Asee peer logo

Spectra of Learning Through Service Programs

Download Paper |

Conference

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Location

Atlanta, Georgia

Publication Date

June 23, 2013

Start Date

June 23, 2013

End Date

June 26, 2013

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Assessment of Community Engagement

Tagged Division

Community Engagement Division

Page Count

17

Page Numbers

23.1080.1 - 23.1080.17

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/22465

Download Count

41

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Angela R Bielefeldt University of Colorado Boulder

visit author page

Dr. Angela Bielefeldt, P.E., is a professor and associate chair for Undergraduate Education in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder. She began integrating service-learning projects into her senior capstone design course for environmental engineering in 2001.

visit author page

biography

Kurt Paterson P.E. Michigan Technological University

visit author page

Kurt Paterson is a associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, but also director of Michigan Tech's D80 Center which offers contribution-based learning, research, and service opportunities for students with the poorest 80% of humanity. Dr. Paterson is a noted educator, workshop facilitator, and public speaker on community engagement, and leads several initiatives for learning engineering through service, recently leading ASEE’s newest division, Community Engagement in Engineering Education. He is PI on several research projects assessing the impacts of community engagement on students, faculty, and communities around the world.

visit author page

author page

Chris Swan Tufts University Orcid 16x16 orcid.org/0000-0001-5670-8938

biography

Olga Pierrakos James Madison University

visit author page

Dr. Olga Pierrakos is an associate professor and founding faculty member of the James Madison University Department of Engineering, which graduated its inaugural class in May 2012. At JMU, Dr. Pierrakos is the director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering Education (CIEE) and director of the Advanced Thermal Fluids Laboratory. Her interests in engineering education research center around recruitment and retention, engineer identity, engineering design instruction and methodology, learning through service, problem based learning methodologies, assessment of student learning, as well as complex problem solving. Her other research interests lie in cardiovascular fluid mechanics, sustainability, and K-12 engineering outreach. Dr. Pierrakos is a 2009 NSF CAREER Awardee. Dr. Pierrakos holds a B.S. in Engineering Science and Mechanics, an M.S. in Engineering Mechanics, and a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Virginia Tech.

visit author page

author page

David O Kazmer University of Massachusetts, Lowell

biography

Annie Soisson Tufts University

visit author page

Dr. Annie Soisson is the associate director of the Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (CELT) at Tufts University. She works with faculty to foster teaching innovation and to facilitate improved learning outcomes for students. Her areas of interest are service learning, diversity, team teaching and interdisciplinary learning. She earned graduate degrees in Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Boston University.

visit author page

Download Paper |

Abstract

Spectra of Learning Through Service ProgramsResearch has shown that Learning Through Service (LTS) activities can successfully meet avariety of learning outcomes for engineering students and provide benefits to communitypartners. The number of service-learning and co-curricular service activities in engineeringappear to be growing, but the range and diversity of these programs has been somewhat poorlydocumented. While some more established programs have published extensively on theirprogram characteristics and assessment outcomes (i.e. SLICE at the University of MassachusettsLowell), many newer and emerging programs may not yet have published any information. Infact, some of these LTS activities are not routinely included in courses but are integrated bymotivated faculty -- sometimes without widespread recognition within their own college oruniversity. This paper will present a summary of LTS activities based on a literature search andrecent activities associated with the NSF-grant on Engineering Faculty Engagement in LearningThrough Service (EFELTS); by doing so emerging patterns, opportunities, challenges, andresources will be offered.Two NSF-sponsored workshops on LTS in engineering were held in 2012 and included 36participants representing approximately 30 different courses and programs from around the U.S.These courses and programs crossed a number of engineering disciplines, but with a somewhathigher representation in civil and environmental engineering. The LTS programs were in variousstages from planning to well-established programs. The faculty and staff participants self-rated15 different characteristics of their LTS course or program on spectra that were roughlyseparated into four segments (e.g. none, low, medium, high). These characteristics should beconsidered during program design, and understanding the range of current programs may helpothers to learn lessons from these programs. This rating was done by placing post-it notes withtheir program name onto a large, wall-mounted, axis. Therefore, initial analysis counted thenumber of post-its in each quartile of the scale (with some programs placed on the boundarybetween two quadrants and therefore counted half for each).Four of the characteristics are academic in nature, and include deliverables, assessment, learningoutcomes, and civic outcomes. Most programs indicated that they included substantial and manydeliverables, with only one program in the bottom quarter of the spectrum. Assessment acrossthe programs was more diverse, ranging from little to rigorous, and aligned for 19%, 24%, 26%,and 31% of the programs. Student learning outcomes tended to ‘clear and rigorous’, with 12%,18%, 34%, and 36% of the programs in the quartiles from none to clear and rigorous. Bycomparison, civic outcomes were nearly evenly distributed in all four quartiles of the scale (26%,25%, 22%, 26%), which ranged from only experiential to experiential with deep reflection.Three elements related to program design were rated. Eight (21%) programs were consideredextracurricular (many of these were EWB programs), 51% were elective courses, and 28% wererequired courses. Student numbers ranged from individual to large teams, with most programsmid-sized; 1%, 29%, 44%, and 25% LTS programs in each quartile. Most programs were alsomulti-disciplinary, with 50% of the programs in the top quartile and only 9% of the LTSprograms listed as single disciplines; an additional 41% of programs were placed in the middlehalf of the scale.Six program management characteristics were considered. The program size in terms of numberof students, were large (mode in largest quartile). Faculty involvement was most commonlysingle (39% LTS programs) but also ranged to large (18% in the top quartile). The vast majorityof the LTS programs reported no staff support (59% LTS programs in the bottom quartile); onlya single program reported staff involvement in the highest quartile. For geographic context therewas nearly an even split between local and international projects, and two programs were splitindicating that they included some projects in both local and international locations. Sixteenprograms (42%) were placed at the high end of the time scale indicating a duration of years (i.e.EPICS), and no programs were only of a duration of days. The 58% of the programs in themiddle of the duration scale were in the weeks to semester range. No programs reportedminimal or indirect interactions with their community partner; 35% of programs were in the topquartile reporting immersive interactions. Finally, the technical content of the LTS programswere predominantly in the third highest quartile, while social/cultural content averaged a littlelower.The workshop participants also created “blueprints” to examine their LTS course or program.These included the value propositions for the various stakeholders, relationships with the variousstakeholders, and key activities (among other elements). Common themes among theseblueprints will be presented in the conference paper.

Bielefeldt, A. R., & Paterson, K., & Swan, C., & Pierrakos, O., & Kazmer, D. O., & Soisson, A. (2013, June), Spectra of Learning Through Service Programs Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/22465

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2013 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015