match program with 8th graders, and a field test for Public Achievement, a course-based youth civic organizing pedagogy, which has served over 250 students in the local public schools.

“My experience with the GC Nonprofit Leadership Alliance [NLA] gave me a very well rounded understanding of nonprofit initiatives. The program gave me core skills necessary to tackle the challenges I faced during Peace Corps with confidence. [NLA] gave me knowledge of the nonprofit world, but more importantly it gave me exposure. The hands-on learning emphasized by the program provides experience that can't be gained in the classroom.” Brandon, a Philosophy graduate, who served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Togo, West Africa (2010-2012).

Rachel and Brandon are two of many “building blocks,” past and present, who have already contributed to building a culture of engaged learning at Georgia College. The university’s distinctive mission as the state’s designated Public Liberal Arts University engages students in a rigorous academic education and a multitude of “beyond-the-classroom” opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills. For the past ten years, a host of university initiatives and community programs, many of which are profiled in Figure 3, have challenged students to learn by doing. By adding intentional learning outcomes to these and other programs through ENGAGE, the Georgia College QEP, we plan to increase the number of stories like Rachel’s and Brandon’s as well as build evidence for the value of such experience.

Our Institution

Georgia College, founded in 1889 as Georgia Normal and Industrial College, is located close to the geographical center of the state in historic Milledgeville, Georgia. In 1996, the institution was renamed Georgia College & State University to reflect its new mission as Georgia's Public Liberal Arts University. The University, best known by its shorthand name Georgia College, combines the educational and residential experience of esteemed private liberal arts colleges with the affordability of public higher education. Georgia College offers a comprehensive program in liberal arts and sciences, business, education, and health sciences to a student body comprised of approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 800 graduate students. Of the 403 instructional staff, 66% are tenure-track, 23% are part-time instructional staff and 10% are full-time lecturers. Undergraduate students select a program of in-depth study from 39 majors in the liberal arts and sciences, business, education, and health sciences. The major course of study is anchored by a core curriculum that emphasizes communication and quantitative skills, diverse perspectives, critical thinking and appreciation for a variety of disciplinary approaches. The core curriculum features a distinctive seminar series that develops critical thinking skills and approaches global perspectives from a range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives. Select graduate programs in the arts and sciences, education, business and the health sciences augment the undergraduate curriculum.

Our Community

The communities in which the university plays a part range from the local community in which the university is physically located to international sites that host study abroad experiences. Although any community in which students make a contribution to the public good meets the definition of community for the purposes of ENGAGE, the majority of Community-based Engaged Learning (CbEL) experiences are expected to impact Milledgeville, Baldwin County or surrounding counties. Milledgeville is the only city in and the county seat of Baldwin County, a predominantly rural county in Middle Georgia. Residents of the county experience a tension between plenty and want. The area is rich in natural resources with Lake Sinclair’s 400 lakeshore miles, the Oconee River, Bartram State Forest, Cedar Creek in Georgia’s Oconee National Forest as well as man-made parks and recreation facilities. In addition to Georgia College, Central Georgia Technical College and Georgia Military College offer economic, cultural, and educational resources. However, as of August 2013 Baldwin County’s unemployment rate was 11.1% and, of the 45,720 residents of Baldwin County, 25.2% live below the poverty level relative to 16.5% statewide.

For much of the 20th century, Milledgeville’s employment revolved around Central State Hospital, once the largest psychiatric facility in the nation; five state prisons; and manufacturing. The closing of the hospital along with the loss of several other large employers and the upcoming closure of a local power plant has resulted in the loss of over 30% of the county’s jobs in the past five years, making Georgia College the largest employer in the City and County. The poverty rate for children under 18 in our county is alarmingly high (31.6%) and is reflected in the fact that nearly a third of children in the public schools receive free or reduced-price meals. The high poverty is relatively concentrated in several neighborhoods. To illustrate, 87% of the nearly 600 children that attend Midway Elementary School, which draws from the south end of Milledgeville, belong to families that fall below the poverty level. Additionally, the most recent high school graduation rate for Baldwin County High School was only 68%. While the economic impact of the Georgia College and other higher education institutions has helped to sustain a struggling local economy, the social problems including health, education, and poverty pose a significant challenge for Georgia College as a steward of place in addition to being a teaching institution.

Demographically, the local community is very different from our student population. Whereas Milledgeville/Baldwin County is rural, many of our students come from the Atlanta metropolitan area. According to the most recent Census data, Baldwin County is about 55% White, 42% African-American, 2% Hispanic/Latino-American, and 1% Asian-American. By contrast, the 2013 class of full-time student population at Georgia College is 83% White, 7.5% African-American, 5% Hispanic, and 1.5% Asian and 3% identify as multi-racial. There is also a significant socio-economic difference between GC students and community residents. The relatively high poverty rate in our community stands in stark contrast to the relative affluence of our students. Whereas the median family income for Milledgeville is approximately $44,000/year, the median family income for Georgia College students is over $80,000/year. As a result of these demographic and socio-economic differences, there is a perception among many local residents that Georgia College, although it is a public institution, does not do enough to serve the local community. This perception was raised in a Spring 2012 town-hall meeting conducted as part of the Quality Enhancement Plan topic selection process and has been echoed in subsequent fora related to campus-community relations. This landscape provides compelling support for the focus on Community-based Engaged Learning (CbEL) at the heart of the ENGAGE initiative.

Community-focused Courses and Majors

Building a culture of engaged-learning begins with gathering individual faculty members’ stories and their commitment to teaching in a way that challenges students to apply their scholarship in community-based settings. Georgia College is fortunate to have dedicated professors, many of whom design courses with engaged-learning activities. Building culture presumes patterns, attitudes, and behaviors that collectively create an institutional identity associated with engaged pedagogies. ENGAGE seeks to build on individual professors’ commitments to extend teaching beyond-the-classroom and create a culture that is permeated with engaged scholarship.

Dr. Renee Fontenot, Professor of Marketing routinely has her students work with local and regional businesses. Fontenot states, “Roughly three months after graduation students start reaching back to share their interviewing and hiring experiences. A common theme is the edge the client-based projects gave them over others when applying for positions.” Approximately 40% of her Strategic Marketing capstone course work is focused on client-based projects, many of which are businesses and non-profits located in Milledgeville.

Valerie Aranda, Art, and Sandra Godwin, Sociology, co-teach a course entitled "Art & Social Justice." This upper-level course explores social theories of empowerment and community life and the way the visual arts, especially public murals, convey citizens’ history, values, and aspirations. Pre- and post-course surveys relative to engaged scholarship and ongoing reflective writing and discussion provide for student dialogue about their learning. This year students in the class are working with a neighborhood where residents are revitalizing their community with a neighborhood garden, fitness trails, and community center programs. The students will collaborate with citizens to design and paint a mural. Dr. Godwin says, "I am really excited about this course, especially since this year we have the opportunity to be a pilot course for the Quality Enhancement Plan. This semester, compared to the previous times we have taught the course, we will more formally assess students' learning as a result of their collaboration with community members on a mural project.”

