|
|
|
Civic Engagement and Task Force Teaching: Integrating the Veterans History Project into the University Classroom
Roger Davis, Mark R. Ellis, and Linda Van Ingen
University of Nebraska at Kearney
| THE SEMESTER OF FALL 2004 presented a challenge to the History Department of the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK). A Nebraska state senator contacted the department and inquired about our willingness to become involved in the congressional Veterans History Project. The usual call went out to the department and we three faculty considered a response. |
1
|
|
We were only vaguely aware of the project. A quick web update provided details, but also clearly spelled out the conundrum of committing to a project that demanded generous work from us without indications of the specific outcomes that might make the investment of time and effort worthwhile. While understanding the value of civic engagement and service to the community, our concerns centered around two pedagogical questions: How exactly could we integrate the project into our courses, and would our students find the project to be of value or an intrusion into an already challenging workload? The narrative below presents an overview of the Veterans History Project and how it came to be activated on our campus in central Nebraska, an analysis of the dynamics of creating a working institutional and pedagogical model, and an assessment of the outcomes of the project to date. |
2
|
| |
|
Overview | |
|
The Veterans History Project (VHP) is a congressional mandate (Public Law 106–380) which requires the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress (LOC) to collect and preserve audio- and video-taped oral histories, along with documentary materials, of America's war veterans and those who served in support of them. The authorizing legislation received unanimous support and was signed into law on October 27, 2000. Specifically, the act authorized the LOC to coordinate the collection of materials and to "assist and encourage" local efforts to that end. In this regard, the Project relies almost exclusively upon private and local partnerships to generate the histories that will be coordinated and preserved in the LOC.1 |
3
|
|
As mentioned, early in the fall semester of 2004, a state senator inquired about possible interest in the project on the part of the history faculty at UNK. The senator's office had partnered up with the Nebraska office of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to coordinate training workshops for the Veterans History Project. As the semester was just about underway, and syllabi were freshly minted and plans in place, the prospects first seemed dim. However, we finally decided, in the best spirit of service to the department and university, to do what we could. |
4
|
|
The VHP office in Washington provided a box of field kits, with instructions and documentation forms, and the AARP representative scheduled a formal two-hour workshop to train our student volunteers. Each of us scrambled to add an ad hoc element to our course, offering students the VHP experience as an extra or alternative assignment. Students could either interview family members or were assigned to an individual from the nearby Grand Island Veterans Home who had indicated a desire to be interviewed. Ultimately, we had forty students participate the first semester. The student response was positive, the project seemed worthwhile, and so we decided to continue and expand our effort. |
5
|
|
For the spring semester of 2005, we formally incorporated the VHP as an alternative to our traditional research papers. We set deadlines and due dates and encouraged participation. We prepared and conducted training workshops and coordinated our efforts to insure a uniform process across our classes. Student level of participation increased and by the semester's end, eighty-nine students had conducted interviews. Again, student response to the project was positive and although the VHP required increasingly more time and effort, we concluded that it was a good investment. Professor Ellis incorporated the project into his summer course, resulting in another twenty-three interviews. For the fall semester of 2005, the VHP was an integrated component of each of our classes and by the end of the year, another eighty-six students had taken the project option. We were off and running and so we maintained the project for the following three semesters and one summer, to the end of the Fall 2007 semester. |
6
|
|
Consequently, during the 2004–2007 period, a total of 336 students committed to and completed the Veterans History Project. At this point, we decided to take a hiatus to re-group, reflect upon what had occurred, and decide what to do next. |
7
|
| |
|
Institutional and Pedagogical Model | |
|
The institutional and pedagogical challenges of integrating the Veterans History Project into our curriculum created a hurdle which was ultimately addressed by a coordinated effort that we refer to here as "task force teaching." The dictionary defines task force teaching as "a temporary grouping of forces and resources for the accomplishment of a specific objective."2 This grouping of forces required a large degree of civic engagement, both across the campus community and the community at large. |
8
|
| |
|
Institutional Elements | |
|
