Vanasupa, L., & Schlemer, L. T. (2014, June), Relational versus Transactional Community Engagement: An Experience of the Benefits and Costs  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--22970

\bibitem{asee_peer_22970}
  Vanasupa, L., \& Schlemer, L. T. (2014, June), \emph{Relational versus Transactional Community Engagement: An Experience of the Benefits and Costs}
  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  10.18260/1-2--22970

Linda Vanasupa and Lizabeth T. Schlemer.  "Relational versus Transactional Community Engagement: An Experience of the Benefits and Costs".  2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2014.  https://peer.asee.org/22970 Internet.  19 Jun, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_22970}
  Linda Vanasupa and Lizabeth T. Schlemer.
  "Relational versus Transactional Community Engagement: An Experience of the Benefits and Costs".
  \emph{2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2014.
  https://peer.asee.org/22970 Internet.  19 Jun, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_22970
author = "Linda Vanasupa and Lizabeth T. Schlemer"
title = "Relational versus Transactional Community Engagement: An Experience of the Benefits and Costs"
booktitle = "2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2014"
month = "June"
address = "Indianapolis, Indiana"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/22970}
number = {10.18260/1-2--22970}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -     Learning  through  community  engagement  (CE)  is  widely  considered  a  high-­‐impact  practice  with  the  potential  benefit  of  accelerated  cognitive  development,  deeper  learning  and  moral  reasoning  compared  to  traditional  classroom  approaches.  However,  not  all  efforts  of  community  engagement  are  alike  and  there  is  insufficient  distinction  in  articles  on  community-­‐engaged  learning  to  enable  faculty  to  design  an  experience  of  CE  learning  that  meets  their  learning  aims.  This  paper  makes  clear  the  differences  in  forms  of  CE  using  two  primary  axes,  the  compatibility  with  learning  objectives  (low  to  high)  and  the  attention  of  the  collaborators  (transactions  to  relationships).  Within  this  framework,  there  are  four  types  of  CE  forms,  each  with  different  consequences  for  the  students,  the  faculty,  and  the  community  partners.  Through  narratives  of  project  partners,  faculty  and  students,  we  contrast  the  experiences  of  two  types  of  CE  projects  and  their  impact  on  participants.  From  this  two-­‐year  case  study  involving  88  freshmen,  16  faculty  members  and  15  community  partners,  we  conclude  that  successful  CE  learning  requires  that  all  participants  have  an  awareness  of  the  type  of  CE  project  that  is  intended.  This  paper  implies  that  conscious  choices  around  CE  learning  type  are  critical  to  success  in  the  initial  phases  of  creating  the  community  engaged  collaboration.    
AU  - Linda Vanasupa
AU  - Lizabeth T. Schlemer
CY  - Indianapolis, Indiana
DA  - 2014/06/15
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Relational versus Transactional Community Engagement: An Experience of the Benefits and Costs
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/22970
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--22970
ER  -