Annual Report 2017-2018Service-Learning Program

Boise State University

Mission

The Service-Learning Program connects the campus with the community through capacity-building partnerships in order to enhance student learning, address critical community issues, and encourage students to be active citizens in their local, national and global communities.

Vision

We envision all Boise State students graduating with the skills, knowledge, and disposition to be locally responsive and globally aware citizens. We envision a campus culture that supports teaching and learning environments in which civic engagement is highly valued, practiced, assessed, and recognized.

Program Goals

1. Expand opportunities for service-learning and civic engagement across disciplines and colleges2. Cultivate student civic leaders through community-focused coursework, jobs, and mentoring3. Engage/support faculty as reflective teachers and researchers in service-learning and community-engaged scholarship4. Advocate for the institutionalization of service-learning and culture of civic engagement across campus5. Respond to critical community issues as expressed by the community

Location in the scheme of things

Service-Learning is a unit of the CENTER FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING in Academic Affairs.

Service-Learning Program 2017-2018

Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Support 2017-2018 Summary

1.Faculty Recruitment / Expanding SL opportunities

SL staff continued to employ these strategies to expand opportunities for service-learning: Consulting with individual faculty (SL staff consulted with over 82 individual faculty, many

repeatedly, totalling 165 consultations) Making personal connections with faculty at campus events (New Faculty Orientation, Course

Design Institute, etc.) Building relationships with faculty “connectors” (e.g. this year we initiated collaborations with

Kelly Meyers/ETHOS program, Jill Gill/Human Rights Initiative, Donna Llewellyn/ISDI, and Amy Vecchione/Library Makerspace)

Developing new, more flexible models of SL, along with resources to help faculty and students use them effectively

Revisit current SL programs to make them more accessible to a diversity of students and faculty

1

This year the SL staff supported 93 faculty (a net increase of 5), 159 SL classes classes (an increase of 11%). These efforts include recruiting faculty interest, consulting on course design, providing resources and syllabus feedback, connecting them with community partners, and supporting them during the semesters with logistics, troubleshooting, technology, and recognition.

This year 22 faculty tried SL for the first time, and 11 returning faculty designed new SL courses. Of the 33 new SL courses (classes requiring new prep), only three were 100 level; the rest were evenly split between 200, 300, 400 and 500 level courses (approximately seven each). Twenty-two faculty who did not return from last year; of these 11 cycled out of teaching their SL class and will return, 6 retired or left BSU, and 5 decided that SL was not a fit for their course. Overall, faculty retention remains strong. (For detailed program statistics, see table 1 for a Comprehensive Summary of Service-Learning Programming.)   2. Allocating resources to support facultyThe SLP is at workload capacity; although we have “let off on the gas pedal” in terms of recruiting new faculty, they still reach out to us for support on a monthly basis. SL staff balance the two goals of growing SL opportunities by supporting new faculty, while retaining current SL faculty. At the same time we try to expand staff capacity by exploring new SL models and new workflows. This year the staff continued to address the workflow bottleneck that constrains our ability to broker and coordinate new community partnerships and projects for faculty, while services old/current projects. SL can continue to expand in courses that do not require SL staff to develop community partner matches, e.g. social innovation projects or projects initiated by students; however, these models are decentralized and may strain community partners. Given these limitations, and given that new faculty demand for SL support continues to increase, SL staff must continue to expand our capacity. This year we retooled our approach by participating in a "Design Academy", a 12 hour institute on design thinking. The goal was to collaboratively and creatively develop new SL models that will increase program capacity to serve more faculty and students, without tapping community partners. We found there are no easy solutions; however, the process advanced our thinking on how we might build new SL models that are more flexible and accessible to diverse students, e.g projects students can design on their own, or do from home. On other fronts we promoted faculty autonomy by refining workflow tools and faculty checklists.

