Campuses for Environmental Stewardship: An Emerging Model for Interdisciplinary Service-Learning
Best Practices Manual Program Outcomes and Transferable Tools
Maine Campus Compact February 2017
Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ 1 About the Campuses for Environmental Stewardship Program ............................................................ 1 Background and Program Context ...................................................................................................... 3 Program Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................... 4 A Model for Success ........................................................................................................................... 5 Element 1: Faculty Training and Team Development................................................................. 5 Element 2: Establishment and Support for Interdisciplinary Faculty Teams ................................ 6 Element 3: Incorporation of Student-led Initiatives and Presentations ....................................... 7 Element 4: Designation of Student-Learning Outcomes to include 21st Century and Transferable Skills................................................................................................................... 8 Element 5: Establishment of Reciprocal Community Partnerships that Address Local Issues ..... 10 Amendment 1: Provision of a Typology in Course Design and Faculty Collaboration ................. 11 Amendment 2: Provision of Faculty Incentives ....................................................................... 13 Recommendations for Future Programming ..................................................................................... 14 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Campuses for Environmental Stewardship was funded by a grant from the Davis Educational Foundation, established by Stanton and Elisabeth Davis after Mr. Davis' retirement as chairman of Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc.
Executive Summary This manual details the findings from a two-year initiative, Campuses for Environmental Stewardship (CES), which used interdisciplinary service-learning as an intervention designed to promote student knowledge and leadership skills as well as cultivate collaborative community projects in higher education. Through a regionally-funded grant, faculty members were provided with training and small sub-grants to infuse environmental service-learning projects into courses. Faculty members applied for the sub-grants in interdisciplinary teams, and were encouraged to articulate a means for connecting their courses and students to each other through such components as common readings, assignments, project partners, and/or events. Each course culminated in a student-led community initiative and/or presentation. Findings from the CES program illustrate that interdisciplinary service-learning improves student motivation to tackle complex problems, such as environmental challenges, as well as increases their confidence to engage in problem-solving activities. Faculty’s confidence in designing these courses increased as did their ability to enhance student capacity to solve real-world problems; however, their motivation to execute community projects decreased, leading program administrators to identify a need for additional support and to suggest recommendations for future programming. CES program administrators have identified five key elements that contributed to the success of the CES model and two additional amendments that emerged from lessons learned in the program implementation and evaluation periods. We believe that if adopted collectively, these five elements and two amendments further strengthen the CES model and help set the stage for widespread replication throughout the higher education landscape. The five elements illuminated are as follows: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.)
Faculty Training and Team Development; Establishment and Support of Interdisciplinary Faculty Teams; Incorporation of Student-Led Initiatives and Presentations; Designation of Student-Learning Outcomes to include 21st Century Skill Development and Transferable Skills; and 5.) Establishment of Reciprocal Community Partnerships that Address Local Issues. The two added amendments are: 1.) Provision of a Typology in Course Design and Faculty Collaboration; and 2.) Provision of Faculty Incentives. Overall, the CES program design indicates a positive impact on students and faculty, and we believe the two identified program amendments could serve to further enhance faculty motivation and advance this innovative pedagogy.
About the Campuses for Environmental Stewardship Program The Campuses for Environmental Stewardship (CES) program was developed and is administered by Maine Campus Compact (MCC). An earlier rendition of the CES program was implemented in 20122014 with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency, which successfully supported 19 campuses across Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in developing interdisciplinary environmental service-learning projects. This report reflects the second iteration of the CES model, which took place in 2015-2016 and was funded by the Davis Educational Foundation. This iteration
1
was revised based on feedback and observations from the initial implementation and expanded to include campuses in an additional state, Massachusetts. In partnership with Campus Compact offices in MA, NH and VT, Maine Campus Compact (MCC) awarded sub-grants to 18 faculty teams across the four states to infuse service-learning and environmental stewardship into their courses during the 2015 fall and 2016 spring semesters. Selected campuses were required to deliver a minimum of 4 related service-learning courses, each partnering with community organizations to address an environmental challenge. The CES initiative had several overarching goals: to complete service- and problem-based learning projects in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont communities to enhance student learning outcomes, and to tie this learning to issues of civic importance and real world application; to create and sustain changes in campus delivery of courses for experiential and environmental education of students in all fields of study; and to create a strengthened and replicable model for interdisciplinary approaches to service and problem-based learning. On each campus, small teams of faculty (four to six faculty per team) representing diverse disciplines used service-learning to integrate environmental stewardship into their courses. Disciplines represented by these faculty members ranged from Romance languages and history to botany and physics. Each faculty member created or updated service-learning projects to integrate environmental stewardship into new or pre-existing undergraduate courses. Faculty focused on strengthening student learning outcomes through the implementation of service-learning practices as well as the incorporation of student-led initiatives into their projects. The objective of the student-led initiative component was to provide opportunities for students to take leadership roles in community projects and to help them develop transferable, 21st century skills that could then be applied to other critical issue areas. These student-led initiatives provided students with practice in critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork, decision making and leadership. As part of the CES program, participating faculty teams: Attended a two-day Faculty Institute on service-learning and environmental education. Faculty received professional development training in project design, community partner relations, building student capacity for behavioral change and action, project management, assessment of learning, integration of environmental stewardship concepts into their disciplinary teaching, reflection activities and program evaluation. The faculty teams also had to complete a campus action plan during the Institute, which outlined steps for planning projects, collaborating with colleagues and leveraging institutional support. Received sub-awards. Each campus team was awarded a $4,000 sub-grant to implement their service-learning projects. Permissible expenditures included supplies for community projects, speaker honoraria, event-related costs, transportation to community partners, and faculty stipends. Received ongoing consultation as they developed or updated syllabi. This was achieved by added support from the MCC Program Manager, a curriculum consultant, and the Campus Compact offices in each state. Combined, these services provided ongoing technical assistance support for faculty course development, classroom environmental presentations, resource and research as well as assistance with planning and implementing student-led community events. 2
Taught a new or existing course (one per faculty member) embedded with environmental community projects and student-led initiatives/presentations. Attended State Field Seminars and the Best Practices Showcase, both of which provided faculty with opportunities for sharing best practices, lessons learned, and highlights from CES courses.
