Bielefeldt, A. R., & Paterson, K., & Swan, C., & Duffy, J. J., & Pierrakos, O., & Canney, N. E. (2012, June), Engineering Faculty Engagement in Learning Through Service Summit: Best Practices and Affinity Mapping  Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--21304

\bibitem{asee_peer_21304}
  Bielefeldt, A. R., \& Paterson, K., \& Swan, C., \& Duffy, J. J., \& Pierrakos, O., \& Canney, N. E. (2012, June), \emph{Engineering Faculty Engagement in Learning Through Service Summit: Best Practices and Affinity Mapping}
  Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas.
  10.18260/1-2--21304

Angela R. Bielefeldt, Kurt Paterson P.E., Chris Swan, John J. Duffy, Olga Pierrakos, and Nathan E. Canney.  "Engineering Faculty Engagement in Learning Through Service Summit: Best Practices and Affinity Mapping".  2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2012.  https://peer.asee.org/21304 Internet.  19 Jan, 2025

\bibitem{asee_peer_21304}
  Angela R. Bielefeldt, Kurt Paterson P.E., Chris Swan, John J. Duffy, Olga Pierrakos, and Nathan E. Canney.
  "Engineering Faculty Engagement in Learning Through Service Summit: Best Practices and Affinity Mapping".
  \emph{2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2012.
  https://peer.asee.org/21304 Internet.  19 Jan, 2025

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_21304
author = "Angela R. Bielefeldt, Kurt Paterson P.E., Chris Swan, John J. Duffy, Olga Pierrakos, and Nathan E. Canney"
title = "Engineering Faculty Engagement in Learning Through Service Summit: Best Practices and Affinity Mapping"
booktitle = "2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2012"
month = "June"
address = "San Antonio, Texas"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/21304}
number = {10.18260/1-2--21304}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -    Engineering Faculty Engagement in Learning Through Service Summit:                   Best Practices and Affinity MappingAlthough research has shown that different Learning Through Service (LTS) activities cansuccessfully meet a variety of learning outcomes for engineering students, the best practices,benefits, and challenges from a faculty perspective are poorly understood. A fall 2011 summitbrought together ~30 individuals to explore these questions. LTS as defined for the summitincluded both service-learning (in courses) and extracurricular activities with significant learningoutcomes (such as working on a design project for Engineers Without Borders). There are somecommon issues for these activities, as well as very unique attributes. The summit participantsindividually generated ideas about design of LTS, management of LTS, and assessment of LTSfrom a faculty perspective. About one-third of the group focused on each of these three themeareas. For each of these three elements, best practices, benefits, and pitfalls were explored.After the individual ideas were recorded on post-it notes, sub-groups of four to twelveindividuals clustered the ideas into broader theme areas. Similar exercises were conducted fromthe perspectives of the University, students, and community partners; this paper will focus on thefaculty perspective. The individual thoughts and themes will be analyzed and presented in theconference paper. Some preliminary findings are presented below.From a faculty perspective, LTS design best practices included: leadership; various programfeatures; resources; logistical support; training; community partners; promotion and tenureissues; student learning outcomes and ABET; and multi-disciplinary elements. Personal benefitsto faculty included adventure, leadership, delight, and teaching. Professional benefits to facultypotentially included funding, research, teaching, leadership, and recognition. A number ofpitfalls were also noted including time, rigid curricula, peer attitudes, resources, training,burnout, legal liability, assessment, student engagement, and communication with communitypartners.The group felt that engineering LTS assessment best practices may not yet be available. Forfaculty outcomes, assessment should include both professional development and selfdevelopment aspects. From the professional development side, faculty must be able todistinguish between assessment of LTS and LTS-related research. A good practice is to alignassessments with university goals, and student outcomes that encompass both the ABET A-Kand broader outcomes. Community assessment was believed to be one of the weakest elements.
AU  - Angela R. Bielefeldt
AU  - Kurt Paterson P.E.
AU  - Chris Swan
AU  - John J. Duffy
AU  - Olga Pierrakos
AU  - Nathan E. Canney
CY  - San Antonio, Texas
DA  - 2012/06/10
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Engineering Faculty Engagement in Learning Through Service Summit: Best Practices and Affinity Mapping
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/21304
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--21304
ER  -