3. Retaining faculty participation in SLTeaching with SL often takes extra effort on the part of faculty. To retain faculty involvement, SL staff provide comprehensive staff support; in addition, we attend to other complex retention factors: faculty desire for recognition, community, professional growth, peer/department approval, and self-efficacy. SL staff employed several strategies to retain faculty:

Offered to faculty a peer-to-peer mentoring program, designed to provide extra support to "red-flag" faculty (those who are new to SL and are teaching large SL classes, and/or those who have struggled with SL in the past).

Addressed common challenges experienced by faculty, e.g. refugee collaborations, by offering specialized workshops, small discussion groups, and additional 1:1 consultations.

This year we redesigned the signature Service-Learning workshop -- the online version. In collaboration with a graduate student in OPWL, KB  restructured the format so it's aligned with best practices of adult learning theory.

Recognized faculty by publishing brief stories about their SL accomplishments in the campus Update, although allocated less time on this in FY18 than previous years

Facilitated a SL faculty learning community, including a new monthly “community of practice” Provided mini-grants ($2,400 ) Consulted with faculty and support faculty members’ SL scholarship and grant proposals

2

Provided in-class support and student support (see sections “Student Support” and “Classroom Support”)

4. As part of our faculty recruitment and retention strategy, we continued fostering a supportive campus climate for service learning. This included:

Building collaborations with other community engagement programs and campus leaders to raise visibility, promote synergy, and share infrastructure.. (See also section “Service-Learning Dept and College Outreach”)

Helping weave SL into NSF grants (we supported 12 STEM faculty teach with SL this year, including with 3 their NSF Career Grant Educational Outreach programs, and 4 others who are in the planning stages)

Showcasing how SL aligns with other campus priorities, such as Beyond the Major, career readiness, active learning, and use of high impact practices.

5. Supporting faculty to take risks and use SL best practices This year we continued using the following strategies to help faculty use best practices:

Facilitating variety of faculty workshops: Orientation to SL Active Learning Meets Community Engagement Integrating Experiential Reflection in the Classroom How to Begin Doing K-12 Outreach: The Basics 10/19

Facilitating faculty learning communities each semester Providing mentoring opportunities Connecting faculty with community partners (see section “Faculty and Community Partnership

Support”) Preparing faculty to support students; supporting faculty and students in the classroom (see

section “Classroom Support”) Checking in with all new SL faculty monthly to offer support, then debriefing individually with

them to review their original plans and discuss  improvements for next time

Assessment and future plans: Service-Learning assessed their support of faculty (including faculty recruitment, development, and support) by examining:

Participation: 22 new faculty teaching with SL, and 66 returned;  33 new SL courses were added Satisfaction: survey of faculty participants in FLC(evaluation score = 3.8/4.0 ) Participant learning/Impact on teaching practices: SL reviewed faculty SL planning documents

using specific criteria-- all applications were approved; Impact on teaching practices/impact on students (students’ self report from class evaluations)

The aggregate response rate was 58% of integrated classes •       79% (FY17) of students reported that their instructor integrated SL in a way that

enhanced their understanding of course content •       84% (FY17) of students reported that their instructor integrated SL in a way that

increased their awareness of community needs •       79% (FY17) of students reported they would recommend that the instructor

continue to use SL in this course. Institutional impact:

45% of all graduating seniors had taken a SL class.

Future Plans:  Feedback indicates that SL staff provide excellent and valuable services and resources to faculty. However, we would like make critical resources more easily accessible and usable to faculty,

3

and increase faculty’s use of these tools and best practices. Next year we will focus more on curating and customizing resources for particular faculty, and sharing them “just in time.” We may also pilot new strategies for getting resources in the hands of target faculty and getting faculty to use these practices. Perhaps this would involve showcasing and/or modeling resources via workshops, classroom reflection activities, communities of practices, peer classroom visits, reaching out to individuals, or customizing the newsletter). In addition, SL staff would like to deepen SL’s impact on students and the community by infusing into faculty practices new tools that promote Inclusive Excellence and critical pedagogy. Lastly, SL staff will continue working with faculty “connectors” to connect the dots among the various BSU social impact programs.