Through course participation and student-led initiatives, students: Developed new, 21st century skills including critical thinking, problem-solving, communications and teamwork, and learned how this knowledge can be translated for use in addressing other real-world problems. Gained greater appreciation and motivation for community/civic engagement and environmental stewardship. Improved leadership and public engagement skills through the required student-led initiative/presentation. Expanded their networks and diversified their skill sets for a greater chance of post-graduation job placement. At the completion of the 2015-2016 CES program, over 75 faculty from diverse academic disciplines taught courses and partnered with 96 community organizations around local environmental issues. Over 1,500 students across the 18 campuses participated in CES courses and community projects.
Background and Program Context Service-Learning, Interdisciplinary Learning, and Environmental Sustainability There are many strategies and approaches to interdisciplinary teaching (Spelt et al. 2009). The CES initiative focused on one approach, service-learning, which is a form of education in which students work with community partners to identify and address community needs in an academic setting, together with structured reflections designed to achieve desired learning outcomes (Jacoby 2015). Previous research has suggested that service-learning can be an effective tool for teaching students about the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability (Coleman et al. in review, Sipos et al. 2008). However, scholarly research on sustainability in higher education has tended to focus on sustainability practices on college campuses, rather than on pedagogy (Wals 2014). Given that questions remain in scholarly literature about how faculty can effectively use approaches like service-learning to teach about interdisciplinary topics such as sustainability, the CES model provides a timely example of faculty teams successfully addressing one of today’s critical issues through community-engaged pedagogy. 21st Century Skills Development as a Priority in Higher Education We live in a time of unprecedented change. With this comes a set of constantly shifting challenges. According the U.S. Census Bureau, Generation Y (born 1980-2000), will be the first generation economically worse off than their parents, yet they are still expected to address complex issues such as environmental sustainability, civic literacy and an aging population. These issues can be overwhelming for students and solving them demands a strong, diverse skill set. As Andreas Schleicher (OECD Education Directorate, 2010) reported, “Today, because of rapid economic and social change, schools have to prepare students for jobs that have not yet been created, technologies that have not yet been invented and problems that we don't yet know will arise.” To respond to this need, higher education institutions must provide students with real-life experiences that foster 21st century skills. According to the National Research Council, “Twenty-first century
3
competencies are a blend of cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal characteristics that may support deeper learning and knowledge transfer. Cognitive competencies include critical thinking and innovation; interpersonal attributes include communication, collaboration, and responsibility; and intrapersonal traits include flexibility, initiative, and metacognition.� (National Research Council, 2014, p. 35) The CES program ties the critical goal of 21st century skill development to one of the most capacious challenges of our time: environmental sustainability. The United Nations declared 2005 to 2015 the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development and issued a recommendation that institutions of higher education incorporate sustainability concepts into their teaching and research (Wals 2014). This recommendation has been echoed by calls for college level courses to focus on creating ecologically literate students (Coleman and Danks 2015, Reynolds and Lowman 2013). At the same time, a similar and related trend has focused on increasing and supporting interdisciplinary pedagogy in higher education through teaching strategies that focus on the boundaries and intersections of multiple disciplines (Spelt et al. 2009). Moore (2005a,b) argued that educators should present sustainability as a complex concept that integrates socioeconomic, sociocultural, biopsychical, and ecological ideas, problem-solving approaches, and goals. Thus, interdisciplinary pedagogies are well suited for teaching about sustainability topics because they provide faculty with a way to highlight their complex nature. As illustrated in this manual, the CES program both builds on past research and contributes to the potential for higher education to encourage 21st century skill development, specifically by addressing the challenge of environmental sustainability.
Program Assessment Methodology In order to evaluate the impact of the CES program, we conducted a mixed method approach to illuminate student and faculty results. Pre- and post-surveys were developed for faculty members and students in order to measure their ratings of “self-efficacy�. Specifically, we measured the extent to which faculty members were motivated to teach environmental stewardship skills and concepts as well as whether they felt confident in their ability to teach these concepts. Likewise, student surveys were designed to measure whether students felt motivated to solve environmental problems and confident in their ability to act as problem-solvers before and after the course. Answers to open-ended questions on the faculty and student surveys were coded and analyzed qualitatively, and repeating ideas were grouped into themes. To supplement the survey data, we collected additional qualitative data to understand trends in course design and faculty collaboration. We hosted 3 focus groups (one for faculty in Vermont and New Hampshire, one for faculty in Maine, and one for faculty in Massachusetts) and facilitated faculty discussions at our end-of-the-grant gathering. We asked faculty questions about the mechanics of their courses, the extent to which they collaborated with each other, as well as challenges they encountered and suggestions for future programming. Although this manual is not intended to be a research report and does not provide a complete accounting of the research conducted, it is a translational document that utilizes important findings to illuminate best practices of this replicable program model and the five key elements that make up the model. Highlights of the CES survey results have been integrated throughout the following sections, which outline the elements and amendments that we hope will be of use to faculty, administrators and community partners interested in replicating this model. A more systematic and thorough report of findings will be available on our website at www.mainecompact.org.
