Community-Engaged Learning and Place-Based Learning Course Attribute | Course Attributes

Course Attributes

Dickinson has created two course attributes to provide a framework for faculty efforts that link coursework to community-based contexts of learning and research. Below is a summary of course types and requirements, learning goals, and a comparison chart.

CCLA co-directors are happy to consult with faculty on course development and community projects. Please review our staff about page for contacts. For questions about the course attribute process, please contact Laura Megivern.

Place-Based Learning

Place-based learning courses provide opportunities for students to learn in and with the larger community but meet a lower threshold for public outreach. They may or may not involve working alongside a partner, including campus-based partners, to engage students in understanding classroom concepts and problem-solving in a specific community, including ones within Dickinson.

These may include, but are not limited to: community walks, story map making, partner projects, field observations, and/or asset mapping. In this category, the reciprocity is different, with students expected to be good stewards in their quest for knowledge. These classes may not have the same level of mutual benefit but would encourage students to develop a deep connection to place. The place-based experience will hopefully inspire future community-engaged learning opportunities.

Requirements for PBL courses:

Identifies and clearly articulates a community goal, priority, opportunity, challenge, project or query that aligns with course content. The community goal should address the common good (as opposed to solely for profit purposes) and can be local, regional, national, or global in focus. The “community” can involve participants beyond the College (“in the community”), but it can also on-campus partners (e.g. Facilities, Dickinson Farm) and engagement with community that is more indirect, including field observations, archival work, critical mapping or walking, etc.

Community engagement is integrated into at least one aspect of the course’s design and at least one course-specific learning outcome. The recommendation is to incorporate community engagement into 10-25% of the course, including learning assessment. Exploration of place and community is central to understanding course content in PBL courses but may be limited to portions of the course.

Critical reflection is integrated into the community engaged aspect(s) of the course. Guided, critical reflection helps students to make meaning of intersections between academic knowledge, community-engaged experiences, and understanding of diversity, positionality, and power. In other words, the course prioritizes analysis and interpretation of community engagement, not only interaction.

PBL Learning Goals:

Students can identify who the partner or place is along with how the PBL course activities impact the community partner/place’s priorities.

Students will apply disciplinary knowledge in their interaction with the community partner/place’s priorities.

Students can explain how the PBL course activities (field observations, critical reflection, class interviews etc.) interact with the partner/place and affect themselves or their understanding of the partner/place.

Community-Engaged Learning

Community-Engaged Learning courses respond to a community-identified goal, priority, opportunity, challenge, project, or query that strongly aligns with course content. In Community-Engaged Learning courses, community partners work with faculty to design and implement rich, applied learning experiences that respond to the community-identified need and provide reciprocal value for students and partners. Community engagement is sustained throughout the semester and beyond. With Community-Engaged Learning courses, student learning takes on real-world ramifications for the common good.

Requirements for CEL courses:

Identifies and clearly articulates a community goal, priority, opportunity, challenge, project, or query that aligns with course content. The community goal should be determined in consultation with a named community partner working to address the common good (as opposed to for-profit purposes) and can be local, regional, national, or global in focus. The “community” should involve participants beyond the College (“in the community”), whether that includes residents, non-profit or grassroots organizations, governmental agencies, social enterprises, or groups with social good embedded into their mission(s). *the only for-profit instances that might be relevant are small-scale social enterprise projects, such as working with underrepresented youth or groups on business plans. Otherwise, student work should not be applied to for-profit endeavors.

Community engagement is integrated into the course, including the course design, pedagogy, learning outcomes, and assessment of learning. The recommendation is to dedicate 50% of the course to community engagement in total, across all of these areas. Course materials (e.g., course descriptions, syllabi) should set clear expectations for engagement with students, since the course will require them to participate differently than in standard courses (e.g. travel off campus, scheduling outside of class time, potential need for background checks, trigger warning language).

Critical student reflection is integrated into the course design and student assignments. Guided, critical reflection helps students to make meaning of intersections between academic knowledge, community-engaged experiences, and understanding of diversity, positionality, and power. In other words, the course prioritizes analysis and interpretation of community engagement, not only interaction.

