View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

From Classroom to Community: An Assessment and Potential Implications of an Undergraduate Civic Engagement Research and Learning Program

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: From Classroom to Community: An Assessment and Potential Implications of an Undergraduate Civic Engagement Research and Learning Program
Language: English
Authors: Lamb, Matt (ORCID 0000-0001-9249-3989), Perry, Steven (ORCID 0000-0002-4369-751X), Steinberg, Alan
Source: Journal of Political Science Education. 2023 19(2):250-269.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Curriculum Evaluation, Undergraduate Students, Citizen Participation, Citizenship Education, Political Science, Educational Research, Service Learning, Student Research, Student Attitudes
Geographic Terms: Texas (Houston)
DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2022.2128811
ISSN: 1551-2169
1551-2177
Abstract: Civic education in undergraduate institutions is of vital importance to the civic health of society, but faculty often find it difficult to incorporate civic components into existing courses and lack the resources to incorporate civic outreach into their curriculum. As a result, research has shown that time spend on civic engagement is limited. Additionally, civic engagement is rarely discussed, much less encouraged, outside of political science or other social science classes. In this article, we assess the outcomes of a unique co-curricular civic engagement research and learning program in which undergraduate students are required to work with an external partner, usually a municipal agency or nonprofit, to complete an independent research project. Using quantitative and qualitative student evaluations, we find that students had an overwhelmingly positive experience with the program. They especially appreciated the opportunity to work on "real world" issues in an interdisciplinary setting. They also expressed a desire for a longer program that extended beyond a single semester. We discuss the potential implications of these findings.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1389620
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFl4d4k4KGZp2XMkoO5CnlJAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHrBIphismC9A9lgjQIBEICBmxbV9UCYCOUk9KtuBerv9MrAt5vR2-o5kH8NO7iawS0_5bZPvae4vOgY3fImk19quPGvmc5s3uZ1ZVvD4v3Jeq298W7weI7t6n4Peb5uLJXtJKKT1y3DV-tmJmDy5NcXLYLtbMM4dftKjum74_iGVDmBeXn8CuvBUiwEDWpZqkSQOWvo9oPiMjk7epeQBZe_8LS7lG_Ipi2H0rAC
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163824100;[15ub]01apr.23;2023May23.06:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163824100-1">From Classroom to Community: An Assessment and Potential Implications of an Undergraduate Civic Engagement Research and Learning Program </title> <p>Civic education in undergraduate institutions is of vital importance to the civic health of society, but faculty often find it difficult to incorporate civic components into existing courses and lack the resources to incorporate civic outreach into their curriculum. As a result, research has shown that time spend on civic engagement is limited. Additionally, civic engagement is rarely discussed, much less encouraged, outside of political science or other social science classes. In this article, we assess the outcomes of a unique co-curricular civic engagement research and learning program in which undergraduate students are required to work with an external partner, usually a municipal agency or nonprofit, to complete an independent research project. Using quantitative and qualitative student evaluations, we find that students had an overwhelmingly positive experience with the program. They especially appreciated the opportunity to work on "real world" issues in an interdisciplinary setting. They also expressed a desire for a longer program that extended beyond a single semester. We discuss the potential implications of these findings.</p> <p>Keywords: Civic education; civic engagement; service learning</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-2">Introduction</hd> <p>There is little doubt that incorporating civic engagement in undergraduate curricula can have dramatic benefits for students. Experiential programs and projects allow students the unique opportunity to translate the skills and abilities they have gained in the classroom into positive social change in their community. Not only can instilling a culture of civic engagement increase a student's sense of political self-efficacy, but it also increases levels of community engagement and social trust (Hoffman [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]; Putnam [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]). Additionally, civic participation can foster a sense of constructive patriotism that encourages students to think critically about social problems (Richey [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref3">28</reflink>]). In an era where the nature of democratic values in the United States and the health of American civic culture are very much under threat, civic engagement programs can provide students with the necessary foundation to meaningfully and positively engage with important political and social issues. In this article, we assess the benefits of student participation in a unique undergraduate civic engagement education program that provides students the opportunity to work with external community partners on an original civic engagement research project. Overall, we find significant evidence that students enjoy the opportunity to work on "real world" issues facing their communities.</p> <p>The vast majority of scholarly examinations on the role and effects of civic engagement opportunities have understandably focused on civic education in political science courses. However, these scholars have routinely expressed the need to expand the scope of this analysis beyond political science majors. Examining civic engagement solely in political science courses makes it quite difficult to analyze several key components of a well-rounded civic education, including an emphasis on local politics and social issues, allowing students to directly interact with an interdisciplinary team comprised of students from across disciplines, and incorporating co-curricular public partnerships with outside organizations, nonprofits, and agencies (see Hoffman [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref4">16</reflink>]; Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]; Hunter and Brisbin [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]; Van Assendelft [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>]). In addition, simply adding civic engagement programming to an already existing course, such as by subbing in a civic education week into an already busy syllabus, there is little opportunity to dramatically expand the amount of time students are exposed to civic skills.</p> <p>However, because there are relatively few colleges or universities that have independent civic engagement centers, and even fewer that regularly work with faculty and outside organizations and agencies, it is difficult to gauge the effectiveness of programs that incorporate all of the characteristics which scholars have insisted must be included in a well-rounded civic education experience. In light of this, we examine the impact of the Houston Action Research Teams, or "HART", program, housed in the Center for Civic Leadership at Rice University in Houston, TX. HART is an undergraduate co-curricular program to which students of all majors can apply to work in collaboration with 3 to 4 other students to conduct a research project regarding an issue presented by a third-party civic entity, such as a nonprofit or a municipal agency. While the students do receive support from a faculty advisor, a graduate student mentor, and the third-party community partner, HART students design and implement an original research project that generates results that inform the partner's ongoing mission. We utilize student evaluations of the program to offer descriptive analysis regarding student impressions and learning outcomes from participating undergraduates. We find that participating students had an overwhelmingly positive experience with the program, feeling that they developed a greater connection to the surrounding community, increased levels of self-efficacy, and valued the ability to work with students from other disciplines. We conclude by offering potential implications of our findings and potential areas for future analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-3">What is civic education and why have it in higher education?</hd> <p>Civic education is usually discussed within the service learning theoretical framework. Although thought regarding the incorporation of service learning in education originally developed in the early 20th century, scholars began to more fully investigate the potential for service learning as a pedagogical approach in the 1980s and 1990s. Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]) note:</p> <p>...service learning is promoted as a means for students to learn about and participate in the public affairs of the local community and thus become more civically engaged in democratic society (Barber [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]; Battistoni [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]; Campus Compact [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]: Hedin [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>]; Hepburn [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]). Likewise, it is recommended as a means for immersing students in questions of social justice and differing cultural norms thereby increasing civility and tolerance (Campus Compact 194; Eyler and Giles [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]). Service is also extolled as a practical method of enhancing classroom learning by making textbook concepts more meaningful for students (Hedin [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]; Hondagneu-Sotelo and Raskoff [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]; Shumer [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref18">30</reflink>]) (<reflink idref="bib617" id="ref19">617</reflink>).</p> <p>Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]) also note a distinction between service learning generally and service learning as it relates to political science. They state, "Linkage of service to public policy issues is of primary importance in political science education" (<reflink idref="bib618" id="ref21">618</reflink>). Consequently, advocates of civic engagement in higher education often promote it as a way for students to gain real-world insights into policy issues.</p> <p>Proponents of including civic education in higher education are primarily concerned about two aspects of higher learning: bridging the college campus to the outside world ("college campus bubbles") as well as concerns about lower levels of civic enthusiasm amongst younger citizens. Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>]) draw upon the writings of John Dewey (1916, 1938), and his commentary on experiential and democratic education, "schooling should not be isolated from actual life experiences, and formal education should foster continuity between internal development and exposure to external surroundings" (<reflink idref="bib617" id="ref23">617</reflink>). Additionally, there is a concern about the disconnect between how political science is taught and the outcomes that many scholars claim to want to foster in students. Carpini and Keeter argue that "perceiving political science as a discipline that observes, critiques, and seeks to understand public life can easily (and justifiably) lead individuals to embrace a teaching philosophy that dictates transmitting knowledge and cultivating a critical perspective rather than encouraging participation" (Carpini, Michael, and Keter [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>], 635).</p> <p>Beyond the educational value, many proponents argue that there are social benefits to civic engagement education. Some argue that civic engagement education increases tolerance amongst participating students, though the results are mixed (see Niemi, Hepburn, and Chapman [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>] and Eyler, Giles, and Braxton [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]). Additionally, civic engagement education that involves students working with nonprofits could have benefits for institutions of higher education. Nonprofits have considerable social capital with their surrounding communities and enjoy high levels of social trust (see Berry and Arons [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]). Institutions of higher education could position themselves to increase their own social capital with surrounding communities by working with nonprofits.</p> <p>Incorporating practical civic engagement components into higher education is not without its critics. Though this may come as a surprise to contemporary scholars perturbed by political pessimism amongst college students, some have pointed to potentially negative outcomes in teaching students the merits of civic participation. One of those concerns is the potential to instill a "blind" patriotism in students. Teaching students to participate in civic organizations or to work on behalf of governing institutions may impart to students the idea that one must participate in the actions and operations of the state without regard as to why they are doing so, or the potential implications (see Mitchell [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]; Pompa [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref29">26</reflink>]; Cohen and Nussbaum [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>], MacIntyre [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]; Kateb [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>]). However, other scholars have pointed to the idea of instilling a "constructive" patriotism as a positive effect of civic education. Constructive patriotism instills in students the positive aspects of civic engagement while acknowledging the existence of social problems that can be solved with participation and responsible citizenship. Though scholars have suggested that civic participation increases constructive patriotism (see Schatz, Staub, and Lavine [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref33">29</reflink>]; Huddy and Khatib [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]), others have suggested that the causal arrow is not so simple. Richey ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>]) developed a two-stage model, finding that constructive patriotism promotes civic participation and civic participation separately increases constructive patriotism. Richey ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]) also finds that blind patriotism lowers civic participation and civic participation lowers blind feeling.</p> <p>Because the benefits are thought to outweigh any potential negative effects by a considerable measure, many institutions of higher education have been seeking to expand civic engagement programs for their undergraduate students. Not only do advocates of these programs argue that they provide an opportunity for students to apply the abstract concepts learned in the classroom to the real world, but they also promote constructive patriotism that could prove vital to civic health and integrity. A civic engagement learning program that has at its very core a mission to provide students with real-life experience critically thinking about social and civic problems would bridge the divide between those concerned about students adopting a blind devotion to the state, and those that are concerned about a lack of critical knowledge regarding civic engagements from which many political science education curricula currently suffer.</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-4">Implementing civic engagement education in higher education</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163824100-5">Civic engagement education as part of class curricula</hd> <p>Incorporating civic engagement education within a classroom curriculum has yielded several positive outcomes for long-term political knowledge, self-efficacy, and participation (see Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]; Claassen and Monson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]; Forestiere [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref39">12</reflink>]; Huerta and Jozwiak [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref40">19</reflink>]; Van Assendelft [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]). Several studies have examined the effects of incorporating classroom activities that require consuming political media or involve student self-expression regarding current events. For example, Huerta and Jozwiak ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref42">19</reflink>]) find that students who were required to read the New York Times were more likely to relate classroom material to current events, more likely to say that they keep up with the news, more likely to have a positive attitude toward politics, and have increased levels of community involvement than students who were not required to read the New York Times. Claassen and Monson ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref43">6</reflink>]) found that students who participated in a blogging classroom activity retained long-term knowledge and political interest.