4
A Model for Success CES program administrators identified five key elements that contributed to the success of the CES program: 1.) Faculty Training and Team Development; 2.) Establishment and Support of Interdisciplinary Faculty Teams; 3.) Incorporation of Student-Led Initiatives and Presentations; 4.) Designation of Student-Learning Outcomes to include 21st Century Skill Development and Transferable Skills; and 5.) Establishment of Reciprocal Community Partnerships that Address Local Issues. Additionally, two other amendments emerged throughout the program implementation and feedback period. While these amendments were not part of the original CES program design, we believe that their incorporation into future versions of this model will help enhance faculty motivation and make community-engaged courses more viable. These amendments are: 1.) Provision of a Typology in Course Design and Faculty Collaboration; and 2.) Provision of Faculty Incentives. Collectively, these elements and amendments (along with financial and institutional support) produce a replicable model for implementing interdisciplinary service-learning projects that generate behavioral change to address complex, real-world problems and strengthen student learning outcomes. Many of these elements are widely used at higher education institutions and others are considered slightly more innovative. When implemented in tandem, however, they have made a significant impact on student learning and the delivery of community engaged courses. In the following sections, we expand on how each element contributed to the success of the CES model, including its particular strengths and challenges. These elements and amendments help to inform the Recommendations for Future Programming at the conclusion of this report. Element 1: Faculty Training and Team Development All faculty who participated in the CES program attended an in-person training Institute on servicelearning and environmental education. The Institute provided instruction on: the basics of servicelearning pedagogy; establishing community partnerships; managing service-learning projects; education on environmental challenges and sustainability efforts; student-learning outcomes and 21st century skill development; assessment tools; and reflection. During the Institute, faculty were given time to work with their own teams and develop an action plan for their CES courses/projects (approximately 4-5 hours). These action plans created systems to maintain campus/community partnerships, developed processes to train and support faculty to integrate environmental principles, and established tracking/evaluation methods. Faculty were also given the opportunity to share ideas with faculty members from other campuses to get initial feedback on their proposed project ideas. According to our survey and focus groups, faculty found built in team and networking time at the training to be most valuable. Specifically, 74% of survey respondents stated that the greatest benefit of the Institute was the built in team time which prompted faculty teams to inspire one another and collaborate as well as network with faculty from other institutions. One faculty stated, “The Institute prepared us very well overall. Allowing us to interact with other faculty from around the Northeast was invaluable. Simply having time set aside in the middle of the week to think about 5
our project and how to implement it was wonderful—we really had time to sketch out at least an outline for the following semester.” A handful of participants expressed that too much information was relayed over the course of the two days leaving them feeling somewhat overwhelmed and that “less time (spent) on assessment would have been more useful”. Faculty suggested that in future trainings, it would be helpful to hear first-hand from a veteran faculty member (or even better, a team) who had successfully taught a course using the CES model, along with more content on pertinent environmental issues and challenges. Another valuable piece of feedback was that “developing the course project and learning outcomes, without a partner already identified at the time of the institute, was very difficult.” In future Institutes, we plan to encourage community partner participation. Time and time again, we heard that faculty are too busy and have varying schedules which prohibit them from meeting in person on campus. Thus, attending the required 2-day training provided faculty teams with the space to really hone in on how to incorporate a service-learning project into their course and explore ways they could collaborate. Element 2: Establishment and Support of Interdisciplinary Faculty Teams The most challenging issues that our society faces are not solved by one discipline alone. Yet, our higher education institutions are often divided into disciplinary silos that perpetuate the belief that specialized learning is the route to academic and professional success. To counter this, CES set out to provide a strong example of successful interdisciplinary collaboration. From the beginning, various stakeholders such as campus deans, community engagement officers or Campus Compact staff recruited faculty from different disciplines to comprise each team and collaborate on service-learning project(s). The recruitment ranged from targeting individual faculty members who had expressed interest in community-engaged projects to alerting the whole campus, including adjunct faculty, of this initiative. The campus sub-grant served as an incentive for faculty to work together to implement the community project and the starting point for collaboration. A stellar example of faculty collaborating across disciplines can be seen in the faculty from Husson University (ME), who aimed to instill environmental stewardship in students through gardening and farming activities to address local food insecurity. The CES faculty collaborated by rotating as guest lecturers in each CES course, leading discussions involving the history of the U.S. food supply (History), the ethics of our food supply (Philosophy), energy analysis of local food (Physics) and the rhetorical tools used in food advertising (English). All four faculty supplied common readings ahead of time for inclusion in the conversation. They also organized two events: a screening of an environmental movie and a guest lecture by a prominent local food activist and farmer. A faculty member reported, “The most important lesson the students took away from this collaboration was that complex problems can be viewed within a number of perspectives and the necessarily complex solutions require understanding these perspectives.” This interdisciplinary approach to solving community challenges, such as seen in this example, had a significant influence on students, with 59% reporting that they gained skills in systems-thinking from the CES program. Systems-thinking involves using research to understand the complexity of issues, and becoming more aware of their interconnections. CES students demonstrated this by becoming more aware of the interdisciplinary components of environmental issues. A student stated, “I’ve been critical of some issues in my community because I [believe that I] see how this issue can be fixed. However, this
6
