**5. Potential student outcomes of SL-based design**

*New Innovations in Engineering Education and Naval Engineering*

• Describing and understanding each other's culture

• Identification and recognition of each partner's needs, issues and challenges

Another important component of a successful service-learning partnership is reflection, or metacognition. Professionals constantly reflect on what they are doing, why they are doing it, and next steps; students need to develop this skill that professionals may forget that they practice, because this practice is so embedded in their daily work. There are many models of reflection ranging from the simplest (what, so what, now what) to those that are more complex [37, 38]. Lima and Oakes [39] have a list of reflection questions in Chapter 2 of their textbook on service-learning in engineering. Reflection can be used to catalyze and assess

A thoughtful assessment plan should be developed, to help ensure that the outcomes desired for both communities and students are achieved. This plan should include formative assessment to enable during-course adjustments, as well as summative assessment to provide 'lessons learned' for the future. Assessment methods for student outcomes are well documented (see examples in [40]). Community outcomes have been rigorously studied in fewer instances, and are an area where

Even when adhering to all essential components and processes for successful

partnerships, there can still be challenges and pitfalls. For example, as mentioned previously, it can be difficult to manage partnerships within the time constraints of a semester: most community issues involve people working on them throughout the year, not in 15-week blocks. This constraint may require some thought in terms of deploying a design and maintaining it once it is built. Repeating courses with the same community partner is one way to address this issue; others have created infrastructure to complete and maintain projects [39, 41]. Such considerations ensure that a design effectively serves the community, instead of being dumped on the community. Student resistance to participating in service-learning classes is also possible [32]; explicitly and repeatedly connecting the service activities to the learning objectives in class allays most student concerns. Finally, communication can be an issue, particularly where media is concerned. University media tend to focus on the students and faculty involved in a service-learning project and typically portray the community-university relationships as the university helping the community [42]. An explicit conversation among constituents about uniform talking points for media, and if at all possible, media interaction with all constituents present,

• Self-assessment and reflection within each partner group and between partners

• Collaborative problem posing and solving

• Constant negotiation and modification

• Supporting infrastructure in each partner's organization

• Relationship-building strategies

• Collaborative agenda setting

• Learning together

student learning.

additional scholarship is needed.

is recommended. See [42], for more details.

**24**

Across all disciplines, service-learning has been shown to be an impactful pedagogy. A recent meta-analysis of SL across 62 studies (all included a control group, elementary through postsecondary level students with 68% college undergraduates) determined that SL resulted in "significant gains in five outcome areas": academic achievement (grades or test performance; highest mean effect size, ES, 0.43), social skills (leadership, cultural competence, social problem solving; ES 0.30), attitudes toward self (self-esteem, self-efficacy, personal abilities, feelings of control; ES 0.28), attitudes toward school and learning (academic engagement, enjoyment of course; ES 0.28), and civic engagement (civic responsibility, altruism; 0.27) [43]. It is unclear whether or not any of the studies included in the meta-analysis included engineering students, but the results are nevertheless compelling.

Within engineering, previous research has identified a number of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and identity (KSAI) outcomes that could result from engineering student engagement in project-based service-learning (PBSL); [40] presented a literature review from numerous published sources. While that study extended beyond SL in design settings, SL-based design should have the capacity to yield the same array of outcomes. SL-based engineering design education can achieve all of the core technical outcomes one would expect from engineering design in general (aligned with the academic achievement outcome in the meta study), while also realizing a number of additional outcomes. The potential outcomes of SL-based design education that map to the technical and professional knowledge and skills expected of engineers internationally and by U.S. accreditation are summarized in **Table 1** [44, 45].

A greater complexity and range of design constraints are typical in SL-based projects compared to other design experiences. Service-learning executed through human-centered design may be superior to standard design pedagogy in developing


#### **Table 1.**

*Knowledge and skill outcomes achievable via SL-based design and PBSL.*

communication skills with diverse audiences and teamwork/leadership skills in interdisciplinary settings. In addition, PBSL in engineering has been shown to yield enhanced creative design; cultural competency and leadership (social skills); self-confidence; attitudes toward community service; and engineering identity. The compiled data in [40] indicated outcomes for which the projects with a SL context yielded enhanced outcomes in comparison to non-SL projects.