Service-Learning Faculty Fellows SL staff facilitated “Service-Learning Faculty Fellows”  learning communities (one each semester). The SL FLC is designed for faculty who have taught a SL class and who want to deepen their knowledge, improve their practice, and strengthen their SL outcomes. There are six 90 minute weekly sessions that run weekly, ending with individual debriefings with the SL Director.  This year three faculty participated, and several more expressed interest but could not fit it in their schedule.

Assessment and future plans: This year all CTL FLCs assessed outcomes on increases in scholarly teaching, reflective practice, boundary pushing/risk taking, and effectiveness of the deliverable.

Regarding scholarly teaching: There is a wide range of levels of investment; so much depends on the instructor's expectations of themselves for the depth of effort to invest in improving teaching.

Regarding reflective practices: SL FLC participants did “exit card” reflections after each session; these reflections suggested that all participants found valuable ways to apply new material. Returning the exit cards to the instructors at the end of the session helped them draft their final reflection. All final reflections demonstrated exemplary reflective practices.

Regarding boundary pushing/risk taking: Most of the instructors had already taken the big risk (integrating SL in the first place); the FLC validated their choice to continue their initial risk taking; the FLC also helped them refine their SL strategies and make changes around the edges.

Regarding the deliverable: the final reflection was very effective in assessing some of the FLC learning outcomes. However, for the second deliverable, the SL director allowed faculty too much liberty in deciding on their deliverable content, and when they would turn them in. Next time it will be less flexible.

Overall the SL FLC seemed very effective for building community (feedback and brainstorming), for helping faculty see the how others design and integrate SL, and for exposing faculty to SL best practices and background literature.

Community Partnership Development Summary 2017-2018:Community partnership development in Service-Learning is guided by two principles: community partners (CPs) are co-educators and service projects are reciprocal for CPs and faculty. In an effort to insure that these principles are being upheld, the Coordinator of Faculty and Community Partnerships (Anna Bailey, AB) follows an outreach plan for CPs that includes site visits, service project consultations, orientation support, newsletters, and mid and end of semester check-ins. AB also created an on-line “welcome kit” for new CPs that includes the CP handbook, orientation checklist, orientation handbook, and OrgSync Quickguide.  In 2017-2018, AB hired and trained a new GA, which increased the program’s capacity to connect with and support community partners. Site visits to community partners increased from (62) in 2016-2017 to (77 = 49AB + 28BH) in 2017-2018. The

4

current network of (72) CPs generated a total of over 120 on-database service projects in both fall and spring semester. Based on current staffing, in combination with capacity in the community, we are currently at the limit of the number of CP projects which can be supported by SL staff.

Community Partners 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Total number of community partners

83 79 60 72

SL projects – Summer ? 11 11 7

SL projects – Fall 95 125 128 122

SL projects – Spring 125 128 106 147

Site visits to CPs 40 45 62 77

Assessment:In SP 17, AB held a CP focus group, with 12 CPs in attendance. The CPs strongest feedback focused on a lack of communication between CPs and faculty. AB suggested a co-educator contract for faculty; CPs agreed and contributed to the design of the document. AB introduced the Co-Educator contract to faculty and CPs in FA 17 and SP18. The contract will be adjusted for FA 18, with added context for how the contract can shape communication between faculty and CPs and a new distribution platform - OrgSync.

AB also distributed the CP assessment survey in SP 17. The data was analyzed and presented to SL staff in FA 18. Communication between faculty and CPs will remain a focus in FY 18-19, as well as a new orientation protocol for community partners.

