The document summarizes the development and implementation of the Community-Based Learning (CBL) Scorecard by the Teagle Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges. The consortium aimed to systematically assess CBL programming and student learning. It developed student, community partner, and faculty scorecards based on best practices research. The scorecards were tested across multiple institutions and refined based on feedback. Implementation findings showed that the scorecards helped shape effective CBL course design and identify areas for improvement. The consortium also facilitated sharing of assessment strategies and results.

1. TEAGLE CONSORTIUM OF
LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE CBL SCORECARD
Dr. Margueritte Murphy, Faculty Advisor and Liaison,
Center for Community Engagement & Service-Learning
Kathleen S. Flowers, Director, Center for Community
Engagement & Service-Learning
Tuesday March 22, 2016
Campus Compact, 30th Anniversary Conference

2. Agenda:
1. Introductions (Facilitators and Attendees)
2. Story of the Teagle Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges and
development of Community Based Learning Scorecard
• Student scorecard
• Community partner scorecard
• Faculty scorecard
3. Implementation (what worked, and what didn’t!?)
4. Q and A
5. Small group discussions
• What does CBL assessment look like on your campus?
• If and how the CBL scorecards might assist in your efforts

3. Aim: “to build a replicable process for assessing community-base learning courses and programs”
 Systematically assess the value added of CBL programming on student
learning and civic engagement, using the CBL Scorecard we developed for measuring CBL
course/program effectiveness;
 Close the assessment loop by developing a process for applying Scorecard results to
course/program improvement and by broadly disseminating and encouraging the use of the protocol and
collected data institutionally, regionally and nationally and;
 Expand and sustain a consortium of liberal arts colleges committed to
establishing and sharing effective practices for the assessment of community-based learning. Two sub-
goals for the consortium are to:
 Disseminate information about the impact of CBL on student cognitive learning and
 Create a culture of assessment on the campuses of participating institutions.
TEAGLE CONSORTIUM OF LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CBL SCORECARD

4. The two primary elements of our plan for achieving these goals are
(1)a fully-developed, tested and replicable assessment protocol that can be
broadly disseminated (both the instruments and the data collected); and
(2)the creation of a community of practice for liberal arts colleges to implement
the protocol on their campuses and share data and best practices about
community-based learning. (from Report to the Teagle Foundation 2008)
CBL Scorecard is based in already-existing research studies of practices that
promote learning in community-based learning courses and programs.
TEAGLE CONSORTIUM OF LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CBL SCORECARD

5. Refinement of instrument: Vanderbilt
University consultants Drs. John Braxton
and Willis Jones (now at the University of
Kentucky) undertook an extensive literature
review on community based learning and
the development of best practices for CBL
programs in higher education. They grouped
these best practices into 4 overarching
“domains of practice”:
(1) placement quality
(2) application and connection to academic
learning
(3) reflection
(4) quality of community partnerships.
Braxton and Jones sent factors to national
service-learning experts and, applying their
weightings, further refined the instrument.

6. Consortium administered CBL
Scorecard across member
institutions and multiple
disciplines over several years.
We believe that our approach
is valuable in both its focus on
the course or program as the
unit of analysis and its
foundation in existing research
on effective service learning
practice.
Domain Observat
ions
Mean SD Min Max
Applica 114 67.10658 11.52938 32.15 84.8
ComPart 99 63.00253 9.33377 38.5 77
PlaceQual 114 80.41886 10.33977 55 96
Reflect 107 70.8972 10.23941 44.75 90
Total 90 281.7683 35.85141 197.15 347.8
Summary Stats per Domain: Students only (Fall
2010 / 148 students / 14 classes @ 5 institutions)
Placement Quality
Application &
Connection
Reflection Community Partners
3=strongly disagree 3.54=strongly disagree 2.5=strongly disagree 3.85=strongly disagree
6=disagree 7.08=disagree 5=disagree 7.70=disagree
9=agree 10.62=agree 7.5=agree 11.55=agree
12=strongly agree 14.16=strongly agree 10=strongly agree 15.40=strongly agree
Summary Stats per Institution, HWS Example:
85 students – 4 classes

7. “CBL Scorecard
2.0”
Analysis evolved
with input from
consortium
members

8. Community of Practice…
and indirect by tangible and positive outcome!

9. Dr. Susan Dicklitch, Franklin & Marshall
College. Gov. 425 - Human Rights + Human
Wrongs
Campus Conversation: Survey
submissions and analysis; “Self-
assessment Instrument for Service-
Learning Sustainability”

13. Our goal was to make the
instrument useful as a
classroom diagnostic tool
that can be readily used by
instructors without
professional interpretation.
• Student scorecard
• Community partner
scorecard
• Faculty scorecard

14. “I mean it’s been extremely beneficial, absolutely. It’s helpful on the front end about how you think about
shaping a course to meet those criteria. So knowing that there’s going to be this assessment stuff, it really
does help shape the way you’re thinking about a course, rather than, ‘Oh, my gosh. I gotta get this together” and
it’s a narrow sense. You think more broadly about course design because you have a scorecard as a
framework to operate out of.”
“. . .it helped me realize what I wasn’t doing that I needed to do. I kind of knew what it was. It’s just in order to
do it you really need to invest a lot more time than what I had put in. It was helpful in that way to clarify for me
knowing what the best practices were in the literature and in-the-field that I wasn’t hitting all those best
practices.”
“But how it (the scorecard) had functioned for myself and other faculty here, who were teaching, it
helped you think more comprehensively about what we wanted for our course - how we wanted our course.
So that intentionality really helped.”
What did the
faculty say
about it?
.