Students in Dr. Jan Clark's Rhetoric practicum course have hosted community-wide viewings on front campus of the televised national presidential candidate debates since 2004, created a Baldwin County Voter's Directory of all elected and appointed city, county, state, and national representatives, and conducted voter education and registration presentations in classes as well as community locations. Dr. Clark says, "The experiences they get through this class make our students so well equipped to serve their future communities as informed citizen advocates." 

Gregg Kaufman, Government & Sociology, an adjunct faculty member, teaches a core curriculum GC1Y Critical Thinking 1000 course called Public Deliberation. The course is designed to help students explore the role of citizen involvement in community problem solving. Students learn neutral facilitation skills as well as how to research, design, produce, and use an issue book for facilitation based on a National Issues Forum model for deliberative forums. “I marvel at the positive comments students make after facilitating a forum in the community. Students return to class with confidence in their ability to help citizens work through complex issues. They leave the course with practical skills and an understanding of the capacity for citizens' political activity.”

These faculty members represent a fraction of the Georgia College corps of instruction dedicated to teaching students with the expectation of applied scholarship in the community. Our goal is to take these professors and their courses and design and integrate a culture where engaged-scholarship is both visually and structurally integrated into the university’s teaching mission.

Community-focused University Programs

A number of university programs (Figure 3) currently support individual and collaborative community engagement activities of faculty, students, and staff. Within the Student Affairs division, the GIVE Center (GC Inspiring Volunteers to Engage) was established in 1997 to supports student community service projects with local non-profit organizations. With a full-time staff of seven and many more student workers, the GIVE Center supported 2,435 students who contributed over 53,934 hours of unpaid service to the local community during the 2012-2013 academic year. Within the Academic Affairs Division, the Center for Engaged Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship (eight full-time staff and four student workers) houses the Non-Profit Leadership Alliance, the Office of Service Learning, the Office of Student Leadership, the American Democracy Project, and the Office of Undergraduate Research. The Office of Service Learning reported, in the 2012-2013 academic year, 57 sections of service-learning courses that provided nearly 32,000 hours of service to the community. During that same academic year, students participating in American Democracy Project-sponsored programs contributed 3,885 hours of service to the community through their participation. In all, during the 2012-2013 academic year, students contributed over 90,000 hours of unpaid service to the community through community service and service learning activities.

The Georgia College Extended University, which served 9,875 individuals through 550 non-credit life-enrichment and professional development courses in the 2012-2013 academic year, and the Office of Academic Outreach, which provides educational experiences to P-12 students in our local community provide additional examples of avenues for students to participate in community-service activities. Over the course of the 2012-2013 academic year, 54 Georgia College students along with 5 faculty and staff members provided nearly 2,200 hours of service to 5,474 local P-12 students served by Academic Outreach programs. In particular education support programs housed in Extended University have demonstrated important outcomes for P12 students through two externally-funded programs, the Youth Enrichment Services (YES) program and the High Achievers Program (HAP). In total serving nearly 850 public school youth each year through after-school activities. In total, eighty Georgia College students and ten Georgia College faculty and staff members contributed 3,000 hours of unpaid service to the programs. The profile below highlights just one of many campus-community partnerships that reflect Georgia College’s commitment to working with our community.

It is important to note that current measures don’t allow determination of how many unique students have participated in these activities and that no data regarding the impact of the activities upon Georgia College students is available. However, the data does demonstrate institutional capacity for ENGAGE by illustrating the mechanisms in place to connect students with community organizations and an interest within the student body to participate in community engagement activities.

Highlight Program—Communities in Schools, Milledgeville-Baldwin County (CISMBC)Comment by Dr. J. Metzker: This profile should be set apart from the text

The partnership between Georgia College and CISMBC is an exemplary example of mutually beneficial community-campus collaborations. This vibrant partnership connects our faculty, students, and staff to the broader community by providing volunteer opportunities in important areas such as business, marketing, education, recreation and community health. Additionally, the President of Georgia College and the Dean of the College of Education serve on the Board of Directors. Georgia College further supports the partnership through financial and in-kind resources (office space, partial salary and benefits, back-office support). The key partnership activities between Georgia College and CISMBC highlighted below represent a portion of over 3,600 hours of service provided to the partnership in volunteer and paid support.

The Georgia College GIVE Center provides trained volunteers to tutor, mentor, and coordinate family events, including a very successful Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service at Eagle Ridge Elementary, a Title 1 school.

The School of Health Sciences Community Health Program, in partnership with the Early Learning Center, hosts a range of health and fitness programs in K12 schools, including a partnership with the Oconee Prevention Resource Council to reduce tobacco use in Baldwin High School.

The College of Education provides tutoring and teacher support for Baldwin County schools and the GC Early College.

The Georgia College Office of Financial Aid has provides work-study funding for tutoring in Baldwin County schools.

The community engagement activities described here provide a compelling backdrop for a focus on Community-based Engaged Learning. What has been missing from these engagement activities are assessable student learning outcomes that link students’ community engagement experiences with their curricular and co-curricular learning experiences. Integrating the ENGAGE goals and outcomes into the curriculum and co-curriculum will provide the mechanism whereby students’ can meaningfully reflect on how community engagement connects to their academic coursework. Consequently, ENGAGE encourages and supports the integrative and holistic learning that is the hallmark of a liberal arts education. The focus on Community-based Engaged Learning integrates our educational mission as a teaching institution with our public mission to be a steward of place.

Building Culture Through Broad-Based Involvement

The five-stage (Figure 4) process for developing our Quality Enhancement Plan began in February 2012. The first information-gathering phase, encapsulated in a visioning process for Georgia College, was followed by a second stage focused on selecting a single theme. In the third stage, the theme was clarified through the development two student-focused goal statements. In the summer of 2013 (Stage IV), a smaller team researched best practices in the literature and at other institutions to inform development of five student-learning outcomes and an assessment strategy. In Stage V, the University Senate endorsed the learning outcomes, assessment strategies were refined, a plan for implementation was developed, and human and financial resources were secured.

Teams representing a cross-section of faculty, students, staff, administrators and community members led each stage of the process. During the transition from one stage to the next, some team members persisted, others exited, and new members joined. This practice of changing the makeup of the teams between stages allowed for consistency and innovation, by including both knowledgeable of previous work with and new perspectives to contribute to the QEP planning process.

Stage I: Vision and Quality Enhancement Planning

In February 2012, interim president, Stas Preczewski, initiated a Visioning and Quality Enhancement planning process for the university. The dual charge regarding the future development of a Georgia College Vision and a Quality Enhancement Plan required the Team to determine functional distinctions between “Vision” and “Quality Enhancement Planning.” Although both processes focused on Georgia College’s future and required input from stakeholders within and external to the university, the team delineated “Vision” as broadly encompassing all endeavors at all levels of the institution and “Quality Enhancement Planning” as a more focused process, targeting aspects of university life that would improve student learning. Using these distinctions, the Team conducted the planning process by receiving input from multiple stakeholders about a GC vision direction as well as suggestions for the content focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan.