Faculty and Community Partner Support Facilitating partnerships between faculty and community organizations and designing mutually beneficial service projects is a foundational directive of the Service-Learning (SL) program. Faculty continue to rely on SL staff to recruit community partners (CPs), scope service projects and facilitate on-site meetings. At the same time, community partners turn to SL to connect with faculty, navigate semester timelines, and clarify service project expectations. Due to frequent turnover at community organizations and changes in instructor appointments, SL staff is a stabilizing and sustaining component of faculty-community partnership support. In 2017-2018, AB had (44) consultations with faculty about service projects and course design. She also created a toolkit for faculty to conduct and improve their outreach to community partners.

Future Plans:AB left the SLP in May, at which time Mike Stefancic (MS) took over the management of community partnership programs. After we fill the staff vacancy and resume a sustainable rhythm, MS plans to advance Community Partnerships by 1) finding on-ramps for faculty on the verge of using SL through supported partnerships, 2) building collaborative working partnerships between faculty/programs/depts. and community members, and 3) build partnership pathways that integrate various levels of campus support (Research, Work U, CWS, Athletics, Student Affairs (SS), Internship, advancement), and 4) collecting, documenting, and assessing community impact.

5

Student Support SLP continued to provide exceptional support to students in six areas: 1. In-classroom support (in collaborations with faculty), 2. Community embedded support by student leaders, 3. Consultations with individual students (via email and drop in), 4. Early outreach to incoming students, 5. Digital communication with students and faculty, and 6. Online project registration and tracking (OrgSync - see the OrgSync section for more details). Among these strategies we also cultivate a network of colleagues on campus that conduct similar work to promote a positive reputation of SL on campus.  In an effort gain further insights into the student experience, we continued to conduct the “SL Assessment Protocol” which we piloted in the previous year.

1. In-classroom support:  SL staff supported students in their classrooms in collaboration with Faculty in two specific ways: in-class presentations and reflection facilitation. Further discussion of this type of support is found in the following section: Classroom Support.

2. Community embedded support: 2 “SL2” student staff supported 46 Service-Learning students  Attended 39 community partner orientations

3. Student consultation: 59 separate in person students consultations

4. Early outreach:  Our continued focus on student success includes creating a positive image of service-learning in students’ minds before they encounter an SL class.  Staff reached out to students through:

Presentations:- New student orientations which were attended by 1,267 students and parents in

summer 2017. Tabling

- 5  afternoons on Quad handing out roughly 1,000 class lists- 2 Volunteer expos

Staff also partnered with SILC on the Volunteer Expo and Capitol Scholars to provide potential student with a positive view of SL

5. Digital Communication: SL staff provide access to digital resources at timely points of the semester through email newsletters to students and faculty. Messages to both stakeholders mirror one another in order to provide a multiple layers of support. In both newsletters, SL observed 74% open rate (up 2% from last year).

Assessment and Future Plans: This year we conducted a new class-based formative assessment “Semester Assessment Program” (SAP) modeled after the CTL’s MAP. We piloted it spring 2017 in one class to ascertain the impact of SL and assess how SL staff can better support students.  During the

6

2017-2018 school year 3 SAP we're conducted in classes in as many departments (SOC, SOCWRK, UF) and Colleges (COHS, COAS, UF). 92 students participated in the assessment which asked four qualitative questions about students' experience focused on what they learned, how their learning could be improved, impacts on their perspective, and what they could have done differently. Looking at the types of learning students had we found academic connections and perspective shifts comprising 82% of responses.  Perspective shifts from the SL experience resulted in 88% of respondents reporting one of eight themes (Awareness raising, Eye-opening, Deeper Understanding, Civic Duty, Disposition change, Career shift, Passion finding, or Entrepreneurship). The remaining 12% did not have any shift in perspective.

This aspect of programming will have a new staff member in Fall 2018 the direction of students support should take a deeper dive into students experience through focus groups to determine how their experience are resonating with their interests and skill development around empathy and perspective shifts.

Classroom Support 2017-2018 SummaryClassroom Support: SL staff support students in their classrooms in two specific ways: in-class presentations and reflection facilitation. These two strategies provide faculty and students with a continuum of support throughout the semester.

