Chapter 1 Impact of Community Engagement in Higher Education

1
Chapter 1
Impact of Community
Engagement in
Higher Education
Michelle D. Huddleston
Tennessee Technological University, USA
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of community engagement on
college students. It is an exploratory study investigating the attitudes and perceived
impact of college students having participated in CE, measuring how effective CE
is and how well these goals are met on a college campus. Mainly examined is the
relationship between impact and student participation in CE. The amount of con-
nectivity a student feels to the community will play a role in their continued college
career. General civic engagement attitudes of respondents are assessed. Online
surveys with demographic, Likert scale and open-ended questions are administered
to give students the opportunity to put their experiences into their own words. Based
on previous research in the area, researchers expect that students will gain employ-
able attributes from their participation in CE during college as well as will report
high impact and connectivity to the university and the community.
Copyright © 2016. IGI Global. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0874-8.ch001
Copyright ©2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Crosby, C., & Brockmeier, F. (Eds.). (2016). Student experiences and educational outcomes in community engagement for the 21st century. IGI Global.
Created from ucsi-ebooks on 2024-04-26 08:08:45.
Impact of Community Engagement in Higher Education
INTRODUCTION
Community engagement is growing amongst educators across the nation, even the
globe. As community engagement programs are being implemented and carried out
through educational institutions, it is important to assess the impact of these pro-
grams, contributing to the prevalent impact community engagement is making. This
chapter will assess the impact of community engagement on a scholarship program
at one university. Programs similar to the one studied in the present research can be
tested in any educational setting. Measurable outcomes become more important as
institutions across the globe reassess funding for innovative teaching.
One objective of this chapter is to demonstrate, based on previous research, the
anticipated benefits and impact community engagement can have on college stu-
dents. A second objective is to assess basic attitudes toward community engagement
after having participated as part of a university program. A third objective of this
chapter is to assess perceived impact on college students after having participated
in community engagement as part of their college experience. And lastly, a fourth
objective is to identify trends that may emerge during data assessment, further
explaining student responses, even displaying actual student quotes. The expected
outcomes are as follows: feeling they have gained employable attributes during
their experience, having gained hands-on experience, having felt more connected
to the university and to the community and other such trends emerging from their
reflective responses to a survey.
BACKGROUND
The term community engagement is becoming more widely used across college cam-
puses because it encompasses all forms of service individuals may become engaged
in as college students. It also gives credibility to the level of assistance with which
college students can provide to the community, encouraging them to put the skills
to use that they are learning within their disciplines. The terms community service
and service learning, although often mistaken one for the other, each imply some
form of community engagement project or program involvement. Service learning
more clearly identifies community engagement as part of a course. Community
service does not require a student to be part of a service-based course. Students can
participate in community service as part of a club, on their own, as extra credit, or
for any number of reasons. Whether engaging in community outreach as part of a
course or outside of a course, the term community engagement still applies. It is
an umbrella phrase, if you will, under which both service learning and community
service fall. This section will compile a full understanding of each concept in order
to further investigate the impact community engagement, as a whole, has on a col-

lege campus.
Community Service
Through programs such as AmeriCorps and Senior Corps, The Corporation for
National and Community Service facilitates volunteerism across the nation. They
fund programs, train volunteers, award college campuses for empowering students
to serve, and provide opportunities for people from all walks of life to actively
improve the lives of their fellow Americans. Their mission is “to improve lives,
strengthen communities and foster civic engagement through service and volun-
teering” (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2015). This mission is
how one may even define community service, volunteerism, simply meeting a need
in the community or solving a social problem. For a college campus, “meaningful,
measureable outcomes in the communities they serve” should be added (Corpora-
tion for National and Community Service, 2015).
Service Learning
Campus Compact is a program that works to create and sustain service learning
programs and centers on college campuses in America. “Service-learning incor-
porates community work into the curriculum, giving students real-world learning
experiences that enhance their academic learning while providing a tangible benefit
for the community” (Compact, 2014). The idea is that when professors and instruc-
tors get students out of their college classrooms and into the community, allowing
them to gain hands-on experience within their field of study, they will better retain
the information, have better insight into the topic, and will be less likely to forget
what they have learned. Bethel University (2014) compiled 5 important character-
istics of service learning; Community Service, Reciprocity, Flexibility, Reflection,
Assessment.
Community Engagement
The Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, (2013), defines commu-

nity engagement as “the collaboration between institutions of higher education and

their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually
beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and
reciprocity. The purpose of community engagement is the partnership of college
and university knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sectors
to enrich scholarship, research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching
and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and
civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public
good”. Table 2 in the Appendix shows 8 characteristics of quality community en-
gagement; Clear Academic and Community Change Goals, Adequate Preparation
in Content Area and Grounding in the Community, Appropriate Methods: Rigor
and Community Engagement, Significant Results: Impact on the Field and the
Community, Effective Presentation/Dissemination to Academic and Community
Audiences, Reflective Critique: Lessons Learned to Improve the Scholarship and
Community Engagement, Leadership and Personal Contribution, and Consistently
Ethical Behavior: Socially Responsible Conduct of Research and Teaching.
The present researcher first examined studies that had already been done concern-
ing community engagement on college campuses and measurable impact having
derived from such studies. The purpose was to consider what outcomes to expect
from the current study and to learn best practices in developing the appropriate as-
sessment plans in order to measure perceived impact. Gathering a broad range of
research, the author was able to develop a comprehensive background before delving
into the impact of the current programmatic study of a Tennessee Tech University
program involving community engagement.
In similar studies as the present one, previous researchers have found that students
often show an enhanced civic responsibility, a greater awareness of civic issues,
a stronger connection and commitment to the community, personal commitment
to a certain field of study, enhancement in skills and understanding of their field
of study and an enhancement in personal, social and communicative skills after
participating in different service-learning programs or projects. Service initiatives
are practiced on college campuses to achieve these very results in individuals who
participate. According to the review of the literature, as discussed in more detail
below, the implementation of such service initiatives has grown significantly on
college campuses in the past 5-10 years. This is why there are now 34 states in
the country that have implemented a campus compact; Tennessee is one of them.
Tennessee Campus Compact was implemented in 2007 and now has more than 30
member institutions (Tennessee Campus Compact, 2014).
With two very different public institutions as the research focus, the University
of New Hampshire and the University of Southern Indiana, the authors suggested
student engagement, as encouraged by the institution, become connected to the
institutions accreditation. These were two of the first institutions to adopt this idea.
They are also distinctly different from each other, both in size and organizational
structure, as well as supervision of student engagement. Thus the reasons the authors
thought they would make good sources of research. Onsite reviews and interviews
were conducted to assess the impact. They found that a distinct connection to the
institution’s strategic plan and, connectedly, the process for accreditation were
key strategies for the advancement of community engagement on each campus. In