</p> <p>Van Assendelft ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]) found that requiring students to attend civic meetings, community service, and interviews with elected officials in a State and Local Politics course achieved positive results. After noting anecdotal evidence that merely inviting local politicians and civic leaders to speak to her students resulted in students becoming disconnected from the course material and diminishing interest in civic life, van Assendelft "began sending the students out to experience state and local politics first hand, rather than trying to bring it into the classroom" (<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref45">89</reflink>). van Assendelft presents reflections from students that suggest increased enthusiasm for politics and civic engagements. As one student noted, "This experience provided such incredible insight and understanding. I will definitely continue to attend city council meetings not only because I have learned so much about the local government from them, but also because I simply enjoy going" (<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref46">86</reflink>).</p> <p>However, scholars have also questioned whether classroom activities truly foster long-term outcomes for civic engagement. Some argue that there needs to be a more concrete bridge that is created between students of higher education and surrounding communities. Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>]) note political philosopher John Dewey's assertion that "worthwhile activity in the community...stimulated an interest in learning about related school subjects. By extension, student encounters with concrete problems should generate more abstract learning. Dewey concluded that this 'interaction' in education develops the skills citizens need to function in a democracy" (<reflink idref="bib617" id="ref48">617</reflink>). Much of the previous literature regarding how to incorporate civic engagement in political science education mostly examines the incorporation of in-classroom activities and inviting guest speakers. However, that may not cut it if the goal of political science educators is to have a long-term impact, especially when considering the assertions of Dewey. Van Assendelft ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>]) notes that there was a marked difference between what guest speakers told students and what was discovered by students when they actually went out into the world –</p> <p>Despite the accessibility of these elected officials, their formal remarks in a classroom setting never seemed to correspond with the textbook view of state and local politics. Students were told by one guest speaker, for example, that political parties did not matter at the local level. Students were led to believe that state and local politics were not particularly interesting, and not even all that political (<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref50">89</reflink>).</p> <p>Consequently, efforts that hope to promote a long-term devotion to civic life in undergraduate students may have to look beyond the classroom, and perhaps beyond the college campus. Many campuses have developed institutionalized civic engagement centers which have sought to bridge undergraduate students with surrounding communities.</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-6">Civic engagement education as part of an institutionalized civic engagement center</hd> <p>A singular service learning or classroom-affiliated civic engagement project may not be enough to create an impression on students sufficient to sustain long-term civic engagement. Even a classroom activity or project that requires a significant number of hours to complete and has a significant component devoted to discussion and reflection may not upend long-term political and civic apathy (see Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref51">15</reflink>]; Hunter and Brisbin [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref52">20</reflink>]). When considering the fact that less than half of political science courses incorporate civic engagement goals, one may become wary of relying on political science faculty to provide civic engagement opportunities to students (Hunter and Brisbin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref53">21</reflink>]). Institutionalized civic engagement centers provide opportunities for longer-term or deeper level engagement by students throughout their college careers and set them up for continued engagement beyond college. Further, such centers can afford civic engagement opportunities to students who are not political science majors or are in undergraduate concentrations that do not incorporate political science or other social science courses.</p> <p>Hoffman ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref54">16</reflink>]) argues that "engendering a campus culture of political engagement requires the institutionalization of engagement centers. This is best accomplished by getting buy-in from three key audiences: administration, faculty, and the outside community" (<reflink idref="bib268" id="ref55">268</reflink>). Because the institutionalization of engagement centers requires the building of bridges between these three audiences, they may be the key to accomplishing the long-term effects that advocates of civic engagement education hope to instill in students. To measure the effects of an institutionalized civic engagement center, Hoffman ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref56">16</reflink>]) examines students who participated in the Presidential Citizen Scholars (PCS) program at the Institute for Public Affairs and Citizenship (PACE) at Salisbury University. PACE recruited 30–40 students from different majors to participate in the PCS program, in which they volunteered with nonprofits and community organizations. Participating students studied social problems and created personal action plans to address those problems as though they were members of the affected communities. Hoffman ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref57">16</reflink>]) found that those who participated in the program experienced increased political self-efficacy after participating in the program.</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-7">The need for institutionalized civic engagement centers and how to assess them</hd> <p>Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref58">15</reflink>]), articulate what they believe to be the three characteristics of the most effective service-learning programs. They argue, "Research indicates that the most effective service-learning programs are those that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>) have well-articulated goals related to the course content; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>) are of long enough duration for students to develop communication and working relationships with people in the agencies where they volunteer and to feel some proprietorship for the projects they work on; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref61">3</reflink>) provide ample opportunities for extensive reflection on the community experience and public policy so that it relates to accompanying political science course work. Based on these requisites, we will examine studies of service learning that have implications for political science teaching and research" (<reflink idref="bib618" id="ref62">618</reflink>).</p> <p>Though the previous literature highlights the importance and potential impact of civic engagement education, much of the literature focuses on incorporating it into the classroom. However, classroom-based civic education rarely allows students to venture beyond the outer hedges of the college campus. The institutionalization of civic engagement centers is found to have the potential for a longer-term impact on the civic culture of a campus, however, there is a paucity of research on institutionalized engagement centers. Additionally, much of the literature rarely utilizes data over multiple years. Instead, many scholars utilize observational data from single semesters or academic years. Finally, though many scholars have noted the importance of getting students to volunteer some predetermined amount of time toward a community organization, agency, or nonprofit, little has been done to assess any civic engagement centers that require sustained work with a community partner. To gain leverage on some of these gaps in the literature, we utilize data from student participants working with the HART program at Rice University. This program requires undergraduate student teams to work directly with community organizations.</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-8">The HART program</hd> <p>The Center for Civic Leadership (CCL) is an institutionalized civic engagement and education center at Rice University in Houston, TX. According to their mission statement, "The Center for Civic Leadership fosters community-university collaborations that analyze the complexity of social issues and take actions to promote equitable and inclusive communities." The CCL runs the Houston Action Research Teams program: a semester-long program composed of small, interdisciplinary teams of Rice University undergraduate students working with a community partner to address a social and/or community issue. Each semester, the HART program partners with 2–3 municipal agencies or nonprofit organizations and identifies a problem that can be addressed through evidence-based research, which is of interest to the community partner. Previous community partners have included municipal agencies, such as Houston Public Libraries, the Harris County District Clerk, and the Houston Police Department, and nonprofits, such as the Houston Arboretum, Mi Familia Vota, Memorial Park Conservancy, Plant it Forward, the Houston Chronicle, Undies for Everyone, among others. These projects are then advertised to undergraduate students as research and community engagement opportunities.