SL-based design embeds an array of ethical issues, both microethics and macroethics, and may be particularly impactful in building students' ethical reasoning skills. In a faculty survey on ethics and societal impacts instruction, 212 respondents who described their capstone design course as including ethics and/or societal impact topics indicated that these topics were taught via service-learning [46]. Zoltowski and her collaborators [47] have been developing instruments and methods to measure ethical gains as a result of SL-based design experiences (e.g. [48]).

In addition to knowledge and skills, attitudes are important to the professional success of engineers and are explicitly recognized in CDIO [23] and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) *Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century* (CEBOK). The third edition of the CEBOK [49] explicitly includes affective domain goals and rubrics associated with seven outcomes. Attitudes supportive of professional practice that may be specifically developed via a SL design experience, such as "value effective and persuasive communication to technical and non-technical audiences" which requires "empathy… with diverse clients and stakeholders" ([49], pp. 2–42–43). The professional attitudes listed in the CEBOK3 (pp. 2–53) and developed specifically via SL may include creativity, flexibility, consideration of others, empathy, honesty, integrity, respect, sensitivity, thoughtfulness and tolerance. Humility [50] and empathy [51] have been proposed as important mindsets in working with communities.

Of additional interest is the extent to which SL-based design is effective at developing students' creativity and innovation skills. This has not yet been rigorously studied using established instruments (such as the Creative Engineering Design Assessment Purdue Creativity Test or Purdue Creativity Test [52]); rather, the data reflects student self-assessments in surveys or anecdotal statements by instructors. One of the more rigorous assessments was associated with a first-year mechanical engineering design course [53]. A sub-set of the design projects were SL-based and included leadership training. Students engaged in SL projects had a statistically significant gain in the self-assessed extent to which they possessed creativity/ ingenuity on the post- versus pre-assessment using a five-point scale; gains were not statistically significant among students working on non-SL design projects. In a senior product design course with service-based projects, students rated their creativity at a higher level on the post-survey than the pre-survey (average ~6.55 increased to ~6.95 on nine-point scale; p < 0.05); this compared to a gain of about one-point in their self-rated product design skills [54]. Fully anecdotal statements regarding growth in students' creativity and/or innovation skills in association with service-based design projects were made in a number of other papers [55–61].

Another set of proposed outcomes from SL-based design is that it may help attract students to engineering majors and/or retain students in engineering, particularly women and underrepresented minorities. Many students are drawn to engineering due to a desire to make a difference, help others, and improve society. SL projects offer tangible examples of these outcomes, inspiring students and providing rewarding experiences. Three large service-learning programs in engineering have data related to the impacts of their program in recruiting/retaining female students: the Service Learning Integrated Throughout a College of Engineering (SLICE) program at the University of Massachusetts Lowell [62], EPICS at Purdue University [63], and the Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) program at Pennsylvania State University [64]. Other SL programs have

**27**

*Service-Learning and Civic Engagement as the Basis for Engineering Design Education*

reported on the large percentage of women among the participants, such as the Humanitarian Engineering Center at Ohio State University [65] and engineers without borders [66, 67] provided data from a variety of developing community programs. The real-world tangible nature of SL design projects is a significant

Service-learning has co-equal goals of benefits to community partners and student learning. Assessment is needed to demonstrate whether SL design projects have met these goals. SL projects may have impacts at the individual, organizational, community, or system scales [68]. Jiusto and Vaz [68] present a model that considers these impacts to both communities and academics, which can inspire instructors considering the use of SL as a design pedagogy to think beyond immediate impacts. This broader systems-level perspective can include potential project outcomes such as improvements in the health and well-being of community partners, while recognizing how these outcomes might contribute to enhancing community sustainability or social cohesion. Identifying impacts of interest in partnership with all stakehold-

In practice, SL has often focused its assessment efforts on student learning and less on evaluating the impacts on community partners and communities; this imbalance is evident both for SL in the context of engineering design and SL more broadly [69–71]. Reynolds [72] provides a critical review of literature on community perspectives on service-learning, and conducted research on the perspectives of the international partner community in Nicaragua on their partnership with the College of Engineering at Villanova University. Although this was a research project, assessment lessons can be learned. Observations, interviews with community organization representatives, interviews with community residents, and document reviews were conducted. Community partners confirmed the tangible results of improved access to clean water and healthcare which saved lives, but also described trust, a sense of pride, and connections/awareness as important outcomes. The community also had less positive perceptions that included feeling like their community was a laboratory for students. The community also had goals toward student learning, including shifting students' perspectives from helping to learning and