Following a university-wide call for nominations in February 2012, seven faculty members, eleven professional staff members, four academic administrators and two students were selected by Interim President Preczewski in consultation with the Executive Cabinet to serve on the Vision and Quality Enhancement Planning Team. The president also appointed the Director of Strategic Initiatives to serve in an ex-officio capacity. During the first meeting (March 7, 2012), Dr. Preczewski also asked the Team to

“examine available institutional data relevant to student learning and mission attainment,

create and administer appropriate tools for gathering input from university constituents,

analyze input in the context of relevant data to identify common themes, and

make recommendations to the president on key themes for future vision of the institution.” 1

The team divided into five constituency-focused subcommittees tasked with developing appropriate strategies for collecting input from faculty, staff, students, alumni and community members and reviewing relevant institutional data. Subcommittee chairs communicated weekly to provide progress updates and seek guidance from each other. Several guiding questions were drafted to frame discussions with constituencies.

To what does Georgia College aspire; what is our dream?

What will make Georgia College distinctive or unique in the future?

What are the defining characteristics of the ‘Georgia College of the Future’ (5-10 years) from now?

What does it mean to be a public liberal arts university?

What are our critical academic issues or concerns?

What factors have the most potential to improve student learning at Georgia College?

How do our students compare to their peers at other institutions with respect to academic performance?

What changes would improve the academic environment that supports student learning?

Are our students prepared for their professions and/or graduate school?

The Team also identified important university resources to provide history and context to the planning process and identify the the most commonly held values within the University. These included the following documents:

Georgia College (GC) Mission Statement, revised June 2011

GC Values Statement

GC Pillars of Distinction

GC Vision Statement

GC ‘Principles’ Statement

GC Strategic Directions with Institutional Priorities (reaffirmed in 2011), and

The University System of Georgia Core Mission Statement for State Universities.

Data Collection and Analysis

Subcommittees identified methods appropriate for generating representative, inclusive samples of individuals within their respective constituency clusters and for collecting data from those samples as outlined in the following section. Findings were summarized for the entire team on April 17th 2012. Complete descriptions of the data collection and analysis methods are available in 0.

Faculty Subcommittee. All current GC faculty members were contacted by email to respond to a questionnaire addressing institutional vision and enhancement planning and processes. Eighty members of the faculty (~26%) representing a reasonable cross section from each academic college and across all academic ranks responded to the questionnaire. Comparison of these responses with the most recent results of the Higher Education Research Institute Faculty Survey (HERI[footnoteRef:2] were used to identify the themes summarized below: [footnoteRef:3] [2: The complete data from the most recent HERI faculty survey can be accessed at http://irout.gcsu.edu/surveyreports/index.html.] [3: Themes denoted by an asterisk (*) are themes eventually integrated into the ENGAGE theme, goals, and learning outcomes.]

Broad support for the liberal arts mission of the university.

A desire to attract and retain faculty committed to the mission.

A desire to spend more faculty time on teaching and less on institutional service.

As desire to reduce class sizes.

A desire to emphasize meaningful curricular experiences with a focus on service learning and other out-of-classroom experiences.*

A general reluctance to fully embrace online teaching.

A desire to provide more rigorous and challenging academic experiences for students.*

The need to attract more diverse faculty and students.*

A desire for more financial resources to support innovative teaching with an emphasis on engaged teaching and learning.*

Staff Subcommittee. All current GC staff members were invited to attend one of four forums in March 2012. Total forum attendance was 45 staff members from across many service sectors of the campus. Facilitated discussions were guided by several focus questions. Participants’ comments and questions were recorded, summarized and shared at each subsequent forum, serving to generate additional discussion and promote participation. At the end of each forum, the facilitators collected drafts of vision statements that audience members believed describe GC’s aspirations for the future. The common themes from the responses included:

Comfort with and support for the size/strength/scale of university.

A commitment to the liberal arts mission of the university.

Concern over the growth of services/programs/classes.

Recognition of and commitment to the university’s community involvement.*

Commitment to students/community/employees.

Appreciation for the university’s “well-rounded students”, and the students’ community engagement.*

A desire to increase collaboration among departments.*

A desire for more employee benefits, flextime, educational opportunities.

Pride in the appearance of facilities.

A concern over space availability and a desire to create a conference center on or near campus.

A desire to reduce class sizes by increasing class availability.

Student Subcommittee. The Student Subcommittee selected several different data collection methods to generate input from the GC student population. A questionnaire printed on post cards was administered through selected courses and by distribution in university housing and during dining hours at the student union, yielding 215 responses. Student focus groups were held at meetings of student organizations, involving a broad cross section of the undergraduate student population. These groups included Greek Council, Recreational Sports, the GIVE (student volunteer) Center, the Resident Student Association, and the Student Government Association. A qualitative analysis of the questionnaire and focus group responses was used to generate the following list of commonly recurring themes:

Concern over student-student interactions such as perceived cliques, concern over Greek vs. non-Greek relations, a perceived lack of school spirit, and concern over the relative lack of diversity in the student body.

A desire for more co-curricular and extra-curricular social and entertainment events.

A desire to improve the academic atmosphere with a focus on more faculty-student interaction, more engaged learning activities, and a greater use of technology to support teaching and learning.*

An appreciation for the general attractiveness of the campus and a desire to maintain the appearance and beauty of the campus and facilities and a desire to expand social spaces, study spaces, and event spaces.

Community & Alumni Subcommittee. Community feedback was garnered through a town hall style meeting at Digital Bridges, a university-affiliated non-profit organization located in downtown Milledgeville. The event was advertised to the community through local newspapers, the Georgia College website, and individual invitations to specific community organizations, particularly those that reflect the racial diversity of Milledgeville and Baldwin County. Approximately 50 community members attended, either as individual residents or as representatives from 22 separate local organizations, agencies, and businesses. The meeting was facilitated to encourage response to several posed questions. The community members engaged in a lively discussion with several follow-up questions posed by the facilitator and community members. Participant responses and discussion points were summarized in real-time in a format visible to all participants. The facilitator used the summaries to pose clarification questions and to stimulate further discussion. At the close of the meeting, attendees responded in writing to the prompt: “Based on the conversation today, provide some words or a one-to-two sentence statement that you think describes Georgia College’s vision for the future?”

Feedback from alumni was solicited through a questionnaire distributed by the Associate Vice President for Alumni Affairs to the members of the Alumni Board and to the GC Foundation Board of Trustees. Analysis of the responses from community members and alumni produced the following list of common themes:

A desire among participants to hold more such meetings.