</p> <p>Projects were conducted for various types of organizations. To give the reader an idea of the types of projects conducted for these organizations, we provide a few anecdotal examples. One successful project conducted for the HART program was done with the Houston Public Library in which a survey was conducted of library patron user habits that helped inform resource allocation. Another project for a nonprofit called <emph>Undies for Everyone</emph> which distributes undergarments to nurse's offices in Title I elementary schools identified inefficiencies in how undergarments were distributed amongst schools and informed changes to the organization's distribution system. Another project for the civic education nonprofit <emph>Mi Familia Vota</emph> surveyed high school students on civic attitudes. The findings suggested that students were interested in civic issues, but were uninformed on specific avenues regarding how to become civically engaged. This helped inform how <emph>Mi Familia Vota</emph> conducted its civic education programs.</p> <p>The HART process generally begins with a community organization identifying a need that impacts Houston residents. These community partners team up with the CCL to recruit teams of undergraduate students to address the community need. Depending on the nature of the project, the students then spend most of the semester implementing a research design created to address the problem presented by the community partner, or creating some other type of deliverable more similar to a capstone project, and generate recommendations to address it. Research can involve online data collection, interviewing community members, administering community surveys, reviewing literature and best practices within a field or industry, and host of other research techniques that involve studying the surrounding community and working with community partners. Students then present the recommendations to the community partner with the idea that the recommendations will then be implemented. These undergraduate teams are provided financial compensation for their work at a rate of $10 per hour and are expected to work an average of 10–12 h per week on their respective over the course of the semester.</p> <p>Within the HART program, there are three key players: the community partner, the student teams, and the university faculty/staff who advise the students. The community partner generally provides resources and knowledge about the policy area and can provide connections and networking with important stakeholders to the students to further their progress in researching the problem. The CCL staff coordinates with the community partners and supplies guidance and, occasionally, administrative and financial resources for the team. Each team is mentored by a faculty member and a graduate student coach. The faculty member generally provides content expertise in the policy area and methodological approach to the project while the graduate student coach facilitates day-to-day progress. Faculty mentors are typically asked to provide an advisory role to the project and are recruited from disciplines relevant to the project. Though most come from the social sciences, some come from STEM fields, depending on the nature of the project. Faculty were often incentivized to mentor in the program as it provided for an opportunity to identify and recruit potential undergraduate researchers. Graduate student coaches received financial compensation at a rate of $25 per hour and also had an expectation of working 10–12 h per week. Similar to faculty, most graduate student coaches were from political science and other social sciences, though a few came from STEM fields as some projects required a STEM background. Staff and faculty were expected to meet with the undergraduate students once a week, and the graduate students were expected to meet with the undergraduate students separately in an additional weekly meeting.</p> <p>Finally, the most important actors in the program are the students themselves. Students' applications are solicited through emails to institutional listservs, requests for faculty to advertise the opportunity in their classes, and through word of mouth. Students who wish to apply must submit applications that enquire about their previous relevant coursework, experiences, and interests. The students are also asked about the projects in which they would be interested in working. Students whose applications show the most promise are invited for an interview to further enquire about their interest in the program. Those who are accepted into the program are then put into teams. Students typically come from across different disciplines, though most come from social sciences, policy, and STEM. Students are intentionally chosen from a diverse array of disciplines and careful consideration is given to how the academic and professional strengths of each student may complement those of their teammates. Once chosen, the students collaborate as members of an interdisciplinary team, work directly with the community partner, design and implement the actual original research project, and generate the results that inform the final recommendations to the partner.</p> <p>The HART program includes many of the components that previous research on civic engagement education finds are important to the long-term effectiveness in instilling civic-mindedness among students. First, the project is of long enough duration so that it takes considerable energy to complete, well beyond the 35 h noted by Hepburn, Niemi, and Chapman ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref63">15</reflink>]). Second, there is a clear objective for each team that participates, in that they have to solve a particular problem on behalf of the community partner. There is also a strong emphasis on the importance of local participation. Finally, the program involves direct contact with outside communities and/or their representatives, and ample reflection on the needs of those communities. In addition to these components, HART student participants are recruited from across all disciplines, not just from political students. It allows students to approach projects in an interdisciplinary manner and allows nonpolitical science majors to be exposed to civic engagement activities in which they might not have participated otherwise. In this paper, we assess whether students felt that participation in the HART program accomplished the goals that it aims to achieve for the participating students, as well as those valued more broadly in the civic engagement education literature.</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-9">Data and methods</hd> <p>The data used in this article are taken from survey responses of participating HART students. At the end of each semester, students are asked to complete a survey evaluating their experience in the HART program, as well as assess what they feel they have learned as a HART member. The data used in this article include responses from 87 students who worked on 19 projects and spans from the Fall semester of 2015 to the Fall semester of 2019. The sample includes students from across various majors and surveys were submitted anonymously. Drawing upon previous literature on civic engagement education, questions used in this survey are grouped to measure four key traits that are prevalent in assessing the effectiveness of civic education programs: civic knowledge and course application, self-efficacy, group collaboration, and overall sentiment toward the experience of participating in the program (see Hoffman [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref64">16</reflink>]; Claassen and Monson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref65">6</reflink>]; Huerta and Jozwiak [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref66">19</reflink>]). Students were asked to mark an answer on the survey using a standard 5-point Likert scale. For the purposes of quantitative analysis, these responses were coded as Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, and Strongly Agree = 5.