These findings represent the particular ways in which SL projects were conducted in this instance and their specific community partners, and should not be generalized. However, these important insights provide an example of the types of outcomes that assessment can illuminate. Others have also used interviews [73, 74] and surveys [14, 74, 75] to assess community partner satisfaction and other perspectives on SL engagement. Readers are encouraged to consult participatory action research models [76] to learn more about the process of planning, executing, and evaluating projects together; communication, transparency, and shared power in

Design projects and their products should be monitored over time to evaluate sustainability and long-term impacts. This process is easier for projects in local communities and more challenging for international projects, but is critical in all cases. SL projects could model practices and processes used in international development work for monitoring and evaluation (M&E), which typically include mixedmethods [77]. The community and/or students can be involved in monitoring the designed systems, and can work together to resolve any issues that are identified. On-going collaboration with groups charged with monitoring and evaluation is

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83699*

motivator, in addition to making a positive difference.

**6. Assessing community impacts of SL design projects**

ers is the first step in developing a plan to assess these impacts.

having a responsibility to others.

decision-making are hallmarks of these approaches.

*Service-Learning and Civic Engagement as the Basis for Engineering Design Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83699*

reported on the large percentage of women among the participants, such as the Humanitarian Engineering Center at Ohio State University [65] and engineers without borders [66, 67] provided data from a variety of developing community programs. The real-world tangible nature of SL design projects is a significant motivator, in addition to making a positive difference.

### **6. Assessing community impacts of SL design projects**

Service-learning has co-equal goals of benefits to community partners and student learning. Assessment is needed to demonstrate whether SL design projects have met these goals. SL projects may have impacts at the individual, organizational, community, or system scales [68]. Jiusto and Vaz [68] present a model that considers these impacts to both communities and academics, which can inspire instructors considering the use of SL as a design pedagogy to think beyond immediate impacts. This broader systems-level perspective can include potential project outcomes such as improvements in the health and well-being of community partners, while recognizing how these outcomes might contribute to enhancing community sustainability or social cohesion. Identifying impacts of interest in partnership with all stakeholders is the first step in developing a plan to assess these impacts.

In practice, SL has often focused its assessment efforts on student learning and less on evaluating the impacts on community partners and communities; this imbalance is evident both for SL in the context of engineering design and SL more broadly [69–71]. Reynolds [72] provides a critical review of literature on community perspectives on service-learning, and conducted research on the perspectives of the international partner community in Nicaragua on their partnership with the College of Engineering at Villanova University. Although this was a research project, assessment lessons can be learned. Observations, interviews with community organization representatives, interviews with community residents, and document reviews were conducted. Community partners confirmed the tangible results of improved access to clean water and healthcare which saved lives, but also described trust, a sense of pride, and connections/awareness as important outcomes. The community also had less positive perceptions that included feeling like their community was a laboratory for students. The community also had goals toward student learning, including shifting students' perspectives from helping to learning and having a responsibility to others.

These findings represent the particular ways in which SL projects were conducted in this instance and their specific community partners, and should not be generalized. However, these important insights provide an example of the types of outcomes that assessment can illuminate. Others have also used interviews [73, 74] and surveys [14, 74, 75] to assess community partner satisfaction and other perspectives on SL engagement. Readers are encouraged to consult participatory action research models [76] to learn more about the process of planning, executing, and evaluating projects together; communication, transparency, and shared power in decision-making are hallmarks of these approaches.