15. What did our community partners say about it?
Community partners selected to
provide feedback on their direct
observations of students (over the
Teagle Scorecard)

16. Thank you!
Feel free to contact us with questions, or suggestions!
kflowers@hws.edu or mmurphy@hws.edu
1.How might the scorecard assist your campus CBL assessment
efforts?
2.Will it build upon existing successful strategies? If so, how?
3.Please share resources you’ve found helpful.
4.What challenges do you anticipate facing if you choose to
implement the scorecard - and can we collectively brainstorm
a solution?
Small Group Discussion

17. APPENDIX II: SOURCES CITED – DEVELOPMENT OF SCORECARD
Alexander W. Astin, Lori J. Vogelgesang, Elaine K. Ikeda and Jennifer A. Yee, How Service Learning Affects Students (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of
California, 2000).
Executive Summary: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/PDFs/rhowas.pdf
Alexander W. Astin and Linda J. Sax., “How Undergraduates are Affected by Service Participation,” Journal of College Student Development 39:3 (1998): 251-263.
Alexander W. Astin, Linda J. Sax, and J. Avalos, “Long Term Effects of Volunteerism During the Undergraduate Years,” Review of Higher Education 22:2 (1999): 187-202.
G. M. Bodner, T. L. B. McMillen, “Cognitive Restructuring as an Early Stage in Problem Solving,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23:8 (Nov 1986), 727-37.
L. Carter, Using Situational Leadership to Reach the Whole Population, paper presented at the Association for General and Liberal Studies Conference (Daytona Beach: October 1996).
Campus Compact, Introduction to Service-Learning Toolkit: Readings and Resources for Faculty, Second Edition (Providence: Brown University, 2003), 7-10.
S. L. Enos & M. L. Troppe, “Service-Learning in the Curriculum,” Service-Learning in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc., 1996),
156-181.
Janet Eyler and Dwight E. Giles, Jr., Where’s the Service in Service-Learning? (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999).
Janet S. Eyler, Dwight E.Giles, Jr., Christine M. Stenson, and Charlene J. Gray, At A Glance: What We Know about The Effects of Service-Learning on College Students, Faculty,
Institutions and Communities, 1993- 2000: Third Edition (Corporation for National Service Learn and Serve America National Service Learning Clearinghouse: 2001)
http://www.servicelearning.org/filemanager/download/4192_AtAGlance.pdf
V. J. Fabry, R. Eisenbach, R. R. Curry, & V. L. Golich, “Thank you for asking: Classroom assessment techniques and students’ perceptions of learning,” Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 8:1 (1997), 3-21.
Andrew Furco, “Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning In Higher Education,” Service-Learning Research & Development Center University of California,
Berkeley (revised 2002). http://servicelearning.org/filemanager/download/Furco_rubric.pdf
J. A. Galura & J. P. F. Howard, Praxis I: A Faculty Casebook on Community Service Learning (Ann Arbor: The OCSL Press, 1996), 5-9.
G. Gibbs & M. Coffey, “The Impact of Training of University Teachers on their Teaching Skills, their Approach to Teaching and the Approach to Learning of their Students,” Active
Learning in Higher Education: The Journal of the Institute for Learning and Teaching, 5:1 (Mar 2004), 87-100.

18. Greene and G. Diehm, “Educational and Service Outcomes of a Service Integration Effort,” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2 (1995): 54-62.
E.P. Honnet and S.J. Poulen, Principles of Good Practice for Combining Service and Learning: A Wingspread Special Report. (Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation, Inc., 1989).
http://www.servicelearning.org/resources/online_documents/service-learning_standards/
L. W. Keig & M. C. Waggoner, “Peer review of teaching: Improving college instruction through formative assessment,” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6:3 (1995), 51-83.
D. A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc., 1984).
A. E. Lawson, D. L. Banks, M. Logvin, “Self-Efficacy, Reasoning Ability, and Achievement in College Biology,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44:5 (2003), 706-24.
Barbara E. Moely, Sterett H. Mercer, Vincent Ilustre and Devi Miron, “Psychometric Properties and Correlates of the Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (CASQ): A Measure of
Students’ Attitudes Related to Service-Learning,” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8:2 (2002): 15-26.
R. Nasser, J. Carifio, The Effects of Cognitive Style and Piagetian Logical Reasoning on Solving a Propositional Relation Algebra Word Problem, paper presented at the New England
Educational Research Organization (Portsmouth NH: April 1993).
S. A. Nunes & T. F. Halloran, Elements for a Training Design: An Assessment of Competencies for Effective ABE Instructors, Florida State Department of Education, Tallahassee
(1987).
H. Seeman, “A Rationale and Methodology for Assessing and Awarding Credit for Student’s [sic] Experience in Cooperative Education,” Workplace Education 2:2 (Nov-Dec 1983), 11-
12.
N. S. Shapiro, “Rhetorical Maturity and Perry’s Model of Intellectual Development: A Study of College Students’ Writing and Thinking,” Research Report (Educational Resources
Information Center: 1985).
M. K. Snooks, S. E. Neeley, & L. Revere, “Midterm student feedback: Results of a pilot study,” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 18:3 (2007), 55-73.
M. V. Subramony, “The Relationship of Performance Feedback and Service-Learning,” Michigan
Journal of Community Service Learning 7(2000): 46-53.
G. Whitcomb, “Academic Service-Learning in Christian Higher Education: A Critical Assessment,” Association of Christians in Student Development National Conference 2007,
workshop and paper.
Q. Zhang, “Teacher Misbehaviors as Learning Demotivators in College Classrooms: A Cross-Cultural Investigation in China, Germany, Japan, and the United States,” Communication
Education, 56:2 (2007), 209-227.