achieving these goals, the researchers found that both institutions had built strong
community connections for supporting the engagement efforts of their students as
well as included student engagement in faculty professional development training.
A couple other commonalities that potentially led to successfully advancing com-
munity engagement on these campuses were faculty collaborations on projects as
well as faculty hired solely (and sometimes briefly) for the purpose of training
novice faculty on community engagement (Abrams, Sandmann, & Williams, 2009).
Cook, Campbell, and Kopp (2013) identified community engagement that is
“high level” and “student-focused” as service learning in higher education. Ser-
vice Learning has become a major part of most universities across the nation and
is growing more important each year. The Carnegie Foundation for Advancement
of Teaching presented the Community Engagement Classification for the first time
in 2010. This demonstrates the growth of community engagement in higher edu-
cation. Classified institutions had to showcase how institutionalized community
engagement is on their respective campuses. These authors provided an analysis
of the SBI (Small Business Institute) Program Model and the STC (Student Team
Consulting) Program Model for community engagement in higher education along
with the recommendation that campuses use it to better institutionalize and advance
student community engagement as well as impose better impact for students, faculty
members, the university, and community partnering agencies. The idea behind the
combination of these models was that the faculty be well trained in the area as well
as consulting with and being consulted by a team of students.
Through interviews of faculty at a highly community engaged university (n=17),
Cutforth, Fretz, Nicotera, and Thompson (2011) assessed how institutional support
(internal funds) for community engagement impacted the regulation of community
engagement campus-wide. Acknowledging that although there are many external
monetary grants available for community engagement programs, a certain level
of systematic regulation is necessary for advancing community engagement and
assuring it is institutionalized. At the university studied, an internal fund had been
implemented to support service learning and community engagement initiatives.
Interviews were done with recipients of such funds assessing the motivation, com-
munity issues addressed, challenges and accomplishments of projects, perceived
impact on teaching, and how the establishment of the funds may have impacted their
thoughts on using community engagement in their courses. Authors acknowledged

one of the themes having emerged from their assessment was student learning and
development and that there was plenty of literature available on that topic. Therefore
they focused their study on the other themes which had less recognition through
research; development of community partner capacity, expanded professional roles
(faculty and staff involved), and community engagement conundrum. Recipients
reported that seeing their projects from beginning to end was a catalyst for them
to “re-envision their roles as instructors, researchers, and members of an engaged
campus community” (Cutforth, et. al, 2011).
Researcher, Jessica Jung (2011), interviewed students from 2 universities,
Newcastle University and Northumbria University, in the UK that collaborated on
a community engagement system for their students to use work/field experience in
their local communities as academic credit. This collaboration has been in place since
1993. The expectation, and defined results of this research, is that students develop
employable skills that enhance their future employment prospects while accomplish-
ing their civic duties as citizens, as well as strengthening the community-university
connection. They found that even students participating in the interviews gained
employable skills in the process of complying with the assessment interviews. In
fact, these results were listed in Newcastle University’s recent “commendation for
good practice in developing employability as part of their recent institutional audit,
as well as the emphasis on developing strong relationships between the University
and its local community in the recent Engagement Strategy” (Jung, 2011).
While many studies on community engagement focus on the development and
impact on the student, Leisey, Holton, and Davey, (2012) focused on the impact
of university (faculty, staff, administration) and community partners (non-profit
agencies and non-profit programs). Researchers assessed grants funded by Virginia
Commonwealth University for the purpose of community-university engagement.
They surveyed both universities and community participants of projects having
been funded, n= 37 (21 faculty and 16 community partners). Surveys consisted
of questions pertaining to outcomes, scholarships, strengthening of partnerships,
collaborative relationships, as well as impact of grant funding on leveraging extra
financial support. Researchers assessed that more than 80% of the projects met most
or all project goals. It was reported by faculty partners and community partners alike
that the reason for the success was the collaboration, commitment from all parties,
and the partner relationships built that made the projects successful; “additional
resources” was another reason for success, listed by community partners. Unexpect-
edly they found an increase in ability to provide service(s). Some projects led to
grant applications, more efficient and more economical ways to provide services,
therefore allowing more services. Because of the positive experiences with these
projects, all community partners surveyed reported an interest in future projects with
VCU faculty. Another theme that was assessed and reported by both partners was
the value to students and impact on students’ professional development. Everyone
involved expected as much.
Millican and Bourner (2011) provided a comparative study from different
programs across the nation over the past 10 years. They searched for commonali-
ties and trends in student-community engagement as perceived from a university
perspective. They concluded that higher education institutions are now expected
to produce well-rounded, critically thinking, real-world problem solving citizens;
therefore they are expected to provide students with opportunities to gain these
attributes through community engagement. Also expected is for students to gain
interdisciplinary knowledge while in college to better prepare them for the future
of the every-changing world we live in.
Roberts’s and McNeese’s study (2010), n=190, assessed the level of involve-
ment and engagement of students from all educational origins; indigenous students,
transfer students, including those students from community colleges. With a 10%
response rate of graduating students from this southern United States public uni-
versity, researchers found a significant statistical difference in the indigenous group
as opposed to the transfer groups. They reported a higher level of student involve-
ment. While the statistical difference between transfers from other 4 year universi-
ties and community colleges was not a significant enough a difference, there was
a slightly higher involvement from the transfer students from community colleges
than those from other 4 year universities. The researchers suggested implementing
student engagement programs tailored to transfer students that will encourage their
involvement on a higher level.
Researchers sought to investigate changes in attitudes toward community en-
gagement as well as perceived impact after having participated through different
service projects or programs. Using a “Community Service Attitude Scale”, one
2007 study (Bauer, Moskal & Gosink, 2007) examined the difference in attitudes
of faculty and students, males and females, as well as older and younger students
on a college campus. The sample was taken from engineering students (n=78) and
faculty (n=35) at the Colorado School of Mines. As far as awareness and empathy,
actions and ability, and connectedness, faculty at this university showed higher levels
of responsibility than did students. In these same areas, not much difference was
found in males and females, although a slightly higher awareness level was found
in females. In these same areas, age did not play a significant role in the different
attitudes. The ones over 20 years of age, as opposed to the ones under 20 years of
age, displayed a slightly higher level of seriousness about community service, but
still not of large significance. Overall findings were that faculty members viewed
community service in a more positive way than did students at the Colorado School
of Mines. However, this was not a study done after actual participation in community
engagement; it was an overall attitude analysis on community service. These faculty