The community of individuals and interests grew rapidly from the inception of the project. The actions of a Nebraska state senator and the state AARP office were the initial catalysts for our involvement in the project. Once we got started, we maintained an ongoing correspondence with an intern in the senator's office to coordinate our work with the AARP and to keep the office appraised of our progress. The AARP representative not only came to campus to teach a workshop on how to do the project, but offered the initial semester's recording equipment—which comprised a few recorders borrowed from the public library and a few purchased by the organization. |
9
|
|
An additional member of our growing community was a social worker from the nearby Grand Island Veterans Home. This person regulated the care and activities of patients. Students without relatives to interview were directed to the veterans home, where the volunteer coordinated appointment times, seeing to it that an appropriate interview room or area was available. On campus, we were able to make arrangements with our Center for Distance Education to provide the opportunity for video interviews. The Director of the Center agreed to give VHP students a priority on his time and classroom space to help grant access in a timely fashion. |
10
|
|
Finally, in the interest of upholding proper procedures, we worked with the campus Director of the Institutional Review Board to secure a human subjects project exemption. At this point, our involvement with the VHP was creating a community team of eight individuals from seven entities. |
11
|
|
The beginning of the spring semester brought some changes to the team. The AARP connection ended when their project liason relocated to another state. This development prompted the inclusion of the graduate dean into the project. To compensate for the loss of our equipment, we submitted an emergency request for $1300 in funds to the dean to purchase research equipment including eight recorders, external microphones, carry cases, and tapes to insure the project would continue. With the assistance of the dean, we obtained the grant and equipment, and the workshops and equipment were thereafter anchored in the History Department. |
12
|
|
A second change was the end of the participation of the state senator's office, whose intern returned to school and whose title holder refocused on other programs. In response to this change, we recruited the director of the local office of U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel to assist the program. As the VHP was a federal initiative, this change made sense. The rest of the team continued in place and, now operating with some experience, we expanded the participation of the veterans home broadening the student use of that resource. We also decided to offer the project in the summer session. An exchange of notes with the Director of the Veterans History Project at the LOC produced a fresh supply of materials and an official compliment for the work so far completed. Finally, at the end of the spring semester, the campus Information Technology Specialist made a significant contribution by assisting us in the use of the Opinio assessment tool, which allowed for student participant evaluation of the program. |
13
|
|
The fall semester of 2005 brought in a final component of teammates. When the Nebraska Elks Association decided to hold their state conference in nearby Grand Island, the Senior Program Officer for the VHP and the Deputy Chief of Staff for our U.S. Senator coordinated a special program. Working with these two individuals, the leader of the Nebraska Elks agreed to set aside space and time for an intensive one-day interview session. We encouraged students to take advantage of this opportunity and offered an early workshop for preparation. The one-day session was a success and students completed over fifteen interviews in that one afternoon. |
14
|
|
Since its inception, there have been at least fourteen professionals and personnel from ten different entities who have made significant contributions to the continuity and success of the project. The value of this network of support came with the challenge of expressive communication. Professor Davis assumed leadership of all aspects of communication. Coordination meant creating and keeping a communications log in Lotus Notes and an archive of copied original documents, like the IRB ruling, funding documents, and administrative correspondence. While the contribution of some of the task force personnel was quite limited, their roles all proved crucial to the success of the project. |
15
|
| |
|
Pedagogical Elements | |
|
The pedagogical challenges facing the instructors began with the VHP official requirements and guidelines for the project and expanded into discussions of instructional style and value. This involved both the practical aspects of the process of doing the project and more qualitative issues. |
16
|
|
The VHP requirements are outlined in the official Field Kit from the LOC and basically are the following: Identify an American military service veteran who will agree to a taped interview; Conduct the interview; and Fill out the required forms (the Veteran's Biographical Form, Veteran's Release Form, Interviewer Release Form, Audio/Video Recording Log, and when appropriate, the Photograph Log and/or the Manuscript Data Sheet). The original project workbook encouraged the creation of a transcript of the tape. The final step is to send the original tape, documents, and/or transcript to the Library of Congress via a commercial delivery service. |