project showed me all of the political and economic issues that prevent seemingly simple solutions from taking place.” To support faculty with their CES participation, each team had access to ongoing technical assistance support from Maine Campus Compact and the Campus Compact offices in each state. Each team also had a designated project manager who helped to coordinate efforts and ensure that grant benchmarks were being met. Some teams had a community engagement staff member serve as manager while others had one of the faculty on the team take on this responsibility. We found that a reliable project manager is central to team success. In future iterations, campuses could elect to offer added support and incentives to the faculty or staff member assuming this role. It was also observed that having institutional support such as a civic engagement office or dedicated staff on campus was helpful for faculty who were new to the service-learning pedagogy by providing connections to potential community partners and brainstorming initial project ideas. For added support, each campus team also had access to a curriculum specialist who provided ongoing assistance (10 hours per campus) for faculty course development, resource needs, and project implementation. Although not all campuses utilized the curriculum specialist due to time constraints and scheduling conflicts, the teams that met with the curriculum specialist in-person explained that it was helpful to have designated time to work with their team and have an outside person facilitate and coordinate this interdisciplinary collaboration. It also seemed that many faculty used the curriculum specialist as a “resource hotline” by sending email requests for resources or scheduling a phone call to walk through an issue. Cumulatively, the framework, training and resources provided through CES addressed many of the common barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration. Element 3: Incorporation of Student-led Initiatives and Presentations In a prior iteration of this model funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, administrators noted that the most successful community projects often included a student-led initiative, such as a presentation to a town council on contamination of local lakes, an interactive forum on environmental issues with middle school students, or leadership of an on-campus event featuring film screenings, activities, and roundtable discussions. Given this promising feedback, CES administrators decided to make the student-led initiative/presentation a required component of this program. A tangible example of a successful CES student-led initiative is illustrated in a Sustainable Tourism Planning course from the University of Maine, where students developed a sustainable tourism plan for western Maine and presented it to their community partner, the Maine Woods Consortium. Students participated and led activities which included conducting attraction and service inventories; product development prioritization; market segmentation analysis; Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis; and stakeholder analysis. The information and activities conducted throughout the semester led to the development of a plan with suggestions for marketing, visitor management, and organizational management strategies. Another example can be seen in the University of Southern Maine’s Engineering Economics course, where CES students worked with the facility directors at four local school districts. Students led projects that ranged from improvements to heating, ventilating and air conditioning at the schools to solar electric installations, and heat pump evaluations. In all cases, the students evaluated the economic justification for these projects and provided their community partner with vital data and
7
research. Students then made design suggestions for the community partners at a community presentation. As reflected in these examples, the student-led course component allowed CES faculty to provide students with opportunities to harness their learning and leadership development through greater accountability for the community projects. Correspondingly, both faculty and students in CES courses provided overwhelmingly positive feedback about the student-led initiative/presentation. Among the faculty who responded to an open-ended survey question, 95% indicated that the student-led presentation or initiative met both course and community goals. Additionally, half of the faculty observed that the student-led initiative allowed the students to participate in real-world application of the course subject matter. For example, one faculty member’s course goals were for students to learn general principles of tree identification and to partner with a local non-profit organization to conduct a citywide survey of recently planted trees. The faculty member reported, “The students took ownership and pride in the surveys and guides, and (I think) surprised themselves by how much they knew about local trees when they were done. I have received feedback from the partner organization that our assistance was extremely helpful.” On the student side, feedback was similarly positive. At the CES program’s outset, the hope was that the student-led initiative would provide students with more deeply rooted experiences that would strengthen their learning and 21st century skill development. Accordingly, the CES survey results revealed that these added program components did increase student self-efficacy, per self-reported findings. When asked about connections between the course materials and the CES program, specifically the student-led initiative or community presentation, 96% of student respondents reported at least one connection. Sixty-three percent reported that this connection was the acquisition of knowledge over the course of the semester. For example, one student remarked, “The two were 100% connected. Everything we learned in class materialized with [the field project], and the end result was not only knowledge, but a motivation to pursue discussed solutions.” Many students who reported an increase in knowledge also reported that they gained an awareness of themselves, the environment, other people’s perspectives and the course material. One student wrote: “I believe that, by planning and implementing our studentled projects, we were better able to understand the material being covered in class. It made us think about the stakeholders…[and] face issues from different perspectives.” These examples, along with the survey results, illustrate the pivotal role that the required studentled initiatives/ presentations played in the CES program. The next element further expands on the transferable nature of skills developed through CES for preparing students to address critical issues such as environmental sustainability. Element 4: Designation of Student-Learning Outcomes to include 21st Century and Transferable Skills Given the growing emphasis on the importance of 21st century skill development for addressing capacious problems and for future job prospects, the CES program placed a heavy emphasis on the incorporation of the following skills in the design of courses and student-led initiatives:
teamwork and collaboration leadership communication and outreach critical thinking problem-solving 8
curiosity, imagination public speaking innovation, entrepreneurship ability to be responsive, flexible, and adaptive throughout a project