members hold the key in their hands to raise the student attitudes toward community
service by implementing a service component within their courses. An even more
interesting study would be to examine these same students’ attitudes after having
them participate in a service project.
An exploratory study was done (n=14) to examine the benefits and impact of
civic engagement on Asian American college students in a large mid-western city,
10 women and 4 men ranging in age from 18-22 (Chan, 2011). While positive out-
comes were assessed, highlighting social and academic benefits from civic engage-
ment among these students after having participated in community engagement, the
research identified ways to better prepare and support civic engagement for Asian
American students. Researchers found that understanding cultural and identity gaps
will help to better facilitate civic engagement for Asian American students. This will
minimize misunderstandings and tensions that may be inevitable in planning and
executing projects. Better explaining civic engagement in ways that are understand-
able to all will help increase impact amongst Asian American participants as well.
The purpose of another study examined (Haddad, Ryan, Coover, Begley, &
Tilleman, 2012) was to assess the confidence and ability of pharmacy students
participating in community engagement that allowed them to put into practice what
they were learning, but in a non-traditional setting. This was assessed through pre
and post surveys called the APPE (Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience). The
idea was to not only to provide field experience for the students in an educational
setting, but to also provide service to underserved individuals in “at risk” areas while
building more culturally competent students who will be going into the healthcare
profession. There was an increase in all items from the pre survey to the post survey.
This fared positive results in the confidence and the abilities of the students having
participated (n=24). The items with the most significant changes from beginning
to end were the items specific to community-based service and education.
Through reflective writings of the Canadian students involved in this dual
language project, the researcher (Roessingh, 2012) found 3 themes that emerged
from their impact assessment; importance of adults present in small group work,
centralized vocabulary/language, driving instructional planning through both re-
search and theory. The students worked with kindergarten and first grade students
from a local charter school, Almadina Lanuage Charter Academy, which had been
learning the English language. The students from this school spoke many different
languages such as Arabic, Kurdish and Urdu. While the researcher did not disclose
the amount of college student participants within this study, rather mentioned that
the community partner had an average of 15 students per class.
The comprehensive background displayed here reflects on studies done across
the nation and internationally. It reflects on impact studies as well as learning out-
comes from student engagement. The background includes studies done through 4
year universities as well as community colleges and trade schools. Students of dif-
ferent racial/ethnic, social, economic and educational backgrounds are represented
in the related review of previous literature. Service learning programs as well as
community service programs are examined in the background review for the present
study. Also included in the background study is university strategic planning that
involves community engagement as related to funding for such programs. The array
of inclusion in this review is to provide a multi-faceted investigation into community
engagement programs on college campus, the outcomes, impact and the assemblage
of best practices having come from previous studies.
MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER
Tennessee Tech University institutionalized a University Service Center: A Center

for Service Learning and Civic Engagement in April of 2008 with the objectives to
help students, faculty and administration build the connections between community
needs and learning experiences for students across disciplines as well as to grow
community engagement across the campus building a strong reciprocal relationship
with the community. They wrote and received a grant to obtain an AmeriCorps
VISTA Member, trained in community engagement and service learning, to be
stationed on the campus in order to carry out these objectives. Upon establishment
of the service center, one of the first things the university did was build a col-
laboration between an already existing scholarship program, through the Office of
Financial Aid, and the University Service Center, assigning 100-150 scholarship
students each year to work through the service center as opposed to other locations
across campus where they had previously been assigning these students to fulfill
their scholarship requirements.
Community Engagement Collaboration Program
Most universities, as recruitment efforts, have an academic scholarship for high

school students entering college having earned a 26 or higher ACT score, having
graduated with a 3.5 GPA or higher, and having registered for full-time courses at the
university. In order to uphold the scholarship requirements, students must maintain
a 3.0 GPA throughout their college careers, remain at full-time status each semester,
as well as serve 25-75 hours at the university or in the community. The amount of
community engagement hours each student must serve is determined based on the
dollar amount of their scholarship. Some receive a $5000 scholarship and some
receive a $1000 scholarship. The dollar amount of their scholarship is determined

by their ACT scores entering college.
Prior to the establishment of the University Service Center, the service require-
ment for this scholarship program was to be provided to the university, similar to
the “federal work study” program most universities have. However, as an attempt to
get more students involved in community engagement, the administration decided
to allow these students to serve their hours in the community, addressing the social
issues around them. One hundred to one hundred and fifty academic scholarship
students now report to the service center for advisement on how to best utilize
their community engagement hours for their scholarship. They are advised by the
service center’s staff based on their career paths, majors, and professional interests,
allowing them to gain real-world problem solving skills as well as hands-on experi-
ence within their fields of study. It is the responsibility of the community partners,
mostly non-profit community organizations, to provide a learning experience for the
students and opportunities for them to make meaningful contributions within their
organizations. Once the program was fully established and more strongly employed,
an assessment plan was implemented to determine if the program was accomplishing
the objectives it was designed to accomplish from the beginning. Annual surveys
of first year students in the program would be conducted, annual surveys of the
community partners would be conducted, and annual surveys of faculty would be
conducted. For the present research, the student attitudes and perceived impact are
analyzed and reported.
Students in this program, as mentioned above, are advised by a staff of trained
individuals in community engagement to make choices that will best benefit them in
their career paths, but the ultimate decision is the students’. They design their own
service experience. Some students choose to serve their community engagement
hours doing multiple random projects such as 5k fundraiser events for specific com-
munity partners or community-wide back to school supplies giveaways or banquets
honoring parents of special needs kids, and so on. Other students choose an organi-
zation that will provide them opportunities to use the skills they gain in college to
create processes, databases and/or programs these non-profits will use well beyond
the time the student is with them. Both options allow students to network and build
relationships that will last beyond their college careers. Students who commit to
volunteering consistently with one organization seem to exhibit stronger ties to the
work, and often times, serve more hours than the scholarship requires.
Community engagement as part of this scholarship program, one student directly
reported to the service center, helped determine his/her choice in majors. The par-
ticipant came into college a nursing major and served community engagement hours
for the scholarship program at a community medical clinic. The student realized that
he/she did not do well at the sight of blood and other bodily fluids. That student, a
2009 first year student, graduated and is now a secondary education teacher. Another
student, whose responses are represented in the current study, served some of their
community engagement hours with a local homeless shelter. The organization had
40+ years of intakes on index cards and had never put together any sort of mecha-
nized system for intakes or to even archive their previous residents having receiving
services from them. The student, a computer science major, built a database for
10
them to more effectively archive this data as well as allow them to get rid of their
index card intake system and computerize the whole process, allowing functions
for encompassing pictures of current and previous residents as well. This student
also helped the organization improve their website.
Examples of Service Performed by Students