</p> <p>The individual questions used to measure these four traits are shown in Table 1. The questions included for civic knowledge and course application are utilized based on the previous literature that emphasizes the importance of students being able to see the application of their coursework in the real world and the importance of recognizing the value of their actions to members of the community. For the self-efficacy measure, these questions are included because previous literature has pointed to the importance of instilling self-efficacy in college-aged students to promote future civic engagement. Consequently, these measures are included to measure how students feel the HART experience improved their capabilities as well as how they feel the experience will affect their future goals.</p> <p>Table 1. Questions used to measure each of the four key traits.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Civic knowledge and course application <italic>Answer choices: Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neutral; Agree; Strongly Agree</italic></td><td>Self-efficacy <italic>Answer choices: Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neutral; Agree; Strongly Agree</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Your HART project enabled you to apply what you have learned in academic classes to real-world issues facing the city of Houston.</p></list-item><list-item><p>The HART program helped you to better understand social issues and stakeholders.</p></list-item><list-item><p>As a result of my HART project experience, I know much more about our project's particular community and/or civic issue.</p></list-item><list-item><p>My HART project experience helped me understand which stakeholders are invested in the issue my team addressed.</p></list-item><list-item><p>The results of our HART project are of significant value to our community partner.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>I feel that my HART project experience has contributed to my growth as a civic leader.</p></list-item><list-item><p>My HART experience improved my creative problem-solving skills.</p></list-item><list-item><p>HART experience moved you forward regarding your personal and professional goals.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Group collaboration</td><td>Overall sentiment (Scale of 1–10)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Team Dynamics</italic> (<italic>Answer choices: Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neutral; Agree; Strongly Agree</italic>)<list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>I learned from my HART teammates during our project.</p></list-item><list-item><p>My HART experience helped me learn how to work more effectively on a team.</p></list-item></list><italic>Advising</italic> (Answer choices: <italic>Poor; Fair; Good; Excellent</italic>)<list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>The advising my team received from our Rice faculty advisor during our HART project was:</p></list-item><list-item><p>The advising my team received from CCL Staff during our [HART project was:</p></list-item><list-item><p>The advising my team received from our graduate student advisor during our HART project was:</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>On a scale of 1–10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest, how would you rank your OVERALL FEELINGS toward the HART Program?</p></list-item><list-item><p>On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest, how would you rank your OVERALL EXPERIENCE with this HART project?</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>There were several questions used to measure the internal cohesiveness of the student groups, staff, faculty, and graduate mentors within the HART program. These questions are included to gauge the student's feelings toward their interpersonal interactions with the program, in addition to the obtained civic and educational goals. The questions regarding staff, graduate student, and faculty advising used a 4-point Likert scale, in which students were asked to rate their advising as <emph>Excellent, Good, Fair,</emph> or <emph>Poor.</emph> For this analysis, <emph>Excellent</emph> is coded as 4, <emph>Good</emph> is coded as 3, <emph>Fair</emph> is coded as 2, and <emph>Poor</emph> is coded as 1. The last quantitative measure includes two questions that gauge the overall impression of the program by asking how they would rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, their overall experience, as well as their overall feeling toward the program.</p> <p>Finally, in addition to the quantitative data obtained from students, they were asked several questions in which they were asked to submit freely written responses. This study examines their written responses and codes them into a categorical schema that identifies the most common themes from the participating students. The questions examined here are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>) <emph>What do you consider to be the greatest strength of the HART program?</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>) <emph>What do you consider to be the greatest weakness of the HART program?</emph></p> <hd id="AN0163824100-10">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163824100-11">Quantitative analysis</hd> <p>Overall, students gave the HART program an extraordinarily positive quantitative assessment. In response to the questions that measure the four key traits, the overwhelming percentage of students marked "Agree" or "Strongly Agree". These results show that students felt that they had increased their civic knowledge and sense of course application, increased their sense of self-efficacy, felt positive about their group dynamics, had a positive evaluation of the advising they received, and had an overall positive evaluation of their time during the program. The respondent means for each measure are shown in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. Questions used to measure each of the four key traits with means and standard errors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Civic knowledge and course application <italic>Answer choices: Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neutral; Agree; Strongly Agree (Coded as 1–5)</italic></td><td>Self-efficacy <italic>Answer choices: Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neutral; Agree; Strongly Agree (Coded as 1–5)</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Your HART project enabled you to apply what you have learned in academic classes to real-world issues facing the city of Houston.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold>4.48</bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.067</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. The HART program helped you to better understand social issues and stakeholders.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>4.74</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.063</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>3. As a result of my HART project experience, I know much more about our project's particular community and/or civic issue.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>4.73</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.056</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>4. My HART project experience helped me understand which stakeholders are invested in the issue my team addressed.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>4.56</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.061</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>5. The results of our HART project are of significant value to our community partner.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>4.581</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.067</italic></bold><bold>Obs: 86</bold></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>I feel that my HART project experience has contributed to my growth as a civic leader.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>4.59</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.067</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. My HART experience improved my creative problem-solving skills.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>4.35</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.096</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>3. HART experience moved you forward regarding your personal and professional goals.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>4.5</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.068</italic></bold><bold>Obs: 86</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Group collaboration</td><td>Overall sentiment (Scale of 1–10)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Team Dynamics</italic><italic>Answer choices: Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neutral; Agree; Strongly Agree (Coded as 1–5)</italic><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. I learned from my HART teammates during our project.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>4.55</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.084</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. My HART experience helped me learn how to work more effectively on a team.