Aware that faculty face challenges when incorporating student learning outcomes to encompass the acquisition of the 21st century and transferable skills, and have also questioned how to assess this learning, CES administrators asked faculty two important questions at the Institute: 1.) What would you like your students to be able to do after they have finished your course? and; 2.) What type of service project would help students develop 21st century skills/abilities? With the framework of re-writing student objectives provided by the Institute, faculty were well positioned to encourage 21st century skill development among their students; the CES survey results confirmed the efficacy of the model in doing so. Ninety-seven percent of student respondents reported that they had learned new skills from CES, specifically due to the student-led initiative or presentation. Frequently cited skills gained included teamwork, communications, and education. For example, students became aware that scientific research could be confusing for the general public, and observed that their newly acquired public speaking skills would be valuable when communicating complex information in future careers. Students also gained new experiences and practice in community outreach, engagement and collaboration that they could transfer to their future careers/projects. This feedback is reflected in the survey, where 96% of students reported skills gained that could be applied to a future career; in fact, many students already began to see themselves as agents of change in their future employment. One student wrote, “I could help make any group or company I work with more ecologically friendly.” Another example of 21st century skill development can be seen in the transferable lessons learned through group work and civic participation. Students recounted the difficulties in group work, but also realized the benefits. A student explained, “I learned how difficult it was to work with so many different people, but this is a real world situation that professionals have to deal with.” Through CES, students learned to overcome the challenges of collaboration and dedicated themselves to working together to accomplish a common goal that benefited a community organization. One student elaborated, “We learned what it is like to be working for a real client, including things such as time management, communication, and effective/efficient strategy.” The transferable nature of these skills was corroborated in the survey, with 97% of students reporting that skills gained could be applied to realworld problems. Moreover, while working together towards a common goal, students discovered the power of civic participation. One student reflected, “I learned that everyone has a voice and everyone can make a change in the world around us. One person can make a huge difference.” Faculty echoed similar themes when asked to assess their students’ skill development. After rewriting their course goals to encompass 21st century skill building outcomes, Institute facilitators posed the following queries to faculty: 1) What could you observe your students doing or what could your students produce that would demonstrate that they achieved the learning goal(s)?; and 2) How might your community partner assist you in the assessment process? Using these central questions as a framework, 89% of faculty respondents in the post-course survey indicated that as a result of the CES project and student-led initiative, their students gained one or more skills. One faculty member wrote, “As a result of…their presentations, my students most definitely gained critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, communication skills, and teamwork skills that will all be highly applicable to other real-world problems.” The most common skills described by faculty were teamwork and collaboration. One faculty member reported, “Many students commented on 9
the values they gained from this teamwork, and both the student and I acknowledged how rare it is when group work is completed and everyone feels satisfied with it.” While some faculty were unsure about skills gained or didn’t feel they could assess skill development within the course’s time frame, 65% reported that their students gained skills in solving complex issues. “I do feel like students came away from the experience with both an awakening to real-world problems and the confidence to feel that they could be part of the solution to these problems,” stated one faculty member. Given the overwhelmingly positive responses from students and faculty about 21st skill development, we are confident that the CES model can be transferred to other critical issue areas in future applications. Element 5: Establishment of Reciprocal Community Partnerships that Address Local Issues Findings from the CES program suggest that cultivating partnerships between communities and higher education institutions is a promising strategy to improve student motivation for tackling complex community problems, such as environmental challenges, and to increase student confidence to engage in problem-solving activities. Since the inception of service-learning practices on campuses, an ongoing challenge has been how to create authentic, reciprocal community partnerships. A few CES faculty questioned this as well, pondering whether their project was making an impact. Students, however, overwhelmingly reported in their open-ended survey responses that working with a community partner had a strong influence on their learning and skills development. Some students reported that being held accountable by an outside organization made them more motivated to complete the project and also increased their confidence in working with the community. One student reported, “I think the outreach portion of our [student-led initiatives] helped me gain more experience and confidence interacting with stakeholders and members of the community.” Also, by getting out of the classroom, students were exposed to different perspectives and were empowered by this new-found adaptation of the course material. Another student explained, “I gained the experience of working with a real client…and gained a slight overall understanding of what it’s like to apply my knowledge to real world problems.” Nearly half of the faculty indicated that the CES program nurtured a symbiotic exchange: students applied course knowledge and attained authentic experiences and the community organizations received valuable services. A faculty member explained, “Students did a great job learning about and presenting...different ways to make the farm and [the] farm’s outreach sustainable. Many of their ideas will be implemented in production distribution of produce next season which will benefit both [the] farm and the community.” In the CES program, we observed two different approaches to establishing community partnerships dependent on the needs of the campus and community: 1) internal partnerships within the campus or a department on campus, and 2) external partnerships with an organization off campus. Of the 75 CES projects, 20 partnered with an organization or department on their campus (some in collaboration with an external partner as well). One faculty reported that their students picked their own community partners and “those who chose partners within the campus community seem to be most successful.” When partnering with an external community partner, there tend to be more variables and logistical planning challenges, such as student transportation to and from rural campuses. As a faculty member shared, “The partner’s schedule was not
10