A commitment to improving GC/community relations.*

A perception among community residents of persisting tensions between campus and community tied to social class and racial divisions.*

A desire to see more racial diversity in faculty and students and more social class diversity among the student body.*

An appreciation for the physical attractiveness of the campus.

A desire for more mutually beneficial and non-paternalistic service learning projects.*

An appreciation for the public liberal arts mission of the university but a desire to see a greater emphasis on public, i.e., a more broadly representative and diverse student body.

Institutional Resources Subcommittee. A review of institutional planning data from 2008-2011 was initiated to inform and guide the visioning and quality enhancement planning process. The subcommittee members conducted a comparative analysis of summary reports from campus-wide surveys and assessment tools[footnoteRef:4] to identify institutional strengths and weaknesses summarized below. These findings served as a method through which the Team could engage in “reality checks” through comparison with data collected by the constituency based subcommittees given that the survey data and findings represented larger sample sizes of campus constituents and were considered by the Team to be more reliable indicators of institutional strengths and weaknesses.Comment by Dr. J. Metzker: Does this narrative adequately emphasis that existing institutional effectiveness processes and data were used? [4: A complete listing and full results from each survey can be accessed at http://irout.gcsu.edu/surveyreports/index.html.]

The institutional strengths identified by the subcommittee were

institutional commitments to civic engagement and diversity;

faculty practices that incorporate student-centered pedagogies, active and enriching educational experiences and an emphasis on strong faculty-student interactions;

a campus climate that creates a sense of belonging for our students.

The committee identified the following as areas for improvement

Promoting civic-minded values;

Improving students’ understanding of diversity and strengthening a pluralistic orientation among students;

Improving students sense of social agency and institutional involvement;

Improving the college’s reputation among current and prospective students.

Vision and Quality Enhancement Planning Recommendations

In a comprehensive report, presented to the University President on June 19, 2012, the Team used the constituent group feedback and institutional data to identify strengths and aspirations for the university; which were in turn used to draft a collection of guiding statements (Figure 5) that illustrate a future vision for Georgia College and provide a platform for choosing a Quality Enhancement Plan topic.

Stage II: Topic Selection

On September 14, 2012 the Topic Selection Task Force, composed of two students, eight faculty, three staff and three academic administrators, convened and divided into two subcommittees: (1) the University Constituent Feedback Data subcommittee reviewed survey and forum responses from Stage I and (2) the Institutional Assessment Data subcommittee reviewed institutional survey data1, grade distributions and institutional-level performance data on student learning outcomes. As a result of this review, six themes (Figure 6) were drafted and distributed to GC stakeholders for review and feedback. This second stage of information gathering sought feedback through a campus-wide survey followed by a series of open forums. The survey, distributed in October 2012, asked respondents to evaluate the themes relative to their importance to Georgia College’s mission; identify their potential for improving student learning; and to rank the themes in order of preference. A total of 178 individual responses were received - 135 faculty and staff and 43 students. Results from the survey are available in 0. The four open forums, announced to campus by the President, attracted a total of 90 individuals, 68 of whom were not from the Task Force.

The Task Force reviewed the responses, and, after lengthy deliberation, voted to recommend the first five themes to the President for further consideration. Although the Task Force members noted some support for the sixth theme, “Fostering Sophomore Success and Retention”, they concluded this theme was not broadly inclusive and did not rank among the top themes as indicated by constituent feedback. They also noted that adoption of any of the other five themes could support sophomore retention and success.

After reviewing the Task Force report submitted on November 19 2012, President Dorman met with the Task Force to discuss the recommendations. Ultimately, President Dorman with the agreement of the Task Force concluded that “Building a Culture of Engaged Learning,” best represented the existing strengths and future aspirations of the university. President Dorman formally announced the QEP theme in the State of the University address on January 11, 2013.

Stage III: Topic Refinement

The next stage of the process was to identify a focused approach to the topic, “Building a Culture of Engaged Learning.” The term “engaged learning,” while having significant support particularly among faculty members, was broadly interpreted. To develop student learning outcomes and implementation strategies, the Task Force began to identify learning goals and establish an informal inventory of activities currently associated with engaged learning. In February 2013, the following four potential goal statements were identified and three open fora were held.

Support practices and pedagogies that enhance student engagement and learning in the classroom.

Promote opportunities to enhance student engagement and learning through “learning beyond the classroom” activities.

Develop students’ knowledge and skills to be more informed citizen leaders ready to serve the public good, locally and globally, through civic engagement, student service, and community-based partnerships.

Develop more meaningful and engaging faculty-student and staff-student interactions.

In addition to the campus-wide Q&A sessions, an open-ended survey was distributed to student affairs program heads, academic department chairs, and directors of academic support areas. The Task Force received 26 responses representing 17 academic programs, seven academic support programs, and two student affairs programs. The Task Force analyzed the notes from the fora and survey responses to reach the following conclusions:

Reactions to the proposed goal statements reflected a wide range of perspectives and approaches to questions 1 and 2 such that no consistent recommendations for modifications or alternative goals emerged;

Most of the open discussions and written responses focused on activities that were then in place to support “engaged learning,” and fewer identified clear learning outcomes associated with those activities;

Although there was some support for all four goal statements, there was comparatively less support for the fourth goal statement;

Most of the substantive feedback was in response to the first three goals, particularly goal three.

With respect to the last point, the Task Force members concluded that the amount of explicit feedback for the third goal could be attributed to a lack of understanding of the goal statement’s meaning. There was strong support among the members for the third goal as the clearest desired “outcome” or “end”, whereas the first two goals may better represent “means” to achieve the desired end. Consequently, the Task Force members decided to draft a single goal statement that combined elements of the first three statements as a starting point for the next stage of development. In its final meeting, April 24, 2013, the Task Force members approved the goal statement below. Development of this goal coincided with the end of the spring semester, a time when many faculty members had departed from campus for summer. Thus, the announcement of the goal statements was postponed until August 2013.

Through engaged learning in and beyond the classroom Georgia College students will…

develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become informed citizen leaders;

serve the public good, locally and globally.

Stage IV: Research & Design

In May through July 2013, the Research & Design (R&D) Task Force, consisting of three professional staff, two faculty members and three academic administrators, researched scholarly work and best practices to inform development of student-learning outcomes and an assessment strategy. Additionally, three members of the R&D Task Force attended the Association of American Colleges and Universities High Impact Practices Institute in Madison, Wisconsin with the anticipation that there would be overlap between the cases and best practices to be presented at the Institute and the QEP theme, goals, and anticipated learning outcomes. The Research and Design (R&D) Task Force reviewed approaches for assessing student learning outcomes, including direct and indirect measures of learning ultimately drafting a rubric adapted from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) VALUE rubrics. Finally, the Task Force drafted an implementation strategy based on faculty and staff development workshops and tiered internal grants to integrate engaged learning, particularly community-based learning, into the academic culture of the institution. The R&D Task Force presented their recommendations to The Presidential Cabinet on July 28 with an informal budget request. The proposal was accepted with only minor modifications.