Classroom presentations: This year SL staff conducted 32 classroom presentations to orient students to service-learning logistics and benefits. These presentations help students connect with a staff member, address any immediate concerns, and clarify next steps.

Reflection facilitation: Demand for in-class reflections remains high, with 18 facilitated reflections completed. These reflections combine a series of active learning strategies to facilitate discussion based reflective thought.

Assessment and Future Plans: The SL team offered 2 more reflections this year than last. Assessing the impact on students learning the SLP conducted 18 in class reflections to better facilitate students' learning. Out of 310 students, 88% reported that these reflections helped make connections between their SL and what they were learning. A smaller subset of classes assessed in the spring semester almost all (99%) reported that the in-class reflections helped them see a perspective other than their own. The new focus on perspective shifts opens up possibilities in not only thinking about how to prepare students but also how students perspective shifted. The new Student Support Coordinator should consider this information when designing new in classroom support services that meet the needs of faculty.

Community Work-Study 2017-2018 Summary

Community Work-Study: The SLP manages the Community Work-Study (CWS) program, an employment program that connects work-study students to off-campus jobs. Work-study students are employed by community partners to participate in capacity building activities that mutually benefit both partners and students. This year SL staff:

7

a. Hired 16 CWS students and provided them with meaningful employment at 9 non-profit organizations and schools

b. Facilitated 3 professional development workshops on time management, using LinkedIn, and resume building

c. Applied for a grant through AmeriCorps to expand Bronco Tutor and SL2 programming

For the Community Work-Study program, the SLP spent ~$39,000 (an increase of $3,000 from last year). We received many applicants for our positions, but several applicants did not have a work-study award and some community partners lacked the capacity to host a work-study student.

Assessment and Future Plans

Since work-study funds are now allocated per student instead of per department, several of our positions remained unfilled. In the fall, Mike and Hayley applied for an AmeriCorps Grant in order to increase funding for the Bronco Tutor and the Service-Learning Student Leader (SL2) components of the Community Work-Study program. As of June 2018, AmeriCorps grant funding has not been allocated, but recruiting and interviewing efforts have already begun. If granted, AmeriCorps funding would allow for Mike and Hayley to hire ~7 non work-study students for Bronco Tutors positions, increasing the available pool of applicants. Additionally, Bronco Tutors and SL2s would be eligible for $1200-1500 AmeriCorps awards contingent upon their completion of 300 hours of service; an hourly wage will be allocated to each student employee as well. Regarding other community assistant positions, the CWS program will experiment with pairing students with community partners after students apply and express areas of interest, a shift from the traditional job board model used in years prior.

A new funding source through an AmeriCorps grant is expected to be recieve in July 2018. With this grant the CWS program will have funding and scholarships for 15 students to work in the community around literacy tutoring in elementary schools and volunteer management to increase community partner capacity. The grant will total $49,000 which will also fund additional part-time student administrative support for the program. As part of the grant additional metrics will be used to measure the impact of tutoring and volunteer recruitment.

Service-Learning Grants

The SL Program granted 3 mini-grants: $1,000 STEM faculty incentive grants to faculty who are teaching STEM SL for the first time

(from Provost funds earmarked to promote STEM SL) - Claire Xiong-MSE, $600 materials grant for supplies - Ann Delaney-ENGR $100 honorarium to pay expert facilitator on workshop on trauma and learning to SL faculty

and students who work with Project SHINE (teaching elder refugees)

The SL Program also channeled $12,000 of donated funds to the Boise State Writing Project to support K-12 teacher service-learning mentoring program.

Service-Learning Department and College Outreach - 1

8

This year the SL Director pursued campus-wide partnerships to 1) cultivate a supportive campus climate for community-engaged teaching and learning, and 2) build synergy and promote community engagement efforts that complement and build on each other. As part of this, she collaborated with the Provost’s office, and the School of Public Service dean, and other campus leaders to develop strategies to advance community engagement at Boise State University at the highest levels. The SL Director facilitated this group to advanced the following goals: - retaining our Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement, -  embracing Boise State's role as an "Anchor Institution" in the community, and working collectively across campus to increase our community impact.