17
|
|
The challenge of integrating the project into our classes raised many questions. Was the project mandatory or optional? Was the project to be graded? If graded, was the project extra credit, or part of the regular assessment tool for the course? What would the project comprise? Would it involve the basic requirements of the VHP or would there be additional components? In terms of learning objectives, what would the evaluation criteria be? How would the project relate to the overall material of the class? In terms of process, further questions probed how to do a training workshop. What documentation needed to be created? What records needed to be kept? What would an effective administration of the project across three or four separate classes require? What would the goals of the project be and how would we assess the project to see if it met those goals? |
18
|
With regards to process, while the first student workshop was prepared and presented by the AARP representative, the History Department took over that task in following semesters. The workshops entailed the presentation of training documents and a team teaching approach to explaining the project and answering questions. The documents included "How to do the Veterans History Project," which briefly outlined the six basic requirements:
- Securing a veteran to interview;
- Arranging the interview;
- Determining and setting interview format;
- Obtaining forms and enacting process of the interview;
- Creating documents and transcript after the interview; and
- Finishing the project: turning in required material.
|
19
|
|
Professor Van Ingen, who had the most experience with oral history research, prepared a "Basic Interview Guideline," with interview tips and basic methodological guidance. Students additionally received an outline sheet of "Segments of the Interview," which set up useful questions, and finally the "Instructions for the Transcript." After presenting these materials and the VHP field kits, Professor Davis introduced the project to the students, Professor Van Ingen defined and discussed how to conduct oral history research, and Professor Davis again reviewed the VHP material and our other documents. |
20
|
|
A key component of the workshop was getting an accurate census of the students and a select set of information from each of them. Sign up sheets asked not only for a name, but also for a phone number, an e-mail address, the professor of the class they were taking, and most importantly, their hometown. This material would then be recorded into an Excel spreadsheet and the e-mail addresses logged into a Lotus Notes mailing list. The hometown proved to be an important item with regard to future publicity for the project. |
21
|
|
In terms of class integration and learning objectives, the project was presented in different ways according to each instructor's individual goals, which varied over the course of the three semesters; the VHP was presented as an additional item for extra credit, as an alternative to a midterm exam, and as an alternative to a traditional research paper. The point value of the project varied for each class and, over the semesters, the definition of a "completed" project also varied. Each semester's students were required to do a transcript, but in the first semester, they were also required to do a short two- to four-page reaction paper. In the second semester, the length of the reaction paper was extended to five to seven pages, to bring the writing more in line with the paper length for the research papers, and because the shorter length was clearly too few pages for the student reactions. |
22
|
|
We were all basically using the reaction paper format as a concluding component of the project, but by the end of the second semester, we saw the need for a more substantial paper, something which would more approximate a research paper and make true use of the interview as an oral history primary document. The assignment now required a five- to six-page formal historical analysis, which would demonstrate some research on the time period and war in which the veteran was involved and discuss how the individual experience compared or contrasted with the larger analysis of the event. For all of us, the evaluation and awarding of points depended both upon the completion of the VHP essentials—the taped interview, the correct completion of the documentation, and a transcript—and the quality of the required reaction or historical analysis paper. |
23
|
|
The qualitative evaluation focused upon the usual factors of construction and grammar, use of historical material, clarity of logic, and analysis. However, from our discussions, we became aware of other aspects of the experience. Student expressions that embraced the causes of war and the experience of combat as ennobling raised questions about an unintentional endorsement of uncritical patriotism. Despite the training in basic oral history research, the legitimacy of the first person experience carried over into conclusions about the larger picture, often tainted with prejudices and errors associated with the individual and their era. Students receive cautionary feedback on their returned papers, but these factors do not directly detract from a successful completion of the assignment. |
24
|
| |
|
Outcomes Assessment | |
|