Represented in the Current Study
• Collecting coats for a local program called Quawana’s Coats through an

organization called One Warm Coat. Students in this community engage-
ment/scholarship program collected more than 500 items for this cause. In
October of every year now, students in this program collect coats as a Make
a Difference effort. The last Saturday of October has been deemed National
Make a Difference Day and this is the day, each year, the coats and other
winter wear are given away in the community of Cookeville, TN where the
university is located. Families come and “shop” for the coats of their choice.
Students help people try on coats and choose the right ones, serve hamburg-
ers and hot dogs, and have now begun giving out free books as well.
• Collecting and distributing books to children in the Putnam County Pre K
classrooms, the county Tennessee Tech University is located in. The Pre K
program is an educational platform for children from low-income families,
giving them the opportunity to build skills necessary for entering kindergar-
ten. Many of these families are unable to afford many luxuries such as books.
Each year the students in this program head up efforts to collect books and
then build teams to go out into the schools and distribute them. Not only do
they take books with them to the schools, but they create a little class that
normally includes someone dressing in a character, someone doing a shapes/
colors chart with them as well as someone reading to the kids and making
introductions.
• Collecting and distributing homeless backpacks through the Salvation Army
in Nashville, TN where there is a much larger homeless population. The
backpacks include items such as combs, baby wipes and other toiletries, note
pads and pens, small blankets, socks, protein bars and etc.
• The academic year of 2013/2014 some students in this community engage-
ment/scholarship program helped during the implementation process of

building a campus food pantry, which is currently successful and staffed with
students from this program. Students helped clean the space, helped collect
the food and participate in fundraisers, they stocked shelves, searched expira-
tion dates, made trips to the grocery store, helped set up the distribution plan
and additional tasks involved in starting a food pantry.
11
While some students participated in projects such as those listed above, others
participated in projects like the high school state championship football games
our university hosts each year. They would sell tickets, take tickets, sell programs,
usher parking and etc. These are not typically “feel-good” events volunteers walk
away from really feeling like they have made a difference in someone’s lives. But
in fact, this event brings in millions in revenue to the Cookeville community. It is
not something tangible that they can see. This differentiation can sometimes set the
stage for how students perceive, not only the impact they feel from their experiences,
but also the impact they made through their experiences.
Research Framework
Each year the first year students, after participating in community engagement for
the first year of their college careers through the collaboration with the service
center and financial aid for their scholarship program, are surveyed to determine
the impact and their basic attitudes toward service and community engagement. It
also assesses their satisfaction with the program in general. For the purpose of this
present study, we will look at their basic attitudes toward community engagement,
perceived impact on the participating students and then identify trends that may
emerge from the open-ended questions asked in the online survey shown in Table
1 in the Appendix. It is important to mention that the survey was designed in a way
to maintain anonymity of respondents. Submission of the online survey is implied
consent for participation. While there was not a baseline to assess changes in attitudes
and perceived impact of participants, which would have added significance to the
present study, the researcher will begin to look at changes over time in incoming
students and their attitudes to community engagement and perceived impact they
made on the community after participation.
Approximately 90 students who entered the scholarship/community engagement
collaborative program in fall of 2013 completed the online survey spring of 2014.
The demographic responses show that, of the 90 respondents, 56% were female and
44% were male. It determined that their choices in majors were wide-ranging across
the board. Aside from gender and choices of majors, there were no other differen-
tiating variables or demographic factors. All students were between the ages of 18
and 22, as expected. All students were Caucasian (except for one Asian-American).
Given the sample (n=90), online surveys were conducted; it consisted of multiple
choice questions, Likert scale questions, and open-ended questions. This gave the
students the opportunity to put their community engagement experiences into their
own words while allowing the researcher to assess perceived impact on students
based on their unique responses.
12
The present study examines the impact of community engagement on college

students at one university, more specifically, perceived skills and qualities gained
during their experiences, connectedness, and sense of civic duty gained during
their experiences. These are expected results from participation in such civic activ-
ity in any individual (Loeb, 2010). Based on experiences of authors such as Loeb,
who have been involved in many community engagement movements throughout
history and interviewed others who were trend setters for community engagement,
the hypothesis is that students will recognize and acknowledge a gain in life skills
and hands-on experience that will further them in their career goals, gain a higher
sense of civic duty, and become more connected to the community as result of their
experiences in community engagement encouraged through their scholarship pro-
gram. This hypothesis is also based on findings in the background research, showing
results of university administration supporting community engagement from the
top, impacting student outcomes at the institutions where community engagement
is used as a high impact practice and implemented from a higher level, such as this
program at Tennessee Tech University. It is also based on student perceptions that
came out of similar studies done after participation in community engagement at
other universities and colleges in the background review.
Results
In examining the basic attitudes of these students and the perceived impact com-
munity engagement made on the 90 participating students, the present researcher
discusses emergent trends. The results are displayed accordingly. Responses to the
Likert Scale statements aided in the assessment of overall student attitudes about
civic duty, community needs and possible impact they feel can be made by college
students. Quotes from students’ open-ended survey responses are also used in pre-
senting the results, in which case the researcher may refer to certain projects, as that
is how the surveys were conducted (on an individual basis – each student having
had their unique experiences). Responses are coded and displayed in percentages.
First looked at is the basic attitudes of the participants from the community
engagement/scholarship program. These attitudes are analyzed based on the Likert-
scale agreement/disagreement level responses to 3 specific statements on the survey
each participant submitted. Statements are as follows: There are people who have
needs that are not being met; College student volunteers can help improve the local
community; I am responsible for doing something about improving the community.
Figures 1-3 indicate the responses to the attitudes assessment.
The majority of the respondents, as determined by the results charts, agreed that
there are people with needs not being met, as shown in Figure 1; 1% Strongly Dis-
agreed, 0% Disagreed, 9% had No Opinion on this statement, 36% Agreed and 44%
13
Figure 1. There are people who have needs that are not being met.
Source: TTU, 2015.
Figure 2. College student volunteers can help improve the local community.
Source: TTU, 2015.
Strongly Agrees. The majority agreed, also, that college students can improve the
community as shown in Figure 2; 1% Strongly Disagreed, 1% Disagreed, 4% had
No Opinion on this statement, 32% Agreed and 52% strongly Agreed. And most of
them felt the responsibility to act, as well, shown in Figure 3; 1% Strongly Disagreed,
2% Disagreed, 10% had No Opinion on this statement, 46% Agreed and 31%
Strongly Agreed. One respondent who strongly disagreed with each statement was
nearly excluded from the study during data analysis. The researcher initially feared
his/her answers were uncalculated and not sincere, as to not have taken the survey
seriously. However, upon further examination, the researcher found that the par-
14
Figure 3. I am responsible for doing something about improving the community.