</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>4.57</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.073</italic></bold><bold>Obs: 86</bold><italic>Advising</italic> Answer choices: <italic>Poor; Fair; Good; Excellent (Coded as 1–4)</italic><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. The advising my team received from our Rice faculty advisor during our HART project was:*</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>3.5</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.087</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. The advising my team received from CCL Staff during our HART project was:</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>3.78</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.045</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. The advising my team received from our graduate student advisor during our HART project was:</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>3.55</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.081</italic></bold> *<bold>Obs: 66,</bold> 20 respondents <bold><italic>worked</italic></bold> on projects with no faculty advisor</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>On a scale of 1–10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest, how would you rank your OVERALL FEELINGS toward the HART Program?</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold>8.73</bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.124</italic></bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest, how would you rank your OVERALL EXPERIENCE with this HART project?</p></list-item></list><italic>Mean:</italic><bold><italic>8.32</italic></bold><italic>Standard Error:</italic><bold><italic>0.110</italic></bold><bold>Obs. 86</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In addition to the students' evaluation of the separate components of the experience within the program, the means show that students' overall sentiment toward the program skewed high, with most responses in the 7–10 range. Histograms showing the percentage of responses for each question are displayed in Figures 1–6. As you can see from the histograms showing the percentage of the answer distribution, the majority of student respondents selected "Strongly agree" on all measures regarding course application and civic knowledge, self-efficacy, group collaboration, and advising. Additionally, almost all respondents rated their overall feeling and experience in the program at 5 or higher on a scale of 1–10.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Course application and civic knowledge question responses.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Self-efficacy question responses.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Group collaboration question responses.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Advising question responses.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. Overall feelings toward HART.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6. Overall experience in HART.</p> <p>We also calculated the composite mean score by averaging the responses to all of the questions included in our four categories and the overall sentiment. The mean score for the questions included in our civic knowledge and application measure is 4.62 out of a possible 5. The mean score for the questions included in our self-efficacy score is 4.48 out of a possible 5. The mean score for our measure of group collaboration is 4.56 out of a possible 5. The mean score for our measure of the effectiveness of team advising is 3.61 out of a possible 4. Finally, the mean score for the overall sentiment of the students toward the HART program is 8.52 out of a possible 10.</p> <p>Based on these means, we can conclude that almost all students rated their outcome measures very highly. Though the differences in the composite means are minor, it is worth noting that the highest scores were on those questions regarding civic knowledge and application, and group collaboration. This implies that the students seemed to feel that the program was most effective at applying course knowledge to real-life issues and providing an opportunity to collaborate with teammates across disciplines. However, to delve deeper into the student responses, and provide a much richer analysis of the HART program outcomes, we also conduct a qualitative assessment of the written responses provided by student participants. The qualitative assessment will allow us to discern any particular aspects of the program in which the students may have found particularly interesting or useful, as well as if there were any parts of the program that they felt were lacking or needed improvement.</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-12">Qualitative analysis</hd> <p>We conducted a qualitative content analysis of written student responses to questions regarding what they felt were the greatest strengths of the HART program and the greatest weaknesses of the HART program. There were 87 written responses in total. We coded the written responses to each question according to which aspects of the HART program they most frequently addressed.</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-13">Greatest strengths</hd> <p>The responses to the question regarding the greatest strengths of the HART program fell into three broad categories: the opportunity to work with "real world" issues (mentioned in 34 of the 87 responses), the opportunity to work in an interdisciplinary setting (mentioned in 13 of 87 responses), and the benefits of allowing for student-driven research, which allowed for greater creativity and independence(mentioned in 11 of the 87 responses). There were also several mentions of the program offering familiarization with the local area/community. The frequency of these themes in the written responses suggests that students were most excited by working outside the traditional parameters of a typical college classroom setting, in addition to exercising an independence not typical in typical class assignments.</p> <p>The content analysis revealed that most students found the experience of working on a project for which they could see the immediate real-world consequences to be among the most rewarding takeaways from the program. This bolsters the findings of the quantitative analysis. There were several mentions of how students liked the fact that they were able to see the potential concrete and tangible effects on the community as a result of the work they had put into the project. As one student noted:</p> <p>As a student coming from California, with no in-depth knowledge of the Houston community and its educational/health systems and policies, I was able to be fully involved in a Houston-based research project. The HART Program gives Rice University students the opportunity to participate in the Houston community in a significant, impactful way. Being able to create a series of recommendations for [<emph>the community partner liaison</emph>], and being able to see her thoughtful consideration of our ideas, both contributed to a meaningful experience.</p> <p>Students also appreciated the exposure to different perspectives which was a natural consequence of working in an interdisciplinary setting. Students noted that not only did they find the interdisciplinary nature of the program to be refreshing, but also lamented that it was not something that happened with any sort of frequency in academic coursework:</p> <p>The greatest strength of the program was that it brought together students and faculty from across multiple disciplines and years to work towards a single goal, which is something that hardly ever happens in academic coursework since usually classes with long term projects are within a single major. This allowed us to have an array of differing perspectives on the issue we were working with, and ultimately produced the best possible product for HPL.</p> <p>Some students made these points in more blunt assessments of how the greatest strength of the HART program was that it got students to not only get outside of their intellectual but also their physical comfort zone. As one student wrote, the greatest strength of HART program was, "The ability to work on a self-directed team and engage at a serious level outside the Rice University hedges."</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-14">Greatest weaknesses</hd> <p>Student responses most frequently fell into two broad categories: the uncertainty that comes with conducting an independent research project and the time duration of the program, which most felt was too short. Ironically, the most common aspect referenced in these responses was also one of the things that students mentioned as a strength: the flexibility and independence allowed students to conduct the research project. This was mentioned in 22 of the 87 responses. As one student wrote:</p> <p>The incredible flexibility of the program, which could certainly be considered a strength, I would consider its greatest weakness. With little "hard" direction from the CCL, the team has much flexibility to go where ever they would like with the project, but also leaves them sort of floundering for half the semester trying to figure out what to do.