Finally, a question of the project's value: do the outcomes assessment of the integrated Veterans History Project demonstrate that the project is worthwhile? The answer is a resounding yes. |
25
|
|
Most significant is the direct feedback from the students who participated in the project. Using the electronic survey tool Opinio, we were able to ask students for their sense of the worth of the project and its relationship to their education. Students were told that the survey was a confidential instrument and that their identities would be kept separate from their responses so professors would not have any way of knowing who was responding in what way. Surveys were run for the Fall 2004, Spring and Fall 2005, and the Spring 2006 semesters. The response rates ranged from a low of 22% to a high of 40% student participation. Over eighty students filled out and submitted a full response form. |
26
|
|
As an aggregate total, the following represents the student assessment of the program and its outcomes. Asked if the project was worth the time and effort, 77% responded in the affirmative. Students were enthusiastic, with 89% declaring that they would recommend the project to other students, and a full 90% of respondents expressing that the History Department should continue to offer the project as an opportunity to students. Most significantly, when asked to what degree they felt the project contributed to their education, with a range from "Not Very Much" to "An Important Contribution," over 70% indicated that it was an important contribution to their university education. |
27
|
Reinforcing the positive numerical assessment were narrative comments submitted by the students. Over fifty students took the time to send in evaluative statements. The following represent the qualitative assessment statements of the project:
"I enjoyed the project because it allowed me to learn more about something that I probably wouldn't have bothered to explore if it wasn't for this class. I think it is a good method of learning and should be continued."
"I learned interesting details which I never would have thought about had I not participated in the project. I recommend it for all History students."
"I really enjoyed getting to know my veteran better and learning what he did to serve our country. I also got to learn about a lot of things I did not know about until I did the interview and researched WWII for my research paper. I enjoyed this project very much."
"Definitely a good experience! Really made the time period come alive for me; I definitely recommend it, especially for students studying 20th century history."
"The Veterans History Project is a wonderful way for students to connect with family members that were veterans on a different level. I think that this project gives a different perspective on any war, and that it is a wonderful learning tool."
|
28
|
|
In addition to student perspectives, the assessment processes also incorporate the institutional aspect. Every educational institution has a role and mission statement. While they are often inspiring prescriptions to guide the activities of the community of professionals, more often than not, the rhetoric is at a great distance from any formula for a practical application. In this case, the VHP proved that it both exemplifies the aspirations of the institution and is pedagogically sound enough to work. |
29
|
|
The rhetoric within the mission of our institution states that UNK will achieve distinction for "a high quality, multidimensional learning environment, engagement with community and public interests, and preparation of students to lead responsible and productive lives in a democratic, multicultural society." The overall process of the VHP ultimately required a sizable team of individuals to make it function, and all of those participating—both students and others—experienced a great deal of engagement with community and public interests. In a more specific sense, the project connected us with the offices of a state legislator and a United States Senator, officials from the Library of Congress, a state veteran's home, the AARP, and, in terms of cross-campus engagement, the offices of the graduate dean, college dean, grant officers, and the audio-visual technical center. Ultimately, the success of these combined efforts qualified our university to earn a "Partner" status with the Veterans History Project. The resulting posting of the university website on the VHP site, and a complimentary letter to the Chancellor from all of these offices, contributed to the sense that the project was a worthwhile investment for the campus at large. |
30
|
|
Integrating the Veterans History Project into the classroom of three professors at the University of Nebraska at Kearney was a challenging experience which has more than proven its worth. |
31
|
|
Notes
1. The United States Congress created the Veterans History Project in 2000. The authorizing legislation (Public Law 106–380) was sponsored by Representatives Ron Kind, Amo Houghton, and Steny Hoyer in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senators Max Cleland and Chuck Hagel in the U.S. Senate. A copy of the law is available on the Veterans History Project website, <www.loc.gov/vets/about.html>. While the initial impulse was to focus upon WWII veterans, the project incorporates all veterans from WWI through the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985), 1245.
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|