Source: TTU, 2015.
ticipant’s responses were consistent across the board. He/she simply does not enjoy
community engagement, even commented that he/she does not like other people in
any capacity. Given the consistency in all responses, there was no reason to exclude
this particular respondent’s answers, no matter how insincere they may have ap-
peared upon first glance. Based on the overall assessment of the 90 responses, it
appears the general attitudes toward community engagement and civic responsibil-
ity are positive, as expected. The researcher, who will be continually involved in
assessment of the incoming scholarship students to this program plans to see how
these attitudes may change from one incoming group to another and over time.
Second looked at is the open-ended questions asked to each student, allowing
them to put their experiences into their own words and reflect even as they com-
pleted the survey. Result charts, as well as narrative enlightenments, and student
quotes demonstrate such. The researcher considered it important to include actual
statements by students. During analysis, the researcher assigned categories, based
on the types of open-ended responses, with which to label each chart item for the
following analysis. This rationale and findings are described underneath each chart.
Responses are coded and displayed in percentages for the purpose of these open-
ended questions. Each question allowed for reflective essay-style responses, unlike
the definitive Likert-scale statements. The questions are as follows:
• Did volunteering in the community impact you and your relationship to the
university this year?
• Do you feel you made tangible contributions to the community(ies) you
served in? Why or why not?
15
• Do you feel you have gained anything from your service that better prepares
you for your future?
• Having served as part of your college experience, do you intend on making
civic engagement a part of your future beyond college?
The results in Figures 4-7 are the perceived impact on students having participated
in community engagement as part of their scholarship program.
In Figure 4, the 4 categories in the chart are based on responses such as follows.
Aside from the obvious no response category (1%), there is the negative impact
category (3%); “No, I hate other people,” “No, I feel I need to spend my time focus-
ing on school work,” “No, I really just stood around the whole time,” etc. Placed in
the no impact category (15%) are responses such as, “My volunteering was low
interaction” and “I volunteered in my hometown where I already felt connected”
etc. In order to best display the trends that emerged from the positive impact re-
sponses (81%), the researcher identifies those trends as well as discusses specific
responses by students. Amongst the responses by students categorized in the posi-
tive impact chart item (which is the majority of the student responses), there are
emergent trends as to what caused the students to feel more connected. Getting to
meet and interact with the people they are actually helping, networking with com-
munity leaders, more community needs awareness and involvement, feeling owner-
ship of a project and responsibility as a project leader, the diversity of people they
Figure 4. Did volunteering in the community impact you and your relationship to
the university this year?
Source: TTU, 2015.
16
Figure 5. Do you feel you made tangible contributions to the community(ies) you
served in? Why or why not?
Source: TTU, 2015.
helped, feeling of making an impact, making live-long friends, and the simple sat-
isfaction of feeling good about having done something to help someone else were
common responses amongst the 81% who reported a positive impact from their
community engagement experiences.
In Figure 5, the 4 categories in the chart are based on responses such as follows.
Aside from the obvious no response category (1%), there is the simple no category
(8%); “I feel the impact I made was not a great one,” “Not tangible, but I did im-
prove intangible things,” “Not necessarily, I didn’t really get to see what any of my
volunteer efforts turned into, though I knew I was helping,” etc. Of those reporting
that they did not feel they made a tangible contribution, the researcher found that
there is not a clear enough understanding of the word “tangible” and felt as though
this lack of explanation and/or understanding limited this particular analysis to a
small degree. Otherwise, the respondents simply did not feel the work they did was
important or impactful enough to qualify as tangible contributions. The somewhat
category (10%) was created when the researcher was unable to practically categorize
certain responses into the simple yes or no categories. Responses such as, “Maybe,
my job didn’t seem very important but then again the little things count the most
sometimes,” and “I don’t think my contributions were tangible but they were defi-
nitely helpful,” aided in the development of the somewhat category. The researcher
had to remember that the idea was to assess the students’ perception of the impact
they made, not to determine the actual impact as perceived by the researcher. Pro-
viding access to food, developing materials for agencies, improving quality of lives,
improving effectiveness of non-profit agencies, raising funds, collecting items, and
17
simply taking workloads off of others, therefore helping them work more effectively
are the emergent trends from the analysis of those responding they felt they made
a tangible contribution to the community(s) with which they served (81%); this
category was simply named yes.
In Figure 6, the 3 categories in the chart are based on responses such as the fol-
lowing. Aside from the obvious no response category (1%), there is the negative
impact category (5%); “nothing”, “Not really,” etc. Of those reporting they did gain
something through their service experiences that will better prepare them for their
futures, responses like, “One day I want to work in Pediatrics and working with
these kids gave me the opportunity to interact with kids,” “This year of volunteering
has affirmed my talents and plans for the future,” and “I have learned how to com-
municate with strangers better and how to follow directions better” are categorized
into a positive impact category (94%). Emergent trends during the analysis of this
survey response consists of the following concepts as to what students felt they had
gained from their service experiences that better prepared them for their future.
Community connections and networking, awareness of community needs, stronger
desire to help, personal skills development (like humility, empathy, understanding,
selflessness, and patience), ambitions for starting charities, hands on experiences
in fields of study, experience with diversity, leadership skills, organizational skills,
lifetime sense of civic duty, sense of family through experiences working with
children, as well as handling teamwork are all common themes the researcher found
amongst the responses of these 90 participants.
Figure 6. Do you feel you have gained anything from your service that better pre-
pares you for your future?
Source: TTU, 2015.
18
Figure 7. Having served as part of your college experience, do you intend on mak-
ing civic engagement a part of your future beyond college?
Source: TTU, 2015.
In Figure 7, the 4 categories in the chart above are explanatory enough as to how
researchers coded the responses for this analysis. However, needing a little explana-
tion are quotes such as, “More than likely,” “Possibly,” and “I would like to, but it
depends on how busy life gets”; the responses are not definite yes responses. Here
indicates the idea behind creating the category called potentially. After the overall
assessment, the researcher displays no specific themes as to the responses of
whether or not students would make civic engagement a part of their future. Re-
sponses are mostly point blank, even the open-ended responses; 76% determine that
civic engagement will be a part of their lives beyond college, 13% will potentially
make civic engagement a part of their futures, and 10% will not, according to the
analysis of their responses.
Although a sample of 90 participants from one college program is not enough to
make a generalization of all college students, or even all students at that university,
the researcher feels the responses and student quotes and perceptions, combined with
similar studies from across the globe receiving similar results with similar student
perceptions reported is enough to draw basic conclusions concerning community
engagement in the 21st century. The quotes are used to give the students their own
voice in using their own words. They add credibility and strengthen any research, as
expected in the current study. The researcher believes similar quotes and perceptions
would come from a larger sample and from different institutions having conducted
the similar research on similar programs.
19
ISSUES, CONTROVERSIES, PROBLEMS
General
The idea that service learning, as a separate teaching tool from community engage-
ment, has to be specific to a course has been a topic of discussion amid higher
education affiliates. The reasoning for defining service learning as being connected
to a course is plausible. In addition, it is easier to track service learning, separate
from over all community engagement, if it is connected to a course. It is much
easier to assess impact, effectiveness, quality, reciprocity, etc., if it is connected
to a course. However, some believe there are still “…real-world learning experi-
ences that enhance their academic learning while providing a tangible benefit for
the community” (Compact, 2014) when students choose to volunteer or serve in
organizations that fit their fields of study, whether they choose to engage as part
of a course or within some other capacity. For example, a nursing student with a
service-based scholarship serves assisting doctors and nurses in a hospital or a free
clinic. This implies a significant amount of service learning is taking place for this
particular student. On the other hand an engineering student does a roadside clean-
up project, as part of a course. If this project does not include the characteristics
of service learning, what classifies it as service learning is the simple fact that it is
connected to a course. These are some of the general issues and controversies that
must be worked out as community engagement ascends as a teaching tool and a
professional development method.
Program Specific
There are some program specific some issues, controversies and problems that
emerge as well. The scholarship requirements are rigorous for the students. Many
have outside jobs, family commitments, social commitments that come along with
being an involved college student, and many are often part of other honors programs
as well. Any community engagement practitioner will come across students with
these time constraints. Many participants in the current study have reported feel-
ing they could have put more effort and passion into their community engagement
hours if these other time constraints and stresses were not so foremost in their lives.
Practitioners will often find that the very ones expressing these concerns are the very
ones whom have actually put the most effort in and made the best contributions.
This research, however, focuses on the students’ perceptions of their experiences.
It is important to know how the students perceive their contributions. Student input
helps administrators move forward in improving such programs.
20
Another issue that emerged in the beginning of the collaborative community

