1. TEACHING FOR CIVIC CAPACITY AND ENGAGEMENT : How Faculty Align Teaching and Purpose IARSLCE 2011 | CHICAGO Jennifer M. Domagal-Goldman | November 3, 2011

2. Higher Education’s Civic Mission Democracy has to be born anew in each generation and education is its midwife. – John Dewey (1916) The involvement of faculty in preparing students for their role as active citizens is one of the most significant and challenging aspects of the college civic engagement movement …. Faculty members are key in helping students understand the social contributions to be made by every discipline. – Elizabeth Hollander (2007)

3. Definitions Civic Engagement: Active participation in the civic or political life of a community. Civic Capacity: Knowledge, skills, and attitudes of informed citizenship. Public Scholarship: Teaching, research, and service that contribute to informed engagement in society.

4. Research Questions  How, if at all, does faculty participation in the Public Scholarship Associates influence their teaching- related learning and/or practice?  How, if at all, do faculty members align their undergraduate courses and teaching practices with their implicit and/or explicit ideas about civic engagement as an educational purpose?

5. FORM CONTENT CONTEXT Sociohistorical Context COURSE DECISIONS Feedback Instruction Sequence Goals Content Faculty Members’ Background & Characteristics Views of Academic Fields Beliefs about Purposes of Education Pragmatic Factors Public Scholarship Associates Student Goals Student Characteristics Teaching & Learning Literature Program & College Goals Other Influences External Influences Advice Available on Campus Facilities, Opportunities, & Assistance

6. Participants  Selection Criteria:  Tenured/tenure-track faculty members in the PSA  Sample:  6 women, 8 men  4 Assistant, 4 Associate, and 6 Full Professors  4 faculty of color, 10 white faculty members  4 humanities, 4 social sciences, 2 natural sciences, 4 professional fields  16 academic fields

7. Data Analysis Data Collection Methods Documents (CVs, syllabi) ObservationsFieldnotes Semi-Structured Interviews Participant Data Forms I. Content II. Context III. Form Coding (a priori & open) Contact Summaries Analytical Memos Triangulation Bracketing Reflective Memos Peer Debriefer Member Checks Trustworthiness & Ethical Considerations

8. Limitations  Single institution; small sample  Some PSA members elected not to participate  Retrospective interviews; did not observe teaching

9. Findings

10. FORM CONTENT CONTEXT Sociohistorical Context COURSE DECISIONS Feedback Instruction Sequence Goals Content Faculty Members’ Background & Characteristics Views of Academic Fields Beliefs about Purposes of Education Pragmatic Factors Public Scholarship Associates Student Goals Student Characteristics Teaching & Learning Literature Program & College Goals Other Influences External Influences Advice Available on Campus Facilities, Opportunities, & Assistance

11. FORM CONTENT CONTEXT Sociohistorical Context COURSE DECISIONS Feedback Instruction Sequence Goals Content Faculty Members’ Background & Characteristics Views of Place of Civic Purposes in Academic Fields Beliefs about Civic Purposes of Education Pragmatic Factors Public Scholarship Associates Student Goals Student Characteristics Teaching & Learning Literature Program & College Goals Other Influences External Influences Advice Available on Campus Facilities, Opportunities, & Assistance Q #2 Q #1

12. Theory Development: Proposition 1 Proposition 1 Content influences on course planning, specifically views of the academic field and beliefs about educational purpose, are dynamic rather than stable.

13. Theory Development: Proposition 2 Proposition 2 A reciprocal relationship exists between content and context elements of the contextual filters model.

14. Theory Development: Proposition 3 Proposition 3 Local contexts can be catalysts for faculty learning, as well as influences on course form.

15. Theory Development: Proposition 4 Proposition 4 Planning for civic engagement courses is influenced by perceptions of institutional mission, particularly perceptions of what counts for promotion and tenure.

16. Theory Development: Proposition 5 Proposition 5 Once faculty have decided to incorporate community engagement into a course, subsequent course decisions are influenced by that community’s characteristics and needs.

18. Future Research  Continue to extend and refine the Contextual Filters Model by studying course planning in different:  Institutional settings  Faculty populations  Course levels & types  Conduct longitudinal or ethnographic studies of faculty course planning and teaching for civic purposes  Develop assessment tools for evaluating civic learning

19. Implications for Institutional Practice & Policy  Pay attention to rhetoric and reality  Allocate institutional resources  Prepare future faculty members  Forge partnerships across the institution and with local communities  Consider position descriptions and contracts  Revisit promotion and tenure policies

20. Participants’ Course Goals

21. Participant Characteristics

22. Participants’ Disciplines/Fields

23. Questions & Discussion