1. Stages and Elements of Engaged Departments Engaged Department Summit CSU Chico - May 5, 2006 Chico: Deanna Berg dberg@csuchico.edu; and Terri Davis, TMDavis@csuchico.edudberg@csuchico.edu@csuchico.edu Chancellor’s Office: Season Eckardt, seckardt@calstate.edu; and Gerald Eisman, geisman@calstate.eduseckardt@calstate.edugeisman@calstate.edu

2. Stages of Engagement Stage 1 Discovering the various lens of engagement Fostering department coherence and consensus Stage 2 Exploring and prioritizing various ideas Not a place for decision making Stage 3 Implementing action steps Resources and Workload Balance of Demands – Student Enrollment vs. Smaller SL Courses Stage 4 New Faculty Hires and Retiring Faculty Dean level support Deepen the conversations on complex issues

3. The Indicators of Engagement Mission and purpose Administrative and academic leadership External resource allocation Disciplines, departments, and interdisciplinary work Faculty roles and rewards Internal resource allocation Community voice

4. The Indicators of Engagement (cont’d) Enabling mechanisms Faculty development Integrated and complementary community service activities Pedagogy and epistemology Forums for fostering public dialogue Student voice Adapted from Hollander, Saltmarsh, & Zlotkowski. "Indicators of Engagement," in Simon, Kenny, Brabeck, & Lerner, eds. Learning to Serve: Promoting Civil Society Through Service- Learning. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

5. F. Faculty Roles and Rewards The institution’s tenure, promotion, and/or retention guidelines reward a range of scholarly activities such as those proposed by Ernest Boyer (1990), including community-based teaching and scholarship. The institution explicitly encourages academic departments to include community-based interests and experience as criteria in their faculty recruiting efforts.

6. Definition of Faculty Outreach/Engagement “…a form of scholarship that cuts across teaching, research, and service. It involves generating, transmitting, applying, and/or preserving knowledge for the direct benefit of external audiences in ways that are consistent with university and unit missions…” - Michigan State University (Jan 2003)

7. Faculty Roles and Rewards Two Discussion Exercises Beginning the Conversation Do we value Community Based Scholarship in our RTP policies?

8. Exercise I RTP Policy Discussion Tool  Read each description of faculty activity in community  Independently determine if/where activity can be valued in RTP review  Compare and contrast categorizations

9. Faculty Roles and Rewards Two Discussion Exercises Developing an Evaluation Schema How do we measure the significance of faculty scholarship in the community?

10. Portland State University Indicators for Assessing Project Elements Six Elements Significance Appropriateness Adequacy Scholarship Results Impact

11. Significance Evidence of importance from community needs assessment Presence of University/Department strategic goals Evidence of student interest

12. Scholarship Evidence of community based research used in design of current project Evidence of how project has informed disciplinary knowledge Evidence of how research has been conveyed to students

13. Impact Evidence of how results will be utilized to benefit community Curricular changes – new syllabi, courses, etc. Indicators of how students intend to apply what they have learned to their professional/personal development

14. Michigan State University Matrix for Evaluating Quality Outreach Four Dimensions Significance Context Scholarship Impact

15. Exercise II RTP Policy Discussion Tool  Read the Components of each dimension of the MSU Matrix  Select a volunteer at the table to describe their community project  Collectively and interactively evaluate the project based on the Matrix