The SL Director also cultivated partnerships with department chairs and the COAS dean by presenting to COAS chairs about how to expand and market experiential learning in their departments -- a priority expressed by the university president and Provost. Through this presentation, the SL Director connected SL to campus priorities, including “Beyond the Major,” the use of high impact practices, and career readiness.

The SL Director continued to reach out and meet with other department and campus leaders, including meeting with lead faculty in programs such as the the Marilyn Shuler Human Rights Initiative, the Ethos project, Masters of Public Administration, Bridge to Career, Refugee Studies, Urban Studies, and Global Studies to:1) brainstorm ways SL could help them achieve their goals,2) help them explore a curriculum-wide perspective on integrating service-learning,  3) strengthen their existing community-engaged experiential learning offerings, and 4) build synergy among programs, and 5) align programs with student development theory and SL best practices.These efforts also helped to strengthen awareness of SL, expand the use of SL, and cultivate support for SL faculty efforts within departments. This promotes SL sustainability and increases capacity of SLP to reach new departments. Specific consultations and achievement are listed in the table below.

Department- FY16 Nature of Consultation

MPA, URBANSTUDIES, GLOBAL STUDIES, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE

SL staff made new inroads and built working relationships with key faculty leaders of these community-focused programs in the School of Public Service: Environmental Studies, Urban Studies, and Global Studies. SL staff brought the Urban Studies director into the SL Faculty Fellows Program, which deepened her knowledge, skills, and commitment to SL. SL Director met regularly with the Dean of SPS to build potential collaborations.

REFUGEE STUDIES MINOR

In collaboration with the Refugee Studies Minor, the SLP initiated, convened, and coordinated an interdisciplinary faculty/community initiative to help faculty and students be successful when collaborating with refugee community. The results include: - SLP hosted a series of faculty development events focused on refugees, including a faculty, workshop, book group, and speaker); distributed new guidelines for collaborating and building assignments with refugees; hosted a campus-wide refugee speaker with 130+ attendees; published an Update article with teaching tips, and revised refugee-related web resources. We also co-hosted and promoted other refugee-related events on campus, including the statewide conference on refugees,

9

and quarterly meetings between campus leaders and refugee agency heads. In addition, we convened refugee agency staff to discuss new SL project ideas together, and consulted with other campuses and agencies in refugee-resettlement cities to expand our portfolio of refugee-oriented SL projects.

MGMT/ NONPROF MINOR SL director collaborated with COBE's Dept of Management chair and lead faculty to co-coordinate the Nonprofit Minor, as well as mentor/advise the new Nonprofit Student Association (SLP’s goals are to promote SL in the NP minor, Dept of Management, and in COBE; support NP-oriented students; and develop pool of SL student employees/interns). This year Kara co-advised the new NP student association and mentored its new president. Kara continued spearheaded the marketing the Nonprofit Minor to students and target faculty directors, while recruiting students for the summer NP classes (they are SL classes). All NP classes integrated SL this year.

COLLEGE OF INNOVATION AND DESIGN/BRIDGE TO CAREER (B2C)

SL staff consulted with program directors, faculty teams, and individual faculty to integrate SL, expanding SL into new Bridge-to-Career (B2C) classes.

SOCIALWORK

SL staff support SW faculty and students in several ways: we actively manage 15 community partnerships that serve multiple SOCWRK courses, train the SW T.A. to support SL students, conduct classroom presentations regularly in four courses, manage online project registration and hour tracking, and check-in regularly with all new SOCWRK faculty. We began conversations about SW contributing additional funds to the SLP for this special support. This year collaborated with SW chair and faculty to co-host and promote a campus-wide refugee story telling event.