engagement/scholarship program was getting students to switch gears concerning
the placement process in this program. Students had always understood the previ-
ous way of placement, being assigned somewhere on campus to do office work,
filing, data entry, and etc. Getting students to understand that they were in charge
of designing their own community engagement experience was a task within itself.
After spending a couple years individually meeting with all the incoming students
to explain this new process and advising them, it became apparent an orientation
session may be the best route. Even six and seven years into this collaborative pro-
gram, their faces still show the same surprised expressions when told that the ball
is in their court and they are not assigned anywhere and that they do not have to
serve the university, they can serve the community. There are still issues and con-
cerns from those who come to college with no vehicles. These issues have provided
opportunities for the staff in the service center to be creative in designing special
community engagement opportunities with these students.
There is always the issue of liability. What sort of project is too dangerous for
college students? Who deems them “too dangerous”? What happens if I take a student
on a service project and they get hurt, or worse? What about transportation? Am I
personally liable if we were to wreck? What is the institution liable for? So many
questions that have differing answers from one institution to the next.
SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Terms such as community engagement and service learning are still being devel-
oped on college campuses across the nation as the significance is escalating. In
fact, a service center staff member from Tennessee Tech has been asked to join a
High Impact Practice Working Group for the Tennessee Board of Regents to help
in the development of such concepts in the state of Tennessee, building taxonomy
for defining and measuring service learning. Of course defining all components of
service learning will be a task as well; service, reciprocity, flexibility, reflection,
and assessment. This is where college campuses prefer to use the term community
engagement; it covers all forms of service as a learning instrument.
Many universities have a centralized location to track and facilitate community
engagement as well as a committee designated to handle service related matters on

campus. Some have developed a process for which faculty must apply to teach a
service learning course or must register a service learning course. This committee
is charged with the task of determining if the proposed course is, in fact, service
learning before it is coded or distinguished as such. This seems to be the best way
21
to regulate whether or not the service involved in a course fits the criteria to be a
service learning course as opposed to being a course with a service component.
The current research findings will help in training faculty, staff, and administra-
tors on college campuses how to best utilize community engagement and service
learning as teaching tools and as methods of professional development in their
students. Colleges are expected to produce individuals that are well-rounded with
employable skills upon graduation; they are seeking new and innovative ways of
meeting these goals. It will also help in building best practices for using aspects of
community engagement as high impact practices in the classrooms as well as beyond
the classrooms. Involving students early in their college careers, as determined in the
background review of previous research, can cause them to be involved at a higher
level throughout college as well as build a stronger connections to the faculty, the
university, and the community, maybe even to the material they are learning if they
participate as part of a course. It helps students gain confidence in their abilities
within their fields of study. Researchers also suggest, as a best practice, that each
university, school, or institution develop a liability plan. Statements of acknowl-
edgement are to be signed by students participating in different types of projects
with different types of risks attached to them or by parents of student participants.
The statements can be facilitated through an institution-wide entity or facilitated
by each individual professor, teacher, instructor, club advisor, service coordinator,
or other governing individual having planned the project. Statements can even be
tailored to the risk levels of each event.
More research findings such as the present study’s and those found in the back-
ground review lead researchers to the conclusion that the more faculty, staff and
administration understand community engagement, the better they can communicate
to students the personal and professional benefits of it and the more students will
come to understand the benefits that hundreds of researchers are finding concerning
students becoming engaged in community service.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Based on the results from the present research, it appears that the efforts in commu-
nity engagement at Tennessee Technological University stand up to the reputation
the previous research provides in its area. In general, the students participating in
community engagement through the scholarship program highly benefited from
their experiences and are prepared to pursue this program for the duration of their
college careers. The appreciation they expressed, in their open-ended responses, for
the opportunity they have been given through the program is astounding. It makes
the reported impact more clear and valid to the researcher.
22
Further research could follow these same students throughout their college careers
and determine the difference in their attitudes toward community engagement from
year to year. Also suggested is interviewing the new students, coming in as freshmen
with this same scholarship opportunity and following them throughout their four
years as well. The research was limited by the lack of diversity in the respondents; the
only diversity being gender and chosen majors. The suggested future research would
expound upon this present research and provide higher numbers of participants each
year, maybe even create a forum to follow up with students beyond college to see
how community engagement fits into their careers and lives. A clear and intended
research continuation is surveying this program’s first year students each year to see
the differences in responses from one group to another. The current research would
have also been strengthened by a baseline survey of attitudes toward service and
then a post survey to assess how the service experiences changes their collective
attitudes toward community engagement before having participated.
A few of these suggestions is underway and will be assessed by the present
researcher each academic year. Preliminary results were recently assessed from
this same survey given to the students entering the same university scholarship
program through the Tennessee Tech University Service Center in 2014, surveyed
and assessed spring of 2015, upon completion of their first year of community en-
gagement at (n=23). Because this is an annual survey, data is assessed concerning
attitudes toward community engagement as well as perceived impact, in comparison
to the previous years. It seems that the basic community engagement attitudes of
the 2014 students are similar, if not more positive, to those of the 2013 students.
Their perceived impact is consistent with those of the 2013 students as well. The
most significant variations, currently to report, are those of the 2014 students feel-
ing more as though they will pursue community engagement opportunities beyond
college (2014: 88%; 2013: 76%) as well as feeling more so that they made tangible
contributions through their experiences (2014: 92%; 2013: 81%). It is not unexpected
that the attitudes and perceived impact would be consistent or even more positive
amid students from year to year; however, it does lend more credibility to community
engagement as a high impact practice for college students.
CONCLUSION
According to the present review of previous literature, interest in community engage-

ment is definitely on the rise and has been for some years now. Although it is still
a fairly new concept, universities are seeing great results from the implementation
of community engagement on their respective campuses. Students are highly ben-
efiting from participating in such programs. They are benefiting in ways they do
23
not even realize until they reflect upon the activities they have participated in and
the contributions they have actually made in their communities. This is the reason
reflection is such a huge part of the process, especially in service learning based
courses. Much research is being done during the duration of service programs/
projects for these very reasons, to monitor the personal growth and learning experi-
ences of those involved.
University administrators are realizing the need for such programs and are imple-
menting requirements to encourage students to take part in some sort of community
engagement program before they graduate. Any course that has a service learning
component has a community engagement requirement in that course. Seeing the
effects on the students from those courses has prompted officials to implement
campus-wide requirements, offering scholarship or even academic credit, to expand
the possibilities throughout the universities. It is not because students have a lack
of interest in volunteering in their communities that keep them from doing so. It
is because college students have exams, papers, research, class homework, many
even have jobs and such to deal with that they do not have the time to volunteer. If
not part of classes, scholarships, or other campus activities, they just lack the time
to participate.
Community engagement inclusion on college campuses makes it easier for a
student to take advantage of the benefits that come from volunteerism. And when
they realize the value, both personally and professionally, they figure out how to
make it part of the rest of their college careers, maybe even part of the rest of their
lives. The present study seeks to help develop new theories around the benefits of
community engagement in higher education, education in general, and generate
more conversations on the topic, especially as a high impact practice. It was hy-
pothesized, based on results from previous researchers, that students participating
in the community engagement/scholarship program at Tennessee Tech University
would recognize and acknowledge a gain in life skills and appreciate the hands-on
experience that could further them in their career goals, gain a higher sense of civic
duty, and become more connected to the community as a results of their experiences.
The hypothesis was proven in the current study. And, based on the preliminary
data from the following year’s assessment of students in the same program having
been asked the same questions, it will be consistent in years to come. However, the
author reported an expectation of more participants each year which was not the
case for the year to follow the current studied group. For this particular academic
year, 2014/2015, it was due to a lack of funding within the scholarship program.
Implementation of programs such as the community engagement/scholarship
program Tennessee Tech University has created is one example for university execu-
tives as they begin building community engagement as well as an example of how
to sustain existing programs. High schools, middle schools and even elementary
24
schools can implement programs such as these on different levels. When contem-
plating assessment plans, the current research would argue that is it important to
determine, from the students’ perspectives, what sort of impact is being made as
well as other aspects of impact.
Student recognition and acknowledgement of benefits as well as the students’
perspectives of such benefits through their community engagement experiences
are demonstrated in the results, thus meeting the objectives of the present research
initiatives. Researchers assess and report basic attitudes of student participants on
community engagement after them having participated in such a program. Researcher
reports student quotes and perceived impact from their community engagement
experiences. Trends are identified upon assessment of reported impact.
REFERENCES
Abrams, E., Sandmann, L., & Williams, J. (2009). Higher Education Community
Engagement and Accreditation: Activating engagement through innovative accredi-
tation strategies. Planning for Higher Education, 37(3), 15–26.
Bauer, H. E., Moskal, B., Gosink, J., Lucena, J., & Muñoz, D. (2007). Faculty and
Student Attitudes Toward Community Service: A comparative analysis. The Journal
of Engineering Education, 96(2), 129–140. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00923.x
Bethel University. (2014). Off-Campus Programs: Service Learning. Retrieved from
http://cas.bethel.edu/off-campus-programs/service-learning/
Carnegie Foundation. (2013). Community Engagement Classification. Retrieved
from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/newsroom/press-releases/carnegie-invites-
institutions-apply-2015-community-engagement-classification
Chan, W. (2011). An exploration of Asian American college students’ civic engage-
ment. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2(3), 197–204. doi:10.1037/a0024675
Compact, C. (2001). Annual Service Statistics 2000. Providence, RI: Brown University.
Cook, R., Campbell, D., & Kopp, A. (2013). Student focused community engage-
ment: The SBI program as a bridge into the community. Small Business Institute
Journal, 9(2), 1–10.