Stage V: Planning for Implementation

In early August 2013, Provost Brown appointed a faculty member and the Center of Engaged Learning, Teaching and Scholarship Director as co-chairs of the final QEP Task Force. After hosting several open forums and launching a survey to announce the goal statements and seek feedback on the work done over the summer, it became apparent that many constituents felt development of the goal statements and learning outcomes included insufficient feedback from campus. To respond to these concerns, members of the R&D Task Force, in consultation with Dr. Tom Ormond, the Associate Provost, developed a strategy to better involve and inform the Georgia College community, in particular the faculty, in the final stages of the QEP development.

In September 2013, after issuing open invitations to all Georgia College faculty, students, and staff a new Task Force structure was initiated, consisting of a steering committee overseeing the work of three subcommittees: Professional Development and Assessment (PDA), Implementation and Budget (I&B), and Communications (COM). This new structure significantly broadened participation in the Task Force to eight professional staff members, two students, thirteen faculty members, eight academic administrators, and a representative from the community. The steering committee also included official representation from the University Senate, University Staff Council, and the University Student Government Association to allow for formal lines of communication with these important university constituencies and to ensure every university stakeholder was formally represented. The Student Government Association (SGA), under the leadership of student senator Juawn Jackson, established its own QEP Task Force. Senator Jackson and another student, Barrett Roell, acted as communication liaisons between the two Task Forces. The SGA Task Force was instrumental in identifying strategies for communicating the QEP theme to the broader student population.

In addition to naming a broad, inclusive Task Force with new membership, several strategies were employed to ensure effective communication with the university community, including

a series of public deliberation sessions were facilitated reaching more than fifty faculty members;

the QEP Goal Statements and ENGAGE Learning Outcomes were formally endorsed by the University Senate;

minutes from the QEP Steering and Subcommittees were publicly posted;

bimonthly updates on planning progress were sent to university constituents through official email listservs.

student focus groups were used to elicit opinions about the QEP theme, goals, and learning outcomes and to get recommendations on how best to inform other students about the QEP.

While the QEP Steering Committee focused on building greater awareness of and support for the QEP theme, goals, and outcomes, the subcommittees finalized and refined the Georgia College ENGAGE Plan. The PDA subcommittee revised the student learning outcomes, developed indirect and direct measures for assessing the outcomes and drafted a strategy for collecting and analyzing student-learning data. The I&B subcommittee developed a plan for implementation, including a five-year timeline and, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer, a comprehensive budget including funding for personnel and QEP activities. Finally, the COM subcommittee coined the title for the project, ENGAGE, and developed a marketing strategy with a focus on deliberative conversations and celebrating student stories.

Conclusion

The process used for development of the QEP has directly involved a wide-range of university constituents including alumni and members of the local community. Consistent consultation with all campus stakeholders and institutional planning data was used at every stage of the development of our QEP topic, goals, and student learning outcomes. Key members of the original Vision and Quality Enhancement Planning Team remained active throughout the development process and new members were involved at every stage to ensure a representative process. Multiple opportunities were made available for members of the university community to be directly involved in shaping the QEP to facilitate the incorporation of multiple perspectives.

Preparing the Site

The ultimate aspiration of this project is to create a university culture in which engaged learning is woven into every aspect of the student’s experience, in and beyond the classroom. The Georgia College University Mission, revised in January 2011, aims to “provide academically engaging, student-centered programs [that] take learning beyond the traditional classroom and develop the intellectual, professional, and civic skills and dispositions that enable graduates to thrive in an information-intensive and diverse global society.” Additionally, the revised mission includes several value statements, one of which indicates “Georgia College values collaboration with community partners to address mutually identified needs and to promote public well-being” and recognizes that “[c]ommunity engagement advances Georgia College students’ academic and civic learning” and “helps them become more informed citizen leaders ready to serve the public good, locally and globally.” This focus on community engagement is underscored by an institutional planning process that identified six strategic directions for 2011-2014, one of which is to become a “Strong Partner for Creating a Better Community and State” by “[s]trengthen[ing] community and regional ties through programs, partnerships, research, and service that enhances economic, educational, and cultural opportunities.” ENGAGE aims to realize these aspirational goals and enhance student learning by providing structured and assessable Community-based Engaged Learning (CbEL) experiences in academic and co-curricular settings. Four operational goals that building a culture of engaged learning have been identified and are explained below. They are to

build evidence of student learning through direct and indirect measures;

develop diverse collaborations between community and campus organizations;

expand opportunities for experiential learning by constructing experiences for students to synthesize knowledge, skills and dispositions in community settings;

sustain a culture of engaged learning by planning for a future where engaged learning is woven into every aspect of the student’s experience and Georgia College is an authentic partner with the local and global community.

Build evidence of student learning

In order to build evidence of student learning in CbEL experiences, a mechanism for determining the degree to which these experiences develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions of an informed citizen leader is required. The ENGAGE Learning Outcomes (Figure 1), developed and refined by educators at Georgia College, provide a framework for building evidence of student learning. These student-centered learning outcomes, designed as four mediating outcomes that support the ultimate, or pinnacle outcome, distinguish engaged learning as implemented at Georgia College. The four mediating outcomes serve to articulate to students the components needed to make a contribution to the public good, namely an understanding of diverse perspectives; integration of academic and experiential learning; critical reflection; and development of civic identity. This hierarchical organization, adapted from Nilson’s (2007) approach to mapping learning outcomes, provides a mechanism for scaffolding student learning from foundational to aspirational. Indeed, it is not reasonable to expect that every student will produce a meaningful contribution to the public good as defined in the ultimate outcome. It is, however, a goal to which we believe every GC graduate can and should aspire. We note that these learning outcomes do not specify the mechanism by which engaged learning occurs. In other words, the learning outcomes do not require that student gains come solely from CbEL experiences. This general phrasing of the ENGAGE Learning Outcomes is intentional, in that it will be possible to apply these learning outcomes and assessments to other high-impact practices as our culture of engaged learning evolves over time.

The assessment strategy (Section 6) includes direct and indirect measures of student learning aligned to each of the ENGAGE Learning Outcomes alongside plans for monitoring the outputs of CbEL activities – the elements necessary to understand the impact these activities have on student learning and our institutional culture. In particular, assembling direct evidence of learning through rubrics is of importance because much of our current understanding regarding student impact of community-based learning comes from secondary measures (e.g., student surveys and activity outputs). Every individual or team participating in the ENGAGE initiative will integrate one or more of the ENGAGE Learning Outcomes into their design by mapping the outcomes to project activities. Furthermore, each project will produce evidence of student learning as a result of the project activities by applying assessment tools from an “Assessment Toolbox” designed by the QEP Task Force.

Develop diverse collaborationsComment by J M: Do these things need explanation/rationale or is it OK to simply list them. Send to I&B subgroup and see what they think.