</p> <p>One student wrote that the flexibility potentially being a weakness was perhaps a necessary "pitfall" of programs like HART:</p> <p>The high degree of autonomy given to the team is great, but can also be difficult to manage if there are issues like lack of communication and equal effort in the team. I think it's an important learning experience, and inevitably a pitfall of the kind of working environment that HART tries to foster."</p> <p>The second most common theme was the duration of the program, with many suggesting that one semester was not sufficient to thoroughly complete their project and get the full potential benefit of the experience. The short duration of the program was mentioned in 15 of the 87 responses. One student wrote, "The short time span limited the full potential of the solution which students can propose." Another student noted that they would have liked to take the project that they conducted specifically for the HART program, and expand it into a larger project:</p> <p>The greatest weakness of the HART Program is its short duration. Particularly for our project, it was only possible for us to evaluate UFE's operational success. I would have liked to have more time to perhaps conduct a longitudinal study of UFE's impact on school nurses, children, parents, and teachers. Because of the short time span of our semester-long project, we were only able to make suggestions for future UFE research teams.</p> <p>The fact that the shortness of the program was cited as a weakness by student participants further illustrates, not only the demand for civic engagement programs facilitated by institutions of higher education but also the desire of students to maximize the potential for building partnerships with the community beyond the college campus.</p> <hd id="AN0163824100-15">Discussion and implications</hd> <p>In this article, we find that participating students had an overwhelmingly positive assessment of the HART program. They had a positive evaluation of the programs ability to impart civic knowledge, increase self-efficacy, encourage teamwork, and the students had a positive assessment of their advising and the overall experience. Our analysis of the means and distribution of the respondent scores demonstrate that students perceived themselves as having acquired new skills with regard to their ability to apply course content to a real-life policy matter, as well as an increased sense of self-efficacy. The previous literature on civic engagement has suggested that bridging the gap between the abstract concepts taught in the classroom and the practical matters of community life are essential to instilling into students an appreciation for civic engagement that will last beyond their time as a college student. These results suggest that, from the student perspective, this institutionalized civic engagement program has contributed to their sense of civic appreciation.</p> <p>However, what is particularly illuminating were the aspects of the program that were emphasized in their qualitative evaluations. The students were particularly excited by the prospect of working on "real world" issues, rather than learning abstract concepts typical for the classroom. Additionally, they were excited by the opportunity to work in an interdisciplinary environment, with students that were chosen from different disciplines with different skill sets. The potential implication of these findings is that future civic engagement education programs may want to encourage a stronger partnership with external community organizations and to encourage students from across disciplines to work together, rather than simply working with political science students, or students from other majors that traditionally examine civic engagement issues.</p> <p>The aspects of the program that students reported as weaknesses in the program are also revealing. Even though the program lasts an entire semester, and students are encouraged to work 10–12 h per week on their projects, many felt that this time frame was not enough to maximize the potential of the experience. This suggests that future programs looking to foster community engagement programs may want to consider programs that are of a longer duration, perhaps over the course of an entire academic year. Additionally, though the students were excited about the projects being self-directed, many noted feeling quite a bit of trepidation at the beginning as they were left to their own devices. This suggests that educators may want to encourage more student-driven independent research at the undergraduate level. Given that students were not used to the idea when they entered the program, it suggests a need for more independent student-driven projects at the undergraduate level.</p> <p>Several of the students did mention the perceived lack of structure and direction at the beginning of the semester. Administrators must consider whether the time spent at the beginning of the semester is being utilized wisely. However, program administrators must strike a fine balance between providing structure at the beginning of a project and depriving students of agency over the project's direction. When presented with the ability to decide a project's direction for the first time, many teams will desire more guidance or support. It is important for faculty advisors and project administrators to serve as resources and sounding boards in this process but to not become decision makers and deprive students of a valuable learning opportunity. The students may make mistakes or pursue lines of inquiry that do not pan out, but this is also a valuable part of the experiential learning process.</p> <p>Civic education is of vital importance to the survival and health of the American democratic spirit. The findings and implications of this study show that institutionalized civic engagement programs that encourage work with community partners in interdisciplinary settings can yield a positive impact on undergraduate students and provide opportunities for students to become invested in the social issues of community organizations and municipal agencies. If similar types of programs can be emulated at other institutions, it may go a long way toward ensuring long-term civic health and embed a participatory spirit amongst college students that will flourish well after they move beyond their college careers.</p> <ref id="AN0163824100-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref10" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Barber, Benjamin R. 1992. An Aristocracy of Everyone. New York : Ballantine.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Battistoni, Richard M. 1997. " Service Learning and Democratic Citizenship." Theory into Practice 36 (3): 150 – 156. doi: 10.1080/00405849709543761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Berry, Jeffrey M., and David F. Arons. 2005. A Voice for Nonprofits. Washington, DC : Brookings Institution Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Campus Compact. 1994. Mapping the Geography of Service on a College Campus. Providence : Brown University Campus Compact.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref24" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carpini, Delli, X. Michael, and Scott Keter. 2000. " What Should Be Learned through Service Learning." PS: Political Science and Politics 33 (3): 635 – 637. doi: 10.2307/420870.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref38" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Claassen, Ryan L., and J. Quin Monson. 2015. " Does Civic Education Matter?: The Power of Long Term Observation and the Experimental Method." Journal of Political Science Education 11 (4): 404 – 421. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2015.1069197.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref30" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, Joshua, and Martha C. Nussbaum. 1996. For Love of Country: Debating the Limits Patriotism. New York, NY : Beacon Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York, NY : Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey, John. 1938. Experience and Education. New York, NY : Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eyler, Janet, and Dwight E. Giles. Jr. 1997. " The Importance of Program Quality in Service Learning." In Service-Learning: Applications from the Research, ed. Alan S. Waterman. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eyler, Janet, Dwight E. Giles Jr., and John Braxton. 1997. " The Impact of Service-Learning on College Students." Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 4 : 5 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forestiere, Carolyn. 2015. " Promoting Civic Agency through Civic-Engagement Activities: A Guide for Instructors New to Civic-Engagement Pedagogy." Journal of Political Science Education 11 (4): 455 – 471. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2015.1066684.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedin, Diane P. 1989. " The Power of Community Service." Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 37 (2): 201 – 213. doi: 10.2307/1173962.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hepburn, Mary A. 1997. " Service Learning in Civic Education: A Concept with Long, Sturdy Roots." Theory into Practice 36 (3): 136 – 142. doi: 10.1080/00405849709543759.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hepburn, Mary A., Richard G. Niemi, and Chris Chapman. 2000. " Service Learning in College Political Science: Queries and Commentary." PS: Political Science and Politics 33 (3): 617 – 622.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman, Adam H. 2015. " Institutionalizing Political and Civic Engagement on Campus." Journal of Political Science Education 11 (3): 264 – 278. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2015.1047101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette, and Sally Raskoff. 1994. " Community Service-Learning: Promises and Problems." Teaching Sociology 22 (3): 248 – 255. doi: 10.2307/1319139.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huddy, Leonie, and Nadia Khatib. 2007. " American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement." American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 63 – 77. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00237.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huerta, Juan Carlos, and Joseph Jozwiak. 2008. " Developing Civic Engagement in General Education Political Science." Journal of Political Science Education 4 (1): 42 – 60. doi: 10.1080/15512160701816101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunter, Susan, and Richard A. Brisbin Jr. 2000. " The Impact of Service Learning on Democratic and Civic Values." PS: Political Science and Politics 33 (3): 623 – 626.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunter, Susan, and Richard A. Brisbin Jr. 2003. " Civic Education and Political Science: A Survey of Practices." PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (4): 759 – 763.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kateb, George. 2006. Patriotism and Other Mistakes. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1995. "Is Patriotism a Virtue?" In Theorizing Citizenship, ed. R. Beiner. Albany, NY : Steve University of New York Press, 209 – 228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, Tania D. 2008. " Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Models." Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 14 (2): 50 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niemi, Richard G., Mary A. Hepburn, and Chris Chapman. 2000. " Community Service by High School Students: A Cure for Civic Ills? " Political Behavior 22 (1): 45 – 69. doi: 10.1023/A:1006690417623.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pompa, L. 2005. " Service- Learning as Crucible: Reflections on Immersion, Context, Power, and Transformation." In Service-Learning in Higher Education, ed. D. Butin. New York, NY : Palgrave MacMillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY : Simon & Schuster.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richey, Sean. 2011. " Civic Engagement and Patriotism." Social Science Quarterly 92 (4): 1044 – 1056. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00803.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schatz, Robert T., Ervin Staub, and Howard Lavine. 1999. " Attachment: Blind versus Constructive Patriotism." Political Psychology 20 (1): 151 – 174. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shumer, Robert. 1994. " Community-Based Learning: Humanizing Education." Journal of Adolescence 17 (4): 357 – 367. doi: 10.1006/jado.1994.1032.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Assendelft, Laura. 2008. " City Council Meetings Are Cool": Increasing Student Engagement through Service Learning." Journal of Political Science Education 4 (1): 86 – 97. doi: 10.1080/15512160701816150.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Matt Lamb; Steven Perry and Alan Steinberg</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Matt Lamb , Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University. His research interests include American politics, election administration, Latinx politics, and civic engagement.</p> <p>Steven Perry , Ph.D. is a Lecturer in Data Visualization in the Program in Writing and Communication at Rice University. His research interests include political decision-making, political psychology, and effective data communication.</p> <p>Alan Steinberg , Ph.D. is a former university administrator and the President/CEO of the West Houston Association. His interests include civic engagement, advocacy, and civic leadership.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib617" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib618" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib268" firstref="ref55"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1389620
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: From Classroom to Community: An Assessment and Potential Implications of an Undergraduate Civic Engagement Research and Learning Program
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lamb%2C+Matt%22">Lamb, Matt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9249-3989">0000-0001-9249-3989</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Perry%2C+Steven%22">Perry, Steven</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4369-751X">0000-0002-4369-751X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Steinberg%2C+Alan%22">Steinberg, Alan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Political+Science+Education%22"><i>Journal of Political Science Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 19(2):250-269.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Evaluation%22">Curriculum Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Citizen+Participation%22">Citizen Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Citizenship+Education%22">Citizenship Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Science%22">Political Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Service+Learning%22">Service Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Research%22">Student Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas+%28Houston%29%22">Texas (Houston)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15512169.2022.2128811
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1551-2169<br />1551-2177
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Civic education in undergraduate institutions is of vital importance to the civic health of society, but faculty often find it difficult to incorporate civic components into existing courses and lack the resources to incorporate civic outreach into their curriculum. As a result, research has shown that time spend on civic engagement is limited. Additionally, civic engagement is rarely discussed, much less encouraged, outside of political science or other social science classes. In this article, we assess the outcomes of a unique co-curricular civic engagement research and learning program in which undergraduate students are required to work with an external partner, usually a municipal agency or nonprofit, to complete an independent research project. Using quantitative and qualitative student evaluations, we find that students had an overwhelmingly positive experience with the program. They especially appreciated the opportunity to work on "real world" issues in an interdisciplinary setting. They also expressed a desire for a longer program that extended beyond a single semester. We discuss the potential implications of these findings.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1389620
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1389620
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15512169.2022.2128811
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 250
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Citizen Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Citizenship Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Political Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Service Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas (Houston)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: From Classroom to Community: An Assessment and Potential Implications of an Undergraduate Civic Engagement Research and Learning Program
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lamb, Matt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Perry, Steven
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Steinberg, Alan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1551-2169
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1551-2177
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Political Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1