FOUNDATIONAL STUDIES (FSP); UF200

See “Campus Collaborations”

Assessment and future plans: SL staff assess our department outreach by increases in faculty participation and retention. This year we increased faculty participation of Bridge to Career Faculty, consulted with new faculty teaching with refugees, and continued supporting faculty leads in URBAN, GLOBAL, and NONPROF.  We will make additional efforts next year to support these SPS programs as they finalize their new curriculum.

Partnerships for Service-Learning in STEM

10

SL staff provide extra support to STEM faculty to help them integrate SL into their courses. These SL activities help retain STEM students, strengthen the STEM recruitment pipeline, and assist faculty with NSF grants STEM outreach activities. Specifically:

In collaboration with ISDI staff and STEM-ED faculty, the SL director convened and coordinated "STEM Outreach support" for faculty, including a workshop, website of resources, and roundtable on assessing STEM outreach.

SL director had 20 consultations with STEM faculty, including faculty still considering SL. SL director supported 4 new STEM faculty to integrate SL into their courses, including assisting

them in coordinating new SL/STEM Outreach projects. Participated in NSF Career grant workshop to build relationships and get the word out about SL. Supported 3 new faculty with NSF Career Grants (the educational outreach component--

recruiting community partners, advising on SL course design, and providing literature reviews) Granted two $1,000 STEM faculty incentive grants to faculty who are teaching STEM SL for the

first time

The results were fruitful: 27 sections of STEM (16 STEM faculty) integrated SL. Assessment and Future Plans: Appreciative feedback from STEM faculty receiving individual assistance suggest that SL staff are hitting the mark with their support. Another NSF Career grant was awarded to a faculty member (Eric Jankowski) with whom SL staff helped design educational outreach. Next year SL staff will continue reaching out to STEM programs and STEM faculty. We will also refine and disseminate the STEM SL toolkit, and build new community partnerships that align with STEM classes. The SL Director will stay in touch with the COEN dean to offer support for the new vision for Intro to Engineering courses.

Partnerships to Support Civic Engagement in UF200

This year the SL Director participated on the Foundational Studies Program UF 200 committee; one of the goals is to discuss, identify, and support effective community engagement practices for UF200. Accomplishments this year include:

The SL director drafted a flexible framework based on the Kolb experiential learning cycle, which will be considered in FY19. This framework provides models for low-level community engagement that would align with UF200 learning goals.

The SL director assisted with the planning and facilitation of UF200 sessions on Human Rights/Civic Engagement. She participated in full day of UF200 faculty development, mostly focused on teaching "diversity".

SL staff co-hosted and promoted refugee speaker events designed, in part, for UF200 students (130+ student participated, but only a small percentage were from UF200 classes).

The SL staff continued to offered workshops targeting UF faculty, consulted with UF faculty when approached, and remained active in the UF200 community, with the goal of cultivating and sustaining a strong connection with UF instructors and FSP leaders, and supporting student civic engagement.

Assessment and Future Plans: This year the UF200 committee did not address or change how they guide faculty in community engagement, and has not yet evaluated results of a faculty survey. Next year the SL director will work closely with UF leaders and stakeholders. We will continue to advocate for intentional, pedagogically sound, and well supported community engagement.

11

Service-Learning Poster Exhibition: Faculty and Community Partner Mixer

The bi-annual SL Exhibition is a signature project and shining opportunity for students to showcase their SL achievements to other students, faculty, community partners, and campus leaders. It’s also a “mixer” opportunity for faculty and community partners to meet and discuss future SL projects.  This year we focused the fall semester event on recognizing students, and in spring included faculty and community partners. This year’s stats include:

131 posters were accepted and printed to be displayed at the exhibitions. Following the exhibition, the best-in-show posters, representing all colleges, were displayed

outside the Center for Teaching and Learning to highlight the diversity of work service-learning students accomplish from all of the colleges in one semester.

