The following material arises from the University of Oregon's productivity planning process and is made available here in the hope of engaging the whole university community in that process. This material contains the conclusions of one of the nine productivity working groups; it does NOT represent official university policy.

We solicit your responses and suggestions. Please direct them to the chair of the working group or to Charles Wright, Department of Mathematics.

REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATORY LEARNING PRODUCTIVITY GROUP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(The full report, which contains a priority matrix unsuitable for electronic distribution, is available from the chair of the working group.)

November 19, 1993

Membership of the working group: Deborah Chereck, Career Planning and Placement Service Karlin Conklin, College of Business Administration Charles Frazer, Journalism John Dryzek, Political Science James O'Fallon, Law Geraldine Richmond, Chemistry Anne Leavitt, Academic Support and Student Services Richard Stevenson, English Jerry Finrow, AAA David Povey, PPPM, Chair

I. The Charge: Participatory Learning Productivity Group (PLPG)

The ten members of this committee met on three occasions to:

"examine participatory learning at the University of Oregon, especially with respect to increases in productivity of faculty, students and the University"

The PLPG defined Participatory Learning experiences as activities that involve the students directly in learning, such as internships, practica, research, senior theses, student teaching and student/faculty teams performing research and service. (See attached Productivity Matrices)

Productivity increases were identified as more effective learning, self-directed learning, contributions to research and service while learning, increased probability of graduation and the like.

PLPG Members: Deb Chereck, Karlin Conklin, Jerry Finrow, Charles Frazer, Ann Leavitt, John Moseley, James O'Fallen, David Povey (Chair), Geri Richmond, Rich Stevenson

II. The Process

Members of the group met on October 29, November 12 and November 18, 1993. At these meetings we developed:

• 1) a timeline to accomplish our task;
• 2) divided labor to accomplish the tasks,
• 3) reviewed current literature on the topic;
• 4) developed and modified productivity criteria and
• 5) measures of progress for increased productivity;
• 6) identified undergraduate PL programs now operating on campus;
• 8) developed 1 page summaries of participatory learning models to be considered for expansion on this campus;
• 9) evaluated proposed models using the PLPG Productivity Review Matrix;
• 10) assessed the potential for expansion of these models within current funding;
• 11) recommended PL models that appear deserving of additional funding if available;
• 12) developed a priority listing for PL model expansion;
• 13) developed recommendations with respect to PL on this campus;
• 14) outlined next steps the PLPG is willing to take.

III. The Product

The PLPG has identified 15 Participatory Learning Models which increase productivity for students, faculty, the University and the region by improving the learning and knowledge application processes for undergraduate students. Each of these PL models is summarized in a 1 page description and each is compared with over 25 recommended measures of productivity. These descriptions and ratings are summarized on the following page. An accompanying index indicates where the description is to be found in the group report.

IV. Recommended Action

•  # The PLPG has identified 13 PL models as particularly worthy of further evaluation for possible expansion to increase productivity and improve undergraduate education at the University of Oregon. These models include: 1) Alumni Mentor, 2) Career Intern Program, 3) ESCAPE, 4) Community Planning, 5) Intracurricular Activities, 6) Undergrad Thesis, 7) Undergrad Research/Tutorial, 8) Summer Science Research, 9) Undergrad Science Research, 10) Lundquist Interns, 11) SBI Case Studies, 12) Undergrad Science Lab Instruction, and 13) Legislative Internships.
•  # The PLPG believes the following PL models could be reasonably undertaken without additional funding: 1) Alumni Mentor, 2) Intracurricular Activities, 3) Undergrad Thesis, 4) Undergrad Research/Tutorial, 5) Lundquist Interns, 6) SBI Case Studies, and 7) Undergrad Science Lab Instruction.
•  # The PLPG recommends the following priorities for development of PL models if additional dollars become available:
• 1) Career Intern Program,
• 2) ESCAPE,
• 3) Community Planning,
• 4) PL Center,
• 5) Summer Science Research,
• 6) Undergrad Science Research,
• 7) Legislative Internships, and
• 8) On-Campus Internships.
•  # Recommended incentives to encourage participation of students, faculty, academic units and others are indicated in column E on the next page.
•  # The PLPG recommends that the guidelines established by the Field Based Learning Committee (L. Smith et al 1992) be implemented to maintain the highest academic standards in the further development and application of PL models.
•  # In the sciences it is recommended that departments and institutes re-direct some portion of indirect cost recovery from grants to enhance and support undergraduate research activities in faculty members' science labs.
•  # Faculty who wish to participate in the development and offering of PL programs should work with their department head and Dean in preparing a two-year contract specifying the PL model they are developing, how it will increase productivity (improve learning and the sharing of knowledge), how progress toward increased productivity will be measured and the expected costs of developing this model. These contracts will become part of the tenure, promotion and post- tenure review criteria.
•  # Review what we are doing now and where appropriate for which credit is not being given to students or faculty (400-410).
•  # Keep better records of what we do as an annual summary by each faculty for undergraduate and graduate PL work.
•  # Income from activity to cover cost and, is it appropriate to charge a student fee?

Web page spun on 25 June 2002 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises