Criterion Five
Self Study
Review Resources
Criterion 5a
Community
Outreach
Advice
Criterion 5b
Service
Learning
Off Campus
Resources
Diversity
Adult Education
Criterion 5c
Sciences
Arts
Engagement
Urban Mission
Criterion 5d
Opportunities
Documentation
Committee
Evidence to collect
|
 |
|
Criterion Five: Engagement and Service
Core Component 5b:
The organization has the capacity and the commitment to
engage with its identified constituents and communities.
|
|
 |
 |
Service Learning at UMKC
UMKC has a strong tradition of civic engagement, community-based learning and other forms
of outreach. Our service-learning programs make an important contribution to many outreach
projects. In 1999, UMKC developed the Center for the City (C4C), an initiative designed to
contribute to the development of Kansas City’s urban core. With the help of trusted partners
in our university and community, C4C launched its services to engage UMKC students with
the community and provide hands-on service-learning. Along with administrators, community
members and students, a task force of nine academic units was formed to plan the programs. Its
recommendations for program services set C4C’s foundation, and between 2002-2008, servicelearning
courses, student enrollment and total hours increased considerably. During the 2002-2003
academic year, student enrollment was 1,175 and by 2005, service-learning enrollment rose to
2,984. In total, the service-learning programs involved 11,909 students between 2002 and 2008.
By 2006, support for service-learning from the central administration had declined, but the urban
mission was unchanged, and many service-learning courses were integrated into core academic
programs.
|
 |
|
To aid in the continuous improvement of our service-learning programs, and as part of a Learn
and Serve America grant, UMKC’s Institute for Human Development conducted an in-depth
assessment of students, faculty, and community organizations participating in service-learning
programming. For three years, UMKC staff monitored assessment data to inform programmatic
practice and policies. A high proportion of respondents (between 80 and 90 percent) stated
that the classes gave them an opportunity to discuss their community work and its relationship
to the course material; that their service-learning had a moderate effect on their attitude toward
community involvement/citizenship; that the work they did through the course benefited the
community; and that they had a responsibility to serve in their community. Student evaluations
demonstrate, in addition to learning about their particular disciplines, that service-learning
students also gain knowledge about people who are different from themselves. The results of the
community evaluation show the importance of mutually beneficial service-learning projects and
affirm that students can make a difference. Of the community respondents, 65 percent said the
program enhanced their services; 53 percent indicated an increased number of clients served, and
41 percent responded that new connections were made with other organizations.
|
 |
|