Reciprocal benefit for both students and community members is prioritized. Course materials should make clear to students the benefits that they would gain from such community-engaged work. Additionally, the potential benefits to the community should be clearly stated, including potential benefits that may come in the long run. An example of that will be data or information being collected that can be helpful for the community in the long term.

Community engagement is sustained throughout the course, prioritizing ongoing interaction over time rather than a single occurrence. Though the quality and caliber of the work should remain the priority, a recommendation is to consider a minimum of 20 hours or five weeks of direct engagement within a 15-week course.

A minimum percentage of the student’s grade should be based on assignments or work related to community engagement. The recommendation is 30-40% of a students’ grade. Passing the course is contingent upon completing the community-engaged components of the course.

The course takes an asset-based approach to community engagement, situating the community as a place with knowledge, gifts, and complex histories. The community partner(s) is positioned as a co-educator and the community as a place of value, not a place of problems that require “fixing” nor a place of extraction.

Recommendations for CEL courses:

Consider course enrollment size – how does this align with the complexity of group projects? In the past some faculty have found smaller courses easier to manage for complex CEL projects.

A minimum of 20 hours or five weeks of direct engagement within a 15-week course.

Consider incorporation of a shared product or deliverable within the course assignments, including a report or presentation for a partner or a written reflection.

Offer a channel for community partner feedback throughout the experience and especially at the end, perhaps as part of a course grade or evaluation.

Participate in professional development or learning communities related to CEL, offered every other summer and periodically throughout the year.

Consider compensation avenues for partners for their knowledge and contributions.

CEL Learning Goals:

Students can comprehensively articulate who the community partner is along with the community partner’s expertise regarding the CEL course, and how the CEL course activities address the community partner’s priorities.

Students will apply disciplinary knowledge to community priorities.

Students can explain how the CEL course activities generate mutual benefit for the community partner and themselves.

Place-Based Vs. Community-Engaged Learning – Which is Right for My Course?

Below is a chart comparing the two course types. As you consider which attribute may be the best fit, think about the proportion of the course related to community work – what is the commitment students will be making in addition to the rest of the course? Grading should reflect this commitment.

If you are unsure which might be the best fit for your course, please reach out to CCLA staff.

	Place-Based Learning (PBL)	Community-Engaged Learning (CEL)
Course example	Students measure pollutants along the Susquehanna River in an environmental chemistry course but don't necessarily have an interested partner to share back information.	In an environmental chemistry course, the faculty member, recognizing that a particular neighborhood along the river is most affected, makes contact with community leadership, and co-plans with community leaders for additional measurements to include tap water from local residents. The findings will be shared back to community members.
Potential activities	Court watching, archival research, field observations, storytelling, critical walks, community-mapping, public scholarship May or may not be connected directed to a partner	Direct service, consulting project with community leaders, research-based inquiry into a question identified by residents, creation of a community-identified deliverable (e.g. report, presentation) PBL activities could also be relevant here, so long as they are connected directly to an identified partner. (e.g., archival research that is connected to a present-day community group, or creating products from archives for a public audience like a curated exhibit)
Community partners	On campus and off-campus partners who prioritize the common good, learning at a distance	“In the community,” beyond Dickinson with partners who prioritize the common good and do not utilize students and their work solely for profit
Time commitment	Could be limited to only parts of the course	Sustained throughout the course (recommendation: 20 hours/5 weeks minimum)
Integration into the course	Integrated into at least one element of course design and one learning outcome.	At least 50% integration of community engagement into course design, pedagogy, learning outcomes, and assessment of learning.

Applying for Course Attributes

Course attributes can be applied to courses either each semester or as a course-level attribute – course-level attributes apply to a course each time it is taught. Applications are due on the Tuesday of the second week of each new semester (same due date as new course proposals to APSC) and may be considered on a rolling basis.

To apply for either Place-Based Learning or Community-Engaged Learning attributes, please complete this form.

A checklist of information you will need to apply for the attribute is available for download here.

Applications for attributes are considered by the CCLA curriculum committee (a subcommittee of our advisory board made up of current faculty).

If you are interested in a course-level attribute, the application must be completed by the department chair. Periodic review of the attribute will be required, and a brief registration form of community partnerships and potential support needs will be required each semester.

Questions about the attribute application process can be directed to Laura Megivern.