An area in which ENGAGE promises significant gains is the development of collaborations that build authentic partnerships with community as well as partnerships composed of teaching faculty and academic professionals. Creating and sustaining relationships with community partners will be especially crucial. The following recommendations were devised by the QEP Task Force in consultation with Janet Cavin, Director of Volunteer Milledgeville, for guiding development of sustainable relationships with community partners, many of which will be addressed throughout the course of this Plan:

Develop mechanisms for coherent oversight and leadership in developing, maintaining, and enhancing approaches to community-university partnerships

Involve community partners in the selection of community engagement leaders on campus, such as the QEP director, and their transition to the local community

Host information sessions in collaboration with Volunteer Milledgeville to explain the purpose of the QEP and what roles community partners can play

Provide workshops for community-university partners to build capacity for community engagement work

Allow community partners access to educate students, faculty, and staff on their service activities, organizational mission and goals (e.g., participation in Week of Welcome)

Provide on-going opportunities for faculty and staff to meet with community partners to discuss possible collaborations

Invite community partners to speak to faculty, staff and students about issues of public concern and contextual factors, such as the community’s history

Build infrastructure to support collaborations between community partners and the university community

Recognition for community and university partnerships and partners (e.g., award ceremony, publications)

The University recognizes the importance of community-university partnerships in fulfilling its goal of developing citizens prepared to make contributions to the public good. These guiding criteria serve as an important first step in creating mutually beneficial, reciprocal relationships with our community partners that will provide students with quality engaged-learning experiences. 

Expand opportunities for experiential learning

Settings where students can see academic concepts in practice or apply classroom learning to new situations have been on the rise at Georgia College. While we don’t yet have a comprehensive inventory, these opportunities are typically isolated to individual courses and, have not been widely integrated into the academic curriculum, with the notable exception of several programs in the professional schools. Georgia College’s Office of Service Learning serves to connect professors with community organizations appropriate to their courses and acts as an advocate for student learning. Assessment of the impact of these experiential learning opportunities is currently limited to counting service learning hours that occur as part of a classroom experience, which have typically range from 30,000 to 40,000 annually. Additionally students can voluntarily document their out-of-classroom experiences (e.g., internships, academic presentations, volunteer experiences) through an experiential transcript. In 2011, 1,024 experiences were documented amounting to roughly one documented experience for every five undergraduate students – likely a significant underreporting. The Georgia College GIVE Center, registers and tracks volunteer hours from student organizations and individuals. Presumably during these volunteer opportunities, students are also presented with opportunities for experiential learning. Yet to date no mechanism for measuring the impact on the student, institution or community beyond counting volunteer hours has been tied to institutional effectiveness processes. Currently, documentation of the impact of experiential learning on the student and community, if performed, is not reported beyond the experience and thus very little data is currently available. Comment by Dr. J. Metzker: Does this adequately communicate that systematic collection of data is not in progress?

The Office of Academic Engagement conducted a Faculty Service Learning Survey in 2010. The brief survey asked about issues that prevent faculty members from incorporating service learning into their courses and other forms of beyond-the-classroom engaged learning, including practicums, internships, field experiences and student teaching. Approximately 36% (107) of all faculty members responded with 29% indicating that one or more of their current classes utilize some type of service-learning activity. Another 27% reported that they had used service-learning activities in past courses and 51.5% claimed they had no service-learning experience. The reasons given by instructors for not incorporating service learning into their courses included the perception that such activities required additional time and were “labor intensive,” professors’ 4/4 workload and service, research, and publishing demands, and general unfamiliarity with how to engage students beyond the classroom were the most common issues. The responses to this survey illustrate the challenges to expanding opportunities for experiential learning.

The limited number of experiential learning opportunities in curricular and co-curricular settings that have defined learning goals or impact measures sets the stage for quality enhancement. Current activity in volunteerism and service learning demonstrates a capacity for success in developing community-based learning experiences that will lead to measurable gains. The lack of structured and assessable CbEL experiences stems from limited support for the individuals in the position to design and deliver such experiences, particularly in the arena of assessment strategies. The Georgia College ENGAGE Plan aims to overcome the barriers these individuals face by not only providing professional development and appropriate incentives but also establishing cohorts of individuals with proficiency in academic content, student assessment and developing collaborations with community organizations.

Sustain a culture of engaged learning

A sustained culture of engaged learning is only achievable with widespread participation from teaching faculty, academic departments, academic support units, administrative support units and student affairs. An important value expressed during planning for implementation from faculty and staff alike was to allow individuals and teams to self-identify as opposed to being selected from the realm of existing programs. The rationale behind this strategy comes from a belief that changes in university culture are intimately tied to motivation, ownership and satisfaction. That is, the degree to which an individual or collaborative team is able to incorporate their own expertise and perspectives in order to achieve the desired outcomes of the Plan is an important component in sustaining projects and ultimately affecting change in the culture of the institution. This approach has already shown to be successful as measured by participation in faculty development opportunities supporting integration of high-impact practices. We expect that our strategy of providing several “project tiers”, depicted in Figure 1, that allow for voluntarily participation at appropriate stages as well as opportunities and incentives for continued project development will increase the number of faculty and staff involved and thus lead to a significant increase in the number of students impacted. Furthermore, we have adopted a model that encourages CbEL educators to become mentors through a Fellow program, thus promoting development of expertise while, at the same time, expanding the community of CbEL educators. Using this supportive mechanism for engendering participation, we expect that at minimum a third of the faculty will be involved in ENGAGE activities by the fifth year of implementation, either through professional development or leading a funded project. It is difficult to make a prediction for participation from academic support units given their functions are widely variant. Regardless, significant efforts have been made in planning and will continue to be made during implementation to include key individuals from non-academic areas, including Campus Life, University Housing, University Communications, Admissions and the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity. Expectations regarding student involvement are outlined in Section 6.

Simply having widespread “buy-in,” however, is not likely in itself to result in sustained implementation of CbEL across disciplinary and structural boundaries. Those who adopt new or modified methods for delivering content or planning co-curricular activities will need genuine support in navigating the hurdles they are bound to encounter. This support will come not only in the form of mentorship and resources through the ENGAGE project tiers but also from a responsive leadership structure that gathers feedback from CbEL educators in order to identify strategies for continuous improvement.

Laying the Foundation

With our broad theme and learning goals selected, the Research and Design group of the QEP Task Force began the task of further refining the theme and goals by defining engaged learning and identifying specific learning outcomes that are consistent with our liberal arts mission and values. We had taken a step in that direction by identifying the two goals related to the topic—through engaged learning students will develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become informed citizen leaders and serve the public good locally and globally. With those goals, we were signaling that engaged learning for the QEP needed to contribute to the accomplishment of developing citizen leaders and serving the public good.

Literature Support for Community-based LearningComment by Dr. J. Metzker: Should this be moved to the end of Section 3? Just after the planning process?

