A.1. Engaged-Learning Map (ELM)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ENGAGED-LEARNING: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS AT U.S. LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS by Leodis Scott Dissertation Committee: Professor Lyle Yorks, Sponsor Professor Terrence Maltbia Approved by the Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Education Date May 16, 2012 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education in Teachers College, Columbia University 2012 ABSTRACT ENGAGED-LEARNING: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS AT U.S. LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS Leodis Scott Engagement has evolved from concerns of access, diversity, and public service between the academy and communities. Land-grant institutions (LGI), considered the “public’s universities,” have represented a unique population in American higher education with their historic 150-year tradition of teaching, research, and service. Carnegie Community-Engagement Classification (CCE) has started recognizing institutions for community engagement, yet only a limited number of LGI have received such recognition. This study conducted a descriptive-exploratory census of 110 LGI (1862, 1890, and 1994) and their association to community engagement using chi-square test of association, modified semantic differential, document analysis, and An Engaged- Learning Map (ELM) for Education, Learning, & Engagement. 50 LGI (45% census rate) were represented. Findings suggest “an engaged-association” mostly on programs in likely areas of community-based research (CBR), service learning, or engaged scholarship. Some recommendations propose LGI focus also on policies and incentives; adult learning and prior learning assessment (PLA); and applying for CCE in 2015. © Copyright Leodis Scott 2012 All Rights Reserved ii DEDICATION To the empowering memory of my father, Lee Odis Scott To the peaceful love of my newborn daughter, Paxton Sarai Scott iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS MENS SANA IN CORPORE SANO—is a Latin phrase meaning “a sound mind in a sound body” that is inscribed on the historic building at Teachers College-Columbia University. This phrase and expression have served as a guiding principle during the course of this doctoral pursuit. Just as the phrase acts as a limited expression of its full meaning and sentiment, so are these following acknowledgements, which cannot list all of the people who have helped in maintaining a continued sound mind, body, and spirit throughout my life and educational career. Still, my inscription begins by acknowledging my dissertation advisor, Dr. Lyle Yorks, whose onward support has sparked upward ideas about future teaching, research, and service. Other mentors, colleagues, and scholars include Drs., Catherine Marienau, Terrence Maltbia, Jeanne Bitterman, Hope Leichter, Kevin Dougherty, David Severson, Ellie Drago-Severson, Sandra Hayes, Andrea Evans, Donald Sharp, Edwin Nichols, Ralph Brockett, Roger Hiemstra, and Victoria Marsick for her confirmative leadership. Other confidants and leaders for inspiration include Alma Bonner, Angela Rogensues, Anne Arvia, Arlene Norsym, Capt. Schuyler Webb, Charlene Soby, David Oser, Elena Suaste, Evelyn Fernandez-Ketcham, Katy Saintil, John Duffy, John Littlejohn, Jennifer Wohlberg, Marlyn Rubero, Renie McClay, Sandra Afflick, and Sandy Helling. To the presidents, provosts, directors, and administrators I met at the 124th Annual Meeting of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) at San iv Francisco, CA (November 13-15, 2011). Some included participants of the Council on Engagement & Outreach; and the Commission on Innovation, Competitiveness & Economic Prosperity; namely Drs., Hiram Fitzgerald, Andrew Furco, Nancy Franklin, Marvin Parnes, Thomas Perorazio, Jim Woodell, and Richard Stoddard. Other admired contributors in the scholarship of engagement: Drs., Amy Driscoll, Janet Eyler, Frank Fear, Sherril Gelmon, Dwight Giles, Jr., Barbara Holland, Kevin Kecskes, Adrianna Kezar, KerryAnn O’Meara, Scott Peters, Lorilee Sandmann, John Saltmarsh, James Votruba, David Weerts, Craig Weidemann, and Edward Zlotkowski . To my entire AEGIS family, who has offered unconditional love and intellectual security to dream of experiences and aspirations before any plans were made or any words were written. To future students and researchers, I hope that your dissertation experience will be healthfully painstaking, yet equally satisfying to pass on gratitude to another generation of scholars, philosophers, practitioners, and of course, educators. My final inscription concludes by acknowledging my personal family and other very close friends, especially my beautiful bride, LaToya; and caring mother, Berniece. Both women have offered “sound advice with sober realities” allowing me to not only appreciate this educational accomplishment, but also reminding me of the continued hard work ahead—CARPE DIEM & LEARNLONG. LS v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 Overview of Land-Grant Institutions .......................................................................1 Context of Study ......................................................................................................3 Statement of Problem ...................................................................................5 Purpose and Research Question of the Study ..............................................6 Definition of Terms and Concepts ...............................................................7 Researcher Perspective ..............................................................................11 Paradigm and Philosophical Orientation ...................................................11 Postpositivist paradigm ..................................................................12 Analytic philosophy orientation ....................................................13 Assumptions and Limitations ....................................................................14 Significance of Problem and Study............................................................15 Chapter I Summary ................................................................................................16 Chapter II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND MULTIMODEL DESIGN ....................18 Introduction to Chapter ..........................................................................................18 Approach to Review of Related Literature and Multimodel Design .....................18 Section 1: Carnegie Community-Engagement Classification and the Institutionalization of Engagement ................................................20 Carnegie Foundation ..................................................................................20 Carnegie Community-Engagement Classification .....................................22 Selections for community-engagement classification ...................24 vi Chapter II (Continued) Ernest Boyer and the Scholarship of Engagement .....................................26 Kellogg Commission, Returning to Our Roots, Renewing the Covenant .27 CIC and AASCU Contributions in Defining Engagement ........................28 Other Contributions for Engagement .........................................................30 Institutionalization of Engagement ............................................................32 Institutionalization by land-grant institutions ................................33 Implications of Section 1 ...........................................................................34 Section 2: Land-Grant Institutions’ Threefold Mission and Mutual Values .........35 1862 Land-Grant Institutions .....................................................................36 Struggles of 1862 land-grant institutions .......................................37 1890 Land-Grant Institutions .....................................................................38 Challenges of 1890 land-grant institutions ....................................41 1994 Land-Grant Institutions .....................................................................44 Obstacles of 1994 land-grant institutions……… ..........................45 Perspectives of Threefold Mission .............................................................47 1862 land-grant perspective ...........................................................47 1890 land-grant perspective ...........................................................48 1994 land-grant perspective ...........................................................49 Mutual Values Modifications ....................................................................49 Implications to Section 2 ...........................................................................51 Section 3: Adult Learning Theories and Prior Learning Assessment ....................52 “Villages” Framework for Experience .......................................................53 Village I: Experience as learning outcome. ...................................54 Village II: Learner-centered and learner-controlled. .....................54 Village III: Community action and social change .........................55 Village IV: Personal and interpersonal ..........................................55 vii Chapter II (Continued) Summary of the “Villages” Framework ....................................................56 “Social Practices” of Education and Learning ...........................................57 Experiential Education versus Experiential Learning ................................60 Lifelong Education versus Lifelong Learning