Cutforth, N., Fretz, E., Nicotera, N., & Thompson, S. (2011). Dedication to Com-
munity Engagement: A higher education conundrum? Journal of Community En-
gagement and Scholarship, 4(1), 37–49.
25
Haddad, A. M. (2012). Instructional Design and Assessment: An advanced pharmacy

practice experience in community engagement. American Journal of Pharmaceuti-
cal Education, 76(5), 90. doi:10.5688/ajpe76590 PMID:22761531
Jung, J. (2011). Assessing Learning from a Student Community Engagement Project.
Education + Training, 53(2/3), 155–165. doi:10.1108/00400911111115690
Kirby, M. K., & DiPaola, M. F. (2011). Academic Optimism and Community En-
gagement in Urban Schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 542–562.
doi:10.1108/09578231111159539
Leisey, M., Holton, V., & Davey, T. L. (2012). Community engagement grants: As-
sessing the impact of university funding and engagements. Journal of Community
Engagement and Scholarship, 5(2), 41–47.
Loeb, P. (2010). Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times.
New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Millican, J., & Bourner, T. (2011). Student-Community Engagement and the Chang-
ing Role and Context of Higher Education. Education + Training, 53(2/3), 89–99.
doi:10.1108/00400911111115645
Roberts, J., & McNeese, M. N. (2010). Student Involvement/Engagement in Higher
Education Based on Student Origin. Research in Higher Education Journal, 7, 1–11.
Roessingh, H. (2012). Service Learning and Student Engagement: A dual language
book project. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(4), 284–307.
Tennessee Campus Compact. (2014). Member Profiles. Retrieved from http://
tncampuscompact.org/membership/profile/
Tennessee Technological University. (2015). Assessments and Annual Reporting.
Retrieved from https://www.tntech.edu/studentaffairs/volunteer/aar
The Corporation for National and Community Service. (2015). Who we are. Re-
trieved from http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/who-we-are
University of Guelph. (2014). Institute of Community Engaged Scholarship. Re-
trieved from http://theresearchshop.ca/characteristics-quality-community-engaged-
scholarship
26
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Assessment: Evaluation of data and making observations.

Campus Compact: An organization aiding in the implementation and sustaining
of service learning capacity building on college campuses.
Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching: An organization aiding
in networking opportunities, resources for implementing new teaching tools, and
encouraging educators to utilize a variety of teaching tools.
Community Service: Meeting a need in the community or solving a social
problem in the community.
Corporation for National and Community Service: A funding agency who
helps supply resources and grant money to numerous programs and projects that
help better the lives of Americans.
High Impact Practice: Experiential learning practices that teach individuals
problem solving and critical thinking skills in real world, hands-on settings.
Reciprocity: An event where everyone involved benefits in a way that is shared.
Reflection: Looking back on an event or action in a critical way to assess what
impacts may have been made.
Service Learning: A teaching tool where community service is used to teach
individuals, in a hands-on way, what they are learning in the classroom.
27
APPENDIX
Table 1. First year service scholarship survey
Age Race Gender

17 African American Male
18 - 22 Hispanic Female
23 - 29 Native American Other:
30 - 39 Asian
40 and above White
Other: ____________
What is your Major? _______________________________
Have you had previous community service experience?
Yes or No
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
Strongly Agree ~ Agree ~ No Opinion ~ Disagree ~ Strongly Disagree
• There are people who have needs that are not being met.
• College student volunteers can help improve the local community.
• I am responsible for doing something about improving the community.
Did volunteering in the community impact you and your relationship to the university?
Do you feel you made tangible contributions to the community(ies) you served in? Why or why not?
Do you feel you have gained anything from your service that better prepares you for your future?
Having served as part of your college experience, do you intend on making civic engagement a part of your
future beyond college?
Table 2. Eight important characteristics of quality community-engaged scholarship
• Clear Academic and Community Change Goals

• Adequate Preparation in Content Area and Grounding in the Community
• Appropriate Methods: Rigor and Community Engagement
• Significant Results: Impact on the Field and the Community
• Effective Presentation/Dissemination to Academic and Community Audiences
• Reflective Critique: Lessons Learned to Improve the Scholarship and Community Engagement
• Leadership and Personal Contribution
• Consistently Ethical Behavior: Socially Responsible Conduct of Research and Teaching
Institute for Community Engaged Scholarship, 2014.
28

Chapter 1 Impact of Community Engagement in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1 Impact of Community Engagement in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

to further investigate the impact community engagement, as a whole, has on a col-

The Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, (2013), defines commu-

nity engagement as “the collaboration between institutions of higher education and

key strategies for the advancement of community engagement on each campus. In

thoughts on using community engagement in their courses. Authors acknowledged

engagement; it was an overall attitude analysis on community service. These faculty

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER

Tennessee Tech University institutionalized a University Service Center: A Center

Community Engagement Collaboration Program

Most universities, as recruitment efforts, have an academic scholarship for high

receive a $1000 scholarship. The dollar amount of their scholarship is determined

Examples of Service Performed by Students

• Collecting coats for a local program called Quawana’s Coats through an

ment/scholarship program helped during the implementation process of

The present study examines the impact of community engagement on college

Figure 3. I am responsible for doing something about improving the community.

ISSUES, CONTROVERSIES, PROBLEMS

Another issue that emerged in the beginning of the collaborative community

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

engagement as well as a committee designated to handle service related matters on

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

According to the present review of previous literature, interest in community engage-

Journal, 9(2), 1–10.

Haddad, A. M. (2012). Instructional Design and Assessment: An advanced pharmacy

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Assessment: Evaluation of data and making observations.

Table 1. First year service scholarship survey

Age Race Gender

Table 2. Eight important characteristics of quality community-engaged scholarship

• Clear Academic and Community Change Goals

You might also like