An important source for initial discussions during the Topic Refinement and Research and Design planning stages was Stephen Bowen’s essay, “Engaged Learning: Are We All on the Same Page? (2005)” Bowen raises the question of what educators mean when we talk about engaged learning. Bowen’s four hierarchical categories of engaged learning (Figure 7), all implemented at our institution to some degree, resonate with faculty and professional staff members. The first category, student engagement with the learning process, places the engaged learner as an active participant in the co-creation of knowledge rather than a passive recipient of expert knowledge, commonly referred to at Georgia College as active learning. The second category, student engagement with the object of study, indicates learning situations where students have direct experiences such as laboratory research, internships, practicums, fieldwork, or other applied learning. The third category is student engagement with the contexts of the subject of study. At one level, this category reflects the importance of studying a topic or issue from multidisciplinary perspectives. It is an approach that reflected at Georgia College in theme-based courses, many of which are offered as part of the Core curriculum. At another level, this category of engaged learning requires that students engage the moral and ethical dimensions of what they are studying. Bowen’s final category – student engagement with the human condition, especially its social, cultural, and civic dimensions – can not be accomplished through traditional, classroom-based approaches, this form of engaged learning requires that students leave the relative comfort and security of the classroom to experience directly the socio-cultural contexts in which what they are studying occurs. This type of engaged learning closely aligns to community-based learning; the focus of the ENGAGE initiative.

Bowen’s essay provides a conceptual direction. From our campus forums, surveys, and internal Task Force discussions, it is clear that most faculty members define engaged learning in terms consistent with Bowen’s first and second categories and were of the opinion that, in those ways, Georgia College had already developed a culture of engaged learning. However, the identified goal statements more closely align with Bowen’s third and fourth categories. Moving towards a definition of engaged learning that embraces engagement with contexts of the subject of study and the human condition provides the basis for quality enhancement at Georgia College.

Having framed our goals around knowledge, skills, and dispositions required of an informed citizen leader, our research focused a review of the service learning and civic engagement literature, specifically, resources that would aid in development of measurable learning outcomes. Georgia College is an active participant in many national initiatives such as the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges (COPLAC), the American Democracy Project (ADP) and the Association of American College and Universities Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative, and as such we found publications and reports from those organizations especially pertinent.

Among the relevant work for ADP was a set of curricular and co-curricular rubrics civic engagement rubrics (ADP 2009), which list several student-learning outcomes across the dimensions of civic knowledge, skills, and values. Among the outcomes for civic knowledge, the American Democracy Project includes knowledge of a community’s composition and history; the ability to identify issues; the ability to identify sources of power; recognizing approaches and modes of engagement; and knowing the “rules of the game.” Civic values outcomes including valuing democratic participation, justice and equity, inclusion, and community engagement and possessing political efficacy and a sense of social responsibility are all referenced by this rubric as examples of important behaviors associated with civic development. In Figure 8 a civic enagement skills continuum developed by Mary Kirlin (2006) clarifies the range of possible civic outcomes, which build to include skills in collaboration and communication as well as information literacy skills. The ENGAGE learning outcomes demonstrate strong alignment with these characteristics, particularly with respect to collaboration skills and development of a civic identity.

Several of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) publications helped shape development of the ENGAGE learning outcomes. Monographs released since 2000, particularly emphasize the importance of liberal education as key to academic success in college, regardless of the type of institution. The first of these, Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College (2002) emphasized the importance of liberal education in preparing students for responsible citizenship in a diverse nation and in a competitive global economy. Special issues of the Association’s quarterly periodicals, Peer Review and Liberal Education, placed special emphasis on “Educating for Citizenship,” (Peer Review, Spring 2003) and “Educating for Personal and Social Responsibility” (Liberal Education, 2005). In 2006, the Association released Shared futures: Global Learning and Liberal Education followed by College Learning for a New Global Century in 2007. Those monographs emphasized the increasingly global nature of higher education and the need for American students to not only be knowledgeable about the history, culture, and languages of other nations, but also to understand the global contexts of many social, economic, and environmental issues and problems. A collection of “essential learning outcomes” (AACU, 2007, 12), reproduced in Figure 8, were developed as part of the LEAP initiative. The ENGAGE Learning Outcomes developed for this Plan are intentionally reflective of the LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes. In particular, we anticipate that ENGAGE learning experiences will enhance students’ “knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world” through “engagement with big questions.” Likewise, such experiences will enhance students’ “intellectual and practical skills . . . in the context of progressively more challenging problems and projects.” Indeed, our ENGAGE Learning Outcomes are deliberately developmental in nature and our implementation strategy encourages the design of learning experiences that bridge course-based and co-curricular settings. Focusing the ENGAGE activities on community-based engaged learning reflects an emphasis in the learning outcomes on personal and social responsibility; and our “ultimate” outcome incorporates “integrative and applied learning . . . through the application of knowledge, skills, and responsibilities.” Those outcomes are further refined in the Association’s Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) rubrics (AACU, n.d.), which we used as the starting point for designing direct measures of student learning.Comment by Dr. J. Metzker: Not in the referencComment by Dr. J. Metzker: Not in the references

To further understand the realm of engaged learning in practice, we reviewed definitions of and approaches to engaged learning at peer institutions. Not surprisingly, there are nearly as many definitions of engaged learning as the number of institutions we selected. This speaks to the highly malleable nature of the concept. Miami University, for example, defines engaged learning as “guiding students to develop their own belief system, actively engaging students in discovering new knowledge, and creating a vibrant campus learning community” (Miami University, n.d.). This definition reflects a philosophy of student learning grounded in the concept of “self-authorship” developed by Baxter Magolda (2001, 2009). From this perspective, engaged learning is a process through which students effectively develop their own perspectives and values based on curricular and co-curricular experiences (Hodge, Baxter Magolda, and Haynes, 2009). Although we do not specifically refer to self-authorship as an intended outcome, that notion of engaged learning is reflected in the developmental nature of our student learning outcomes with their emphases on applied learning, social interaction, and reflection. Tulane University, defines engaged learning as a type of learning in which students experience themselves not as passive recipients of information delivered by experts, but as active participants both in the classroom and in the world. The institution employs engaged learning to help students realize their potential as intellectual, social, and ethical architects capable of designing their own futures as well as helping to shape those of their communities, cultures, nations, and natural environment (Tulane University, 2011).

These definitions share characteristics in that they contain an element of self-authorship. However, Tulane extends the definition to include elements of civic and social responsibility. The definition of engaged learning that emerged through development of the QEP and the ENGAGE learning outcomes mirror Tulane’s emphasis on social responsibility through self-authorship.