Assessment and Future PlansThis event continues to be very popular with participating students and faculty. The posters submitted represent a broad range of courses, and they showcase the diverse impacts SL has on students, faculty and community partners. Next year this event will be managed by a new staff member so no major changes are planned. We will continue to invite new campus collaborators (e.g. staff from advising, advancement, new student programs, and the career center) to increase their familiarity with and positive view of SL’s impact on students.

Campus Committee and Departmental Service Mike Stefancic and Judith Todd: OrgSync Steering Committee Kara Brascia: Nonprofit Minor Coordinator, Refugee Collaboration Team Coordinator

Professional Service

The SL staff values providing professional service outside of the campus community. The following is the recorded professional service performed by SL Staff:

SL Director (Kara Brascia) consulted with multiple campuses across the country on strategies for expanding SL. These campuses included Portland State University, Chaminade University of Honolulu, College of Southern Idaho, and University of the Pacific.

Kara Brascia is serving a term as a Statewide Commissioner on the Governor’s Commission for Community Service and Volunteerism (aka “Serve Idaho) to represent Idaho’s higher education institutions. In this role Kara served Conference Chair, Idaho’s statewide conference on service and volunteerism ("Serve Idaho Conference”)

SL Director (Kara Brascia) collaborated with community nonprofit leaders to host a campaign to promote community service and volunteerism, including a signature event in collaboration with Art in the Park.

Mike Stefancic volunteered at Snow School modeling experiential teaching to SL students and increase the program's capacity to host more students.

Mike Stefancic serves on the Energize Our Neighborhood steering committee as the Vista Neighborhood Board Member representative.

12

Anna Bailey represents Boise State on the Southwest Idaho Directors of Volunteer Services organization.

SL Staff

The Service-Learning Program (SLP) was served this year by Kara Brascia in the role of SLP Director, Mike Stefancic in the role of Assistant Director of Student Support, and Anna Bailey served as Coordinator of Faculty and Community Partnerships. Anna left her position in May 2018, so SLP will be supported by a temporary employee until the position is filled. Two Graduate Assistants supported special SLP projects: Community Work-study and STEM Service-Learning. Three student employees (each at 0.25 FTE) supported student programs (SL classroom support).

13

Table 1: Comprehensive Summary of S-L Programming

a.  Course Data2014-2015 2015-

20162016-2017 2017-2018

Total SL Courses 136 163 159 SP18 (77)+FA17 (74) +SU 17 (8) =159

Number of courses taught for the first time (new prep)

21 30 26 27

Departments offering SL courses 39 44 44 44

New Departments offering SL courses

4 7 3 1

Colleges offering SL courses 7 11(all) 11 (all) 11 (all)

b.  Service-Learning Faculty & Support

Faculty teaching SL courses 80 94 88 93

Faculty new to teaching SL courses 14 36 15 24

SL Faculty consultations (conducted by SL staff);

Unique faculty Unique faculty

Total consultations(includes 17 with UF)

Site visits (SL staff take faculty to CPs)

51

5117210

186

Not specified

222

~75 Unique faculty

165 (not including Anna’s before she left)

c.  Community Partners 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total number of community partners 83 79 60 72

SL projects – Summer ? 11 11 7

SL projects – Fall 95 125 128 122

SL projects – Spring 125 128 106 147

Site visits to CPs 40 45 62 77

14

d.  SL Students 2014-2015 2015-2016

2016-2017 2017-2018

Number of SL students 2,485 3,004 2,638 2,830

Total hours of service 59,227 78,839 63,780 72,405

Number of classroom visits for orientation or reflection

56 63 72

e. Community Work-Study 2014-2015 2015-2016

2016-2017 2017-2018

Total Community Work-Study funded students

46 46 15 16

  Students placed in Family Literacy Program

16 20 4 7

Students placed in Community Work Study fieldwork

15 17 8 8

Students placed as SL2 to coordinate SLers at CPs

4 4 3 3

Number of agencies and schools partnered with FLP and CWS

21 22 12 10

f. Grant funds and Donations Secured

($60,000)+$80K VISTAx2

15