Design projects and their products should be monitored over time to evaluate sustainability and long-term impacts. This process is easier for projects in local communities and more challenging for international projects, but is critical in all cases. SL projects could model practices and processes used in international development work for monitoring and evaluation (M&E), which typically include mixedmethods [77]. The community and/or students can be involved in monitoring the designed systems, and can work together to resolve any issues that are identified. On-going collaboration with groups charged with monitoring and evaluation is

*New Innovations in Engineering Education and Naval Engineering*

yielded enhanced outcomes in comparison to non-SL projects.

communication skills with diverse audiences and teamwork/leadership skills in interdisciplinary settings. In addition, PBSL in engineering has been shown to yield enhanced creative design; cultural competency and leadership (social skills); self-confidence; attitudes toward community service; and engineering identity. The compiled data in [40] indicated outcomes for which the projects with a SL context

SL-based design embeds an array of ethical issues, both microethics and macroethics, and may be particularly impactful in building students' ethical reasoning skills. In a faculty survey on ethics and societal impacts instruction, 212 respondents who described their capstone design course as including ethics and/or societal impact topics indicated that these topics were taught via service-learning [46]. Zoltowski and her collaborators [47] have been developing instruments and methods to measure ethical gains as a result of SL-based design experiences (e.g. [48]). In addition to knowledge and skills, attitudes are important to the professional success of engineers and are explicitly recognized in CDIO [23] and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) *Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century* (CEBOK). The third edition of the CEBOK [49] explicitly includes affective domain goals and rubrics associated with seven outcomes. Attitudes supportive of professional practice that may be specifically developed via a SL design experience, such as "value effective and persuasive communication to technical and non-technical audiences" which requires "empathy… with diverse clients and stakeholders" ([49], pp. 2–42–43). The professional attitudes listed in the CEBOK3 (pp. 2–53) and developed specifically via SL may include creativity, flexibility, consideration of others, empathy, honesty, integrity, respect, sensitivity, thoughtfulness and tolerance. Humility [50] and empathy

[51] have been proposed as important mindsets in working with communities.

Of additional interest is the extent to which SL-based design is effective at developing students' creativity and innovation skills. This has not yet been rigorously studied using established instruments (such as the Creative Engineering Design Assessment Purdue Creativity Test or Purdue Creativity Test [52]); rather, the data reflects student self-assessments in surveys or anecdotal statements by instructors. One of the more rigorous assessments was associated with a first-year mechanical engineering design course [53]. A sub-set of the design projects were SL-based and included leadership training. Students engaged in SL projects had a statistically significant gain in the self-assessed extent to which they possessed creativity/ ingenuity on the post- versus pre-assessment using a five-point scale; gains were not statistically significant among students working on non-SL design projects. In a senior product design course with service-based projects, students rated their creativity at a higher level on the post-survey than the pre-survey (average ~6.55 increased to ~6.95 on nine-point scale; p < 0.05); this compared to a gain of about one-point in their self-rated product design skills [54]. Fully anecdotal statements regarding growth in students' creativity and/or innovation skills in association with service-based design projects were made in a number of other papers [55–61]. Another set of proposed outcomes from SL-based design is that it may help attract students to engineering majors and/or retain students in engineering, particularly women and underrepresented minorities. Many students are drawn to engineering due to a desire to make a difference, help others, and improve society. SL projects offer tangible examples of these outcomes, inspiring students and providing rewarding experiences. Three large service-learning programs in engineering have data related to the impacts of their program in recruiting/retaining female students: the Service Learning Integrated Throughout a College of Engineering (SLICE) program at the University of Massachusetts Lowell [62], EPICS at Purdue University [63], and the Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) program at Pennsylvania State University [64]. Other SL programs have

**26**

also a strategy. For example, with the LSU Community Playground Project [33, 41], once community-designed playgrounds are built at public schools, a company that subcontracts with the school system to provide grounds and maintenance services to the schools takes over the maintenance of the playgrounds. On-going communication among the playground project, the school system, and the company ensures that playgrounds are re-designed, built, and maintained based on need.

## **7. Conclusions**

Done well, service-learning based engineering design can yield a rich array of benefits for engineering students and communities. However, faculty must carefully plan their course and partnership in order to achieve the full potential of SL-based design. Engineering faculty and students should enter into the design process from a mindset of humility and listening, being respectful, and embracing the expertise of the community. This positioning is often different from the techno-centric, "expert" perspective that pervades engineering. To instill this human-centered or empathic design perspective in students, their first formal education on the engineering design process should promote these views. This approach can perhaps grow into participatory design in the senior year. One challenge is the fact that many engineering faculty members have not previously experienced such approaches, either during their education and training, or in practice. Fortunately, the literature provides rich examples for faculty to draw from to implement this methodology in their own courses. We believe that best practices in service-learning in engineering design make our students better engineers and enables our profession to fulfill its highest purposes.
