Fort Lewis College Meeting 4

Fort Lewis College Meeting 4 Curriculum Committee Minutes September 24, 2008 2008-2009 Academic Year 3:35 – 4:30 pm

Present: Arbeeny, Pam; John Baranski; Burkhart, Olivia; Chew, Beverly; Crawford, Gerald; Fine-Dare, Kathy; Gadbois, John; Hartsfield, Larry; McGurr, Paul; Moss, Susan, Trujillo, Jennifer

Absent: Barnes, Sherry; Kendall, Kathy

Guests: Michelle Bonanno, Richard Fulton, Kalin Grigg

1. Larry Hartsfield brought the meeting to order. The minutes for the September 17th meeting were approved.

2. New members John Gadbois, filling SOBA’s empty slot, and Susan Moss, replacing Chad Colby of AHSS, were introduced.

3. The meeting was taken up with a discussion of Fort Lewis’ Community Based Learning and Research (CBLR) program. The curriculum committee was seeking an understanding about the meaning of “community based” arising from the September 17 discussion about CBLR designation being sought by courses whose community service was to “for profit” companies.

Note: the following is not a complete record of all persons’ comments but just the high points as recognized by this humble transcriber. Pertinent additions are welcome from those present.

a. Michelle Bonanno spoke to the Fort Lewis CBLR model i. Fort Lewis uses the “engaged department” model. CBLR is tied to the curriculum and takes into account existing course work that departments already had in place. In the case of SOBA this included off-campus work with both for-profit and not-for-profit entities in town. This faculty driven concept was embraced by the CBLR Committee ii. The FLC Strategic Plan includes specific action items related to CBLR and also for community involvement in “small businesses, governments and non-profit organizations” b. Kalin Grigg spoke to the nationwide history of CBLR on college campuses i. In the early 1990’s the original push on college campuses was for “service learning” which was primarily extracurricular student placement into off- campus community service, usually not-for-profits. ii. Gradually a movement was made to try to tie community service into college curricula and the idea of CBLR was initiated iii. More recently the shift was to a broader view of civic engagement. The educational mission of colleges is being viewed as connected to the civic health of their communities. A tri-sector model is being used where higher education, not-for-profits and governments, and the for-profit business community work together to solve civic problems. iv. The FLC engaged faculty model therefore fits into the current national view of CBLR. c. Both Larry Hartsfield and Kathy Fine-Dare noted that their research of CBLR showed little connection to “for-profit” businesses. Larry indicated that he was on Faculty Senate and does not remember a campus-wide discussion that CBLR allowed for work on for-profits. He remembered the discussions being related to civic engagement through community service. Both questioned that if the broad definition of civic engagement was used, wouldn’t any off-campus activity, such as internships and COOP experiences, count. Why then would a CBLR process be necessary? d. John Gadbois pointed out that in relation to the work SOBA students were performing, there is really little difference between the activities of a “for-profit” organization and that of a “not-for-profit” organization. He felt the important point was the learning outcomes for the student engaged in the CBLR activity. e. Susan Moss pointed out that along with the student learning outcomes the CBLR activity should be tied to the FLC mission. f. John Baranski saw a problem with CBLR work for for-profit companies in that “public value” is difficult to determine. g. Richard Fulton then brought up two SOBA CBLR designated courses to show the public value being provided. i. Deb Walker’s ECON 499 course has students complete economic impact studies such as the study of the effect of the Mancos Balloon Festival on the town’s economy ii. Simon Walls’ MK 486 Marketing Research which performs Marketing work sometimes for not-for-profit entities and sometimes for for-profit entities h. Jennifer Trujillo felt that the work performed by the students and the client for whom it was performed was not as important as ensuring that students reflect upon the work performed and understand its importance to the community. i. Paul McGurr reiterated that philosophically SOBA believes that the work performed by SOBA students for not-for-profit entities and for-profit entities is beneficial as helping businesses be successful can only help the community. j. Gerry Crawford pointed out that Physics and Engineering’s “Engineers Without Borders” project meets all CBLR criteria (in any way it is viewed) but it has not been put forward because of the red tape. He also indicated that his department has concerns about CBLR in that sending students out into the community before they are fully competent is not appropriate. k. Beverly Chew stated that she agreed with Jennifer Trujillo that the most important part of the CBLR process was to ensure that the student reflected upon the work performed and recognized how it fit into the concept of civic engagement

4. As time ran out, the guests were thanked for their input and it was decided that the Curriculum Committee would complete their deliberations at the next meeting.

Respectfully submitted Paul McGurr