always compatible with students’ schedules so there were sometimes delays in meeting that resulted in overdue assignments and last-minute scrambling.” Although working with a community partner can be challenging, it provides students with a “real-world experience”, allowing them to develop valuable skills such as flexibility, adaptation to change, and collaboration strategies. Interestingly, some of the internal partnerships that occurred on campuses with little or no previous environmental experience left a significant imprint on campus culture. For example, prior to CES, one campus did not have a strong environmental focus, however, faculty reported that this project had a significant impact on making progress in this area. This CES team installed their campus’ first food garden and the students coordinated the campus’ Earth Day, which hadn’t been celebrated on campus in 30 years. “Everyone on campus is aware of the [CES] project—it’s created a buzz. Two weeks ago we released a campus sustainability plan. Food insecurity awareness is increasing—we have started a conversation about what to do for students who are food insecure. The visibility and student enthusiasm have really moved people to solve problems. Even the teaching methods have influenced other faculty!” An example of a meaningful external partnership occurred between The Architectural Design Studio course at Norwich University and the Town of Northfield, VT. CES students participated in a two-week intensive exercise to design a flood-resilient park in a former flood damaged area of Northfield. They learned about design through conducting historical research, studying previous design exercises conducted by consulting agencies, and learning from teammates from Geology, Physical Education, and Environmental Education disciplines. The students were divided evenly into four teams and tasked with developing a design scheme for a riverside park area that could rebound from periodic flooding. The four teams then presented their work to a Planning Coordinator with the Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development for critical feedback. These conceptual designs were then refined and later presented to community stakeholders at an evening dinner event. One of the faculty members reported, “This exercise gave students the opportunity to look outside their normal sphere of data gathering resources and pushed them to be more aware of forces that influence architectural development.” As exemplified by this successful project, community projects that are reciprocal in nature and address an identified community need comprise a key element for success in the CES model. ***** In addition to the five key elements of the CES program, two additional amendments have since been identified as being instrumental to the further success of this program model. The recommendations that accompany the amendments below stem from faculty experience in course delivery, feedback forums and internal program evaluation, not from original program design. Amendment 1: Typology in Course Design and Faculty Collaboration Colleagues in Vermont (Coleman and Williams Howe, in prep) developed commonalities in course design and collaboration across the 18 faculty teams, resulting in a new typology for interdisciplinary servicelearning that is emerging out of the data on course design analyzed for this project. Three different ways that faculty incorporated service-learning into their classes were observed. First, some faculty focused their entire class project around the service-learning project and selected content that directly supported the project. Second, some faculty developed service-learning projects that served as a central component of the course. Third, some faculty developed small service-learning projects that did not constitute major components of the course.
11
Trends in the way that faculty collaborated with the colleagues in their interdisciplinary teams were also observed, as illustrated in Table 1 below. This emerging typology may help to inform and support new faculty as they incorporate service-learning into their courses. First, some faculty integrated servicelearning and environmental stewardship into their discipline through individual courses (A: Single Class Infusions) but did not collaborate with other courses beyond supporting one another with curriculum development/campus training. Other faculty (B: Cross-Course Learning) collaborated by creating shared assignments (e.g. readings and reflection activities) and shared events (e.g. final presentations and guest speakers) for the students to experience all together, thereby creating a learning community for students across multiple courses. Finally, some faculty (C: Multi-Class Collaborative Projects) collaborated by creating joint service-learning projects that students across all courses worked on together. TABLE 1: CES Service-Learning Typology Service-Learning Model Attributes A. Single Class Infusions Community project integrated to varying degrees into one, standalone course: from one assignment/small project to entire course focus. B. Cross-Course Learning Two or more courses share events, presentations, discussions, readings, or assignments related to a community project. C. Multi-Class Collaborative Two or more courses, representing multiple disciplinary Projects perspectives, share a community project . As the CES program required teams to collaborate across disciplines, the following examples, representing Service-Learning Models B and C (Table 1), demonstrate how varying approaches to the CES model can be successful within the new typology that is emerging from the CES model. Examples of faculty collaboration The multi-disciplinary CES faculty team (Philosophy, Sociology, Anthropology, and Biology) at the College of the Holy Cross (MA) provided a strong example of Service-Learning Model B, Cross Course Learning. They collaborated with different community partners around various environmental issues such as water pollution, food insecurity and tree management. Faculty used the issue of food justice to unify the courses throughout the semester with a shared viewing of the film “Just Eat It” followed by a panel discussion, a slow food dinner in which local food producers led discussion on the slow food movement and a joint reading of Field to Fork. The interdisciplinary events were positively received and had significant impact on student learning. A faculty member expanded, “As important are the connections made with my colleagues, we’ve begun brainstorming ways to increase collaboration and networking between faculty teaching on these topics. A few of us also share a long-term interest in petitioning to begin a Food Studies program.” CES faculty from Champlain College (VT) illustrated an effective example of Service-Learning Model C, Multi Class Collaborative Projects, as they worked with one community partner, BLUE, to reduce storm water runoff from their campus into Lake Champlain. BLUE is an innovative program that certifies residential properties as watershed friendly. Students from the Human Communication course, Environmental Earth Science course and Place-Base Environmental Study course all participated in different service-learning projects, which ranged from preparing public presentation materials designed to persuade audiences to participate in the BLUE program, to developing educational material for local tenants on personal actions that can contribute to water quality, to evaluating specific buildings on campus to better reduce storm water runoff. Faculty reported that a major success was the collaborative efforts among the four faculty involved. They met every other week to coordinate their classes and 12