Best Practices as Rationale for the ENGAGE Learning Outcomes

As mentioned in Section 3, members of the QEP Task Force attended the AACU High Impact Practices Institute in June 2013. Participation in the Institute helped clarify the relationship between institutional diversity goals and our QEP outcomes and lead to inclusion of the QEP as a strategy in the Georgia College Diversity Strategic Plan, completed in December 2013. Likewise, it was at this institute that the focus on community-based engaged learning began to emerge as the preferred strategy to accomplish our quality enhancement goals. Our definition of best practices for community-based learning follows the findings of Eyler and Giles seminal work, “Where’s the Learning in Service Learning? (1999).” In their national study of 2,400 college students enrolled in service-learning courses across twenty different campuses, Eyler and Giles found that the service-learning programs that contributed most to students’ gains had six characteristics:

· Placement quality: the degree to which the service site/project provided students with interesting and varied tasks and opportunities to interact directly with the populations served by the placement agency;

· Application: the degree to which the connections between service activities and academic content are clear to the students and intentionally integrated into the coursework by the instructor;

· Reflection: the degree of frequency and quality of reflection activities. The highest gains in students’ self-reported learning occurred when there were frequent opportunities for formal and informal reflection mixed with written and discussion-based reflection.

· Diversity: the degree to which students have opportunities to interact with individuals or groups different from themselves;

· Community voice: the degree to which the community partner(s) are involved in the planning and evaluation of service-learning activities (167-180).

Diverse Perspectives

A student at GC becomes an informed citizen leader by demonstrating dispositions that value multiple perspectives through active collaboration with individuals/groups from diverse backgrounds.

Community-based learning, under the right circumstances, contributes to students’ dispositions with respect to valuing diversity. Eyler and Giles found multiple gains in diversity outcomes in their study. They reported that service learning contributed to reducing students’ negative stereotypes, helping students learn that “these others ‘are like me;’” helping students gain appreciation for other cultures; and helping students develop greater tolerance for people and groups different from themselves (29-32).

Einfeld and Collins (2008) found that students participating in non-academic service also developed important diversity outcomes. The authors conducted a qualitative study of 40 students who completed a long-term, non-academic, service program in a mid-sized public university. The authors found that as a result of the service experience, students reported increased awareness of social inequality and the development of important cross-cultural skills necessary for working with diverse individuals and groups. These skills included empathy, patience, attachment to those being served, reciprocity, trust, and respect (101, 102).

Dunlap and Webster (2009), recommend five strategies for effectively preparing students to move successfully beyond their “comfort zones” and achieve the types of diversity outcomes associated with ENGAGE. First, students need to receive pre-service orientation that introduces them to the “historical, racial, economic, and social factors that have an impact on the communities with which they engage (141).” Second, students must be provided with opportunities for structured, critical reflection that enables students to identify and confront their preconceptions and stereotypes. Third, faculty and community partners must help students understand the “systemic challenges” confronted by particular communities. Fourth, students should be provided with opportunities to understand and explore “intragroup diversity that exists between the community and those engaged with the community” and within the community being served (146). Finally, they recommend that faculty and others involved with community engagement take the time to build trust with the communities being served.

In a meta-analysis of 55 empirical studies of the impact of service-learning on diversity outcomes, Holsapple (2012) found that service-learning contributes to six diversity related outcomes:

· “confrontation and reduction of stereotypes through relationships with diverse others;”

· improved knowledge of the communities being served, including recognition of diversity within populations assumed to be homogenous;

· increase in students’ beliefs in the value of diversity and appreciation for diverse cultures and traditions;

· improved levels of willingness to interact with diverse others;

· improved recognition of “similarities and common ground” between students and diverse others.

Integrative Learning

A student at GC becomes an informed citizen leader by integrating theories and perspectives from multiple academic contexts to evaluate and propose actions to address social needs.

Eyler and Giles found that service-learning supports integrative learning in important ways. First, students reported that their service-learning experiences helped them understand the “complexity” of the social issues they were studying and how to apply that understanding to “effective action (70).” Second, students who reported two or more service-learning courses “had an easier time identifying a problem to address, produced more elaborate analyses of the issues, and had more convincing practical suggestions for community action (73).”

In a study of several programs that reflect our definition of Community-based Engaged Learning, Lucas (2009) found that such programs fostered and contributed to students’ ability to “[bridge] the explanation-action gap.” She defined the explanation-action gap as “the integration of disciplinary knowledge to define a problem while drawing from other domains that can lead to interventions (103).” She also found that such community-based programs were superior to courses and programs without a community-based component. This is exactly the type of outcome we hope our students will achieve, as a result of projects funded through the Master Project Tier.

One specific approach to Community-based Engaged Learning, community-based research (CBR), is a particularly powerful pedagogy for helping students to integrate theory and practice in response to social needs. Strand, et al. (2003) define community-based research as “a partnership of students, faculty, and community members who collaboratively engage in research with the purpose of solving a pressing community problem of effecting social change (3).” In describing the value of CBR, the authors concluded that through CBR, students, “experience an applied research process—the results of which matter—and . . . participate in . . . research design, developing methods and gathering data, analyzing the data, writing up results, and assessing their significance for the issue at hand (124).” Because of Georgia College’s existing commitment to and support for undergraduate research, we are confident that we will be able to develop CBR projects and programs that align with our QEP goals and outcomes.

Critical Reflection

A student at GC becomes an informed citizen leader by critically reflecting on engaged learning experiences and academic studies.

Critical reflection is practically a sine qua non in the community-based learning literature. Eyler and Giles found that frequent, well-structured reflection activities, both written and verbal, contributed to “deeper understanding of the subject matter, increased complexity of problem and solution analysis, greater use of subject matter knowledge in analyzing a problem . . . openness to new ideas, issue-identification skills, critical thinking skills, and seeing issues in a new way (173).”

Mabry (1998) looked at the impact of the frequency and quality of reflection on students’ social values, civic attitudes, and perceived academic benefits of service-learning. She found that the greatest gains in students’ social values scores occurred when frequent (at least once a week), out-of-class written reflection was incorporated. Frequent written reflection also had a positive impact on students’ civic attitudes scores. She also found a strong correlation between frequent in-class reflection and student’s civic attitudes and perceived academic gains from service-learning. The greatest academic gains occurred when students reported taking about their service experiences with site supervisors. Mabry’s finding about the importance of involving site supervisors in students’ reflections underscores our desire to make community partners true partners in the implementation of our QEP.

Albert (1996) provided insights on what constitutes high-quality reflective experiences. She noted that regardless of whether the reflection is verbal, group reflection, or individual, written reflection, “Reflection should be designed to help students recognize and integrate their learning, work on personal developmental issues, define their personal service ethic, and deal with their discomfort and dissonance (190),” She also noted the importance of using pre-service reflection activities to allow students the opportunity to examine their pre-existing attitudes prior to starting on the service experience (191).

In their review of twenty-one courses and programs designed to foster students’ civic and political engagement, Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, and Corngold (2007) also noted the importance of high-quality reflection over “poor-quality” reflection, defining high-quality reflection as an intellectual exercise that requires critical thinking and problem solving skills. They reported that the benefits for students from incorporating critical reflection included improved political understanding, recognition of their own u