discuss class assignments. A faculty member reported, “we intend to build on the model that was developed and have already begun conversations within the College about how to improve institutional support surrounding these types of projects as well as how we can continue to work with our community partner.” Another successful example of Service-Learning Model C is seen in the team from the University of Maine, who collaborated on a joint service-learning project that made students aware of the local public water quality concerns, taught students different methods of taking action to help solve the problem, and had students across all courses work together on different aspects of the same project. The Earth and Climate Sciences course sampled water from homes in two local towns in the spring and fall semesters to see how chloroform levels fluctuated throughout the year. The Integrated Approaches in Biology Education course designed a unit for a middle school math class to get hands-on experience extracting meaningful data from a real data set (the data set generated by the Earth and Climate Sciences course) and present their findings to the water district board. The Development Biology and Biology of Organisms courses tested the effects of environmentally relevant chloroform exposures on organismal biology using yeast and zebrafish model systems. The Sustainability Principles and Policy course polled citizens and communicated with the superintendent of the water district to identify challenges and determine the most popular/feasible solutions for improving water quality. Altogether, the project provided a clearer picture of the problem and the path to a solution. These data were presented both within their respective courses and across courses, as well as to middle school teachers and to the water board at a public meeting. The CES program significantly increased awareness about water quality and provided the local towns with raw data that had never been collected before. One faculty member reported, “The students gained tremendously from the open-ended real world collaboration that the project focused on. Many students reported that the course was the best they had ever taken.” Although teaching interdisciplinary concepts through service-learning can be a challenge for faculty, we believe presenting incoming faculty with this typology, along with successful examples of courses using the CES model, can help facilitate and strengthen their course development processes and learning outcomes. Amendment 2: Provision of Faculty Incentives CES survey results showed that faculty confidence in the design of their CES courses and in their ability to enhance student capacity to solve real-world problems increased significantly over time. Confidence in their ability to execute environmental community projects also increased, although not significantly. This slight increase in confidence was paired with a significant decrease in their motivation to execute community projects. Key reasons for the decrease in motivation cited in the qualitative data, including focus groups and follow-up conversations, included: lack of institutional support, time constraints, not being recognized or rewarded for this work, and lack of sufficient faculty stipends or course release time. To address this decrease in motivation, CES administrators added the second key amendment to the CES model: provision of faculty incentives. Along with the training and support provided throughout the CES program, enhanced provision of faculty incentives has been identified as a key part of increasing motivation for integrating service-learning into courses and ensuring the success of this model. Although CES provided some incentives in the form of training, technical assistance support, and faculty subgrants, CES administrators believe that additional incentives must come from higher education institutions to encourage faculty commitment. As revealed in the survey, 68% of the faculty respondents reported that momentum and actions are being taken on their campuses to further these types of
13
projects and environmental initiatives. Conversely, while many faculty were optimistic about the increased awareness of environmental and community-based initiatives, 27% gave the overall impression that they were not convinced that significant change could occur in the existing landscape of their institution. One person wrote, “I think that our institution structure is set up in a way that obscures pathways to change and makes it quite difficult.” Another wrote, “Great potential, but it will need to be supported, incentivized, and appropriately evaluated as part of our tenure review.” These comments show that while faculty members are noticing an increase in conversations, interest, and collaborations at their institutions, they also believe that there are institutional barriers and that more recognition and commitment is needed on part of the institution. Despite institutional barriers, in the faculty final reports, 66 out of the 75 CES participating faculty indicated that they intend to incorporate elements of the CES model in future teaching, including implementing service-learning projects, working with a community partner, and collaborating with other faculty. Many faculty stated that working with other faculty on the project was “energizing” and made them excited about teaching again. Others stated that it was powerful to observe their students “doing something that matters” and to see them engaged in the course material. One faculty reported, “For years I have been sitting in meetings agreeing that we need to give students more authentic classroom teaching experience that involves real data. Because of the CES project, I actually made it happen this year. The funding motivated me to find interested middle school teachers, figure out the logistics, make sure [my students were prepared to get up in front of middle school students, etc.] Now that I have gotten over this first hurdle, I feel ready to build on this experience in the coming years.” It is the hope of CES program administrators that through these recommended elements and amendments, more faculty members can access the resources, support, and camaraderie necessary to gradually change institutional norms to value real-world applications and 21st century skill development to enhance student learning.
Recommendations for Future Programming While it is clear that CES-infused courses and the student-led initiatives had a positive impact on student learning, and confidence and motivation for addressing environmental challenges, what is equally clear is that more must be done to support faculty motivation for incorporating this promising pedagogy. Factors identified by faculty in the post surveys and subsequent focus groups have resulted in the following list of recommendations to enhance the replication of this model and to better support faculty at the vanguard:
More training and support for faculty teaching CES-infused courses. A number of faculty disclosed that initially it seemed daunting to implement the CES requirements into their course due to the lack of support around service-learning and community engagement on their campus, and due to the time commitment needed to integrate environmental service-learning into their courses. For faculty on campuses with little or no community engagement staff/support, CES program administrators have identified that enhanced support and training should be built into this model to provide faculty with the support needed to address their concerns and to increase their motivation. Moving forward, we plan to
14
bolster the role of the team project manager and build in more ongoing support and site visits to campus teams. We would also like to integrate a train-the-trainer model for both the project managers and faculty to better support one another. At the Institute, added resources and training would be provided around the designated thematic issue (in this case, environmental stewardship) and we would better prepare faculty for placement at the forefront of integrating new pedagogical methods, including the “trial and error” that may occur.
Provision of new typology to help interdisciplinary teams/faculty design and implement environmental service-learning courses. By providing interdisciplinary faculty/teams with this new course typology (Amendment 1), they will become familiar with models of collaboration that have worked for CES faculty and examples of what successful collaborations look like. This will help to better prepare faculty/teams for designing projects that are feasible, and will provide them with choices of collaboration strategies that would work best for their team. Some CES faculty reported that they were overambitious when initially designing their CES service-learning project and by mid-semester realized they were overwhelmed by the workload. With this new typology, faculty would be able to decide on the depth and breadth of their project design and collaboration without having to re-create the “wheel”.
Greater institutional support for community-based learning and enhanced recognition and rewards for engaged faculty. Perhaps the most commonly cited barrier we heard from faculty during site visits and focus groups was the need for greater institutional support for this work. Without the needed supports and recognition on the part of institutions and administrators, it will remain a challenge for faculty to integrate this work, despite its effectiveness in learning and engagement outcomes. If campuses hold this work in high regard, then it is imperative that it be given the gravitas it deserves. Some suggested ways in which institutions can demonstrate support for this work include:
Added time and resources to design and implement CES projects through strategies such as course release time; More resources/funds for pertinent trainings and materials; Greater recognition for service-learning in the tenure review process; A designated service-learning/community engagement representative/office to serve as a central pillar of support to connect campus members with community partners and provide training on this pedagogy; Recognition opportunities such as showcasing best practices at faculty luncheons and providing faculty awards and acknowledgment for this work; and Provision of teacher assistants or stipends for a student leader to coordinate the logistics for implementing a community project.
By providing faculty with added support, incentives, recognition, action plan frameworks and allotted time to collaborate, such as course release(s), faculty will be better poised to work together and successfully execute community projects.
15
Conclusion In sum, the majority of students who took the CES-infused courses reported that both their confidence and motivation to address complex issues, like environmental challenges, increased significantly and that they gained 21st century and leadership skills. Thus, there are strong indicators that this model is having a positive impact on student learning and motivating them to take personal action. Considering the richness of the student experience, faculty in the vanguard of this approach to teaching should be provided with the necessary institutional support and incentives to further advance this pedagogy. Moreover, CES is an exciting example of the potential for higher education to develop interdisciplinary, critical problem-solving skills with real-world applications that will prepare students to address urgent issues affecting local, regional, and global communities in the 21st century. With challenges like environmental sustainability, hunger, and homelessness threatening the health and well-being of our nation and our global community, the stakes have never been higher. It is imperative that higher education rise to the challenge by providing faculty with the tools and support needed to prepare students as future leaders, scientists, and decision-makers.
References Coleman, K., and Danks, C. 2015. Service-learning: A tool to create social capital for collaborative natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, April:1-9. Coleman, K., Murdoch, J., Rayback, S., Seidle, A., and Wallin, K. (In review) Beyond the Proverbial Polar Bear: Service-Learning as a Tool to Improve Students' Understanding of Sustainability and Climate Change across Disciplines. Journal of Geoscience Education. Coleman, K. and Williams Howe, C. (in prep) Working title: A Emerging Typology of Approaches to Interdisciplinary Service-Learning Courses and Collaborations. In preparation to the Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education. Jacoby, B. 2015. Service-learning essentials: Questions, answers, and lessons learned. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Moore, J. (2005a). Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university level: A guide for change agents. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(4), 326-339. Moore, J. (2005b). Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored in the study of sustainability. Journal of transformative education, 3(1), 76-91. National Research Council. 2014. STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Reynolds, J. and Lowman, M. 2013. Promoting ecoliteracy through research service-learning and citizen science. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11:565-566. Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., and Grimm, K. 2008. Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9:68-86. Spelt, E. J., Biemans, H. J., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 365-378. Wals, A. 2014. Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: a review of learning and institutionalization processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62:8-15.
16
Authors Sally Slovenski, Executive Director, Maine Campus Compact Meghan McCormick, Program Director, Maine Campus Compact
Additional Contributors Alaina Clark, AmeriCorps VISTA, Maine Campus Compact Kim Coleman, Vermont Campus Compact Heather Craigie, Maine Campus Compact Consultant Georgia Nigro, Bates College Carrie Williams Howe, Vermont Campus Compact
CES Campus Compact Partners Campus Compact for New Hampshire Massachusetts Campus Compact Vermont Campus Compact
Participating Campuses Maine Husson University, Unity College, University of Maine, University of Maine (STEM), University of Maine at Augusta, University of Southern Maine, University of New England Massachusetts College of the Holy Cross, Gordon College, Stonehill College, Springfield College, University of Massachusetts Boston New Hampshire Colby-Sawyer College Vermont Castleton College, Champlain College, Landmark College, Norwich University, University of Vermont
Lewiston, Maine www.mainecompact.org 207.786.8216