Service Learning: A Useful Pedagogy to Engage Community Health Education Students in a Resource Management and Grant Writing Course

Abstract

Individuals in the health and social service arena are often required to obtain programmatic funds through grant and proposal writing; however, in this highly competitive era, these funding avenues have become more difficult to obtain. The literature is limited and mainly related to curriculum practices used to prepare students to work in the field of community health. A Resource Management and Grant Writing course taught in an undergraduate program that prepares students for Community Health Education Specialist certification uses a service-learning approach to teach specific National Commission for Health Education Credentialing knowledge and skills, including components of a grant. This article describes a successful service-learning process employed with these students.

Keywords

community health education service learning undergraduate learning

Individuals in the health and social service fields often work in the nonprofit sector. Here, obtaining programmatic funds through grant and proposal writing has become increasingly important, but, in the new economy, it has also become more competitive and difficult to obtain funds. In the health education specialist formation arena, the responsibilities identified by the National Commission for Community Health Education Certification (NCHEC) note specific grant writing competencies needed by undergraduate students preparing to serve as entry-level certified Community Health Education Specialists (CHESs). There is a paucity of literature related to curriculum practices employed to teach these skills to community and public health undergraduate students. This article identifies existing literature related to teaching grant writing to students and describes a service-learning approach used to teaching proposal writing to undergraduate students enrolled in a community health education (CHE) major.

Background

The CHE undergraduate major offered at a small public liberal arts university in New England (United States) prepares students to be leaders in health promotion and disease prevention. The program endeavors to cultivate a passion for health education promotion and healthy communities, instill sensitivity to diversity through classroom instruction, and support research by engaging students in hands-on learning experiences. The major prepares students to work effectively with local communities as certified CHESs. As such, the core of this major is based on a sequence of progressively more complex and challenging courses founded on the NCHEC Responsibilities and Competencies (NCHEC, 2016; see Table 1) and findings from a statewide public health workforce preparation needs assessment curriculum (M. Martin, personal communication, July 7, 2015).

Table 1.

Responsibilities and Competencies for Health Education Specialists Addressed in Course.

Area I	Assess needs, resources, and capacity for health education/promotion
1.2.1	Identify sources of secondary data related to health
1.2.3	Review related literature
1.2.5	Extract data from existing databases
1.6.4	Assess social, environmental, political, and other factors that may impact health education/promotion
Area II	Plan health education/promotion
2.2	Develop goals and objectives
2.3	Select or design strategies/interventions
2.4	Develop a plan for the delivery of health education/promotion
Area V	Administer and manage health education/promotion
5.1.1	Develop financial plan
5.1.2	Evaluate financial needs and resources
5.1.3	Identify internal and/or external funding sources
5.1.5	Develop program budgets
5.1.11	Write grant proposals
5.3.3	Create agreements (for example, memoranda of understanding) with partners and other stakeholders
5.4.1	Demonstrate how programs align with organizational structure, mission, and goals
5.4.2	Identify evidence to justify programs
5.4.3	Create a rationale to gain or maintain program support

In particular, findings from a workforce assessment identified a need for a grant writing course to be included in the program’s core curriculum (M. Martin, personal communication, July 7, 2015). Thus, the instructor, in consultation with CHE colleagues, developed a Resource Management and Grant Writing course, offered in the final year of the major. The course includes NCHEC competencies related to the application of knowledge specific to a certified health education specialist, with a focus on substantive work related to grant writing. During the class, students develop basic grant writing skills, practice program and proposal development, learn the value of leadership and communication skills, and discover the challenges of working in a group setting (Raines & Alvarez, 2006). Unfortunately, given the lack of maturity and/or work experience, many students may struggle with a higher level course in the curriculum, such as grant writing. This is the case for this course; however, over time, we learned that additional reasons for students discomfort with the class include (a) the high research expectations, (b) the demands of a writing-intensive course, and (c) how the unpredictable nature of working with funders and community-based nonprofit organizations requires a more flexible syllabus than students experience in other courses (Horn-Mallers, Ruby, & Garcia, 2015). Students’ concerns related to the research required in grant writing are not unique (Rubin, 1992; Ziefert, Brown, & Krajewski-Jaime, 1995) nor are the challenges students encounter in this course. Through a service-learning approach to grant writing, the instructor has attempted to address these concerns by providing students with an authentic learning experience and an environment that focuses on professional development and responsibility for individual contributions and learning. In this class, students engage directly with a community organization. Through investment in the organization and the population they serve, students learn to focus on developing the necessary grant writing skills to obtain funding for the community organization.

Literature

The importance of grant and proposal writing skills has been identified for individuals working in a variety of health and social service sectors (Eissenberg, 2003; Medina-Walpole, Barker, & Katz, 2004; Wooley, 2004), and literature related to teaching this skill includes the preparation of professionals, undergraduate, and graduate students. While there is limited literature related to pedagogy and grant writing, service learning has been identified as one tool to teach these skills (Griffith, Hart, & Goodling, 2006). As well, varieties of other teaching approaches are employed with undergraduate students from varying disciplines. Examples include the following: (a) development of a response to a request for applications (MacTavish et al., 2006), (b) creation of persuasive solicitation letters (Addams, Woodbury, Allred, & Addams, 2010), (c) review of proposals with peer feedback (Blair, Cline, & Bowen, 2007), and (d) a seminar for graduate students. These approaches have all been explored as modalities to support students in the development of grant and proposal writing skills (Falk, 2011). Notably, research indicates that the content of grant writing courses is sometimes perceived by undergraduate students as lacking relevance, but instructional strategies that facilitate the ability of students to find personal meaning in the work improve their experience and provide a foundation for the development of lifelong intrapersonal abilities (Oberne, 2015; Ruby, 2005).

Experiential Learning

Experiential learning is a term used to describe a process during which students acquire knowledge and skills in the classroom and then apply their learnings in a relevant setting. This approach to learning originated with John Dewey (1938), Kurt Hahn (1941), and Paulo Freire (1970/1993)—all of whom viewed student experiences as central to the educational process (Kolb, 1984). These educators saw the overall goal of education as the development of a person’s ability to participate in democracy, and believed that it occurs when theory and practice are linked together (Borzak, 1981).

Today, service learning as a type of experiential learning has become a pedagogic mantra adopted by many universities as a mode to engage and improve student learning. Service learning promotes knowledge through a cycle of action and reflection where students actively apply what they have learned in the classroom to a community issue (Mennen, 2006), and then reflect on their experiences as they work to achieve a specific objective with and for the community. Importantly, there is much debate about the management of the service-learning pedagogy (Mooney & Edwards, 2001). However, Furco (1996) stresses that service learning can be distinguished from other forms of experiential education through its goal of ensuring equal focus on the service provided and the learning that occurs. Clearly, service learning emphasizes shared learning and reflective practice. As such, it facilitates students in making the connection between practice and theory while fostering critical thinking skills such as analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating (Glaser, 1941). In an effort to address student perception of skills and topics that lack relevance, the instructor of this Resource Management and Grant Writing course instituted a service-learning approach as a form of experiential education. This approach is based in collaborative relationships with local community nonprofit organizations and emphasizes student learning and civic participation (Cook, 2008). For the purposes of this course, service learning is a valuable pedagogy to address undergraduate student perceptions of a substantive area lacking relevance.

The Course

There are numerous books and guide publications that provide a framework of the substantive areas of resource management and grant writing. However, in the design of this course, topics are addressed by employing a combination of books, articles, and reports related to the following: (a) communication skills, (b) organizational structure, (c) collaboration with stakeholders, (d) funding avenues and types of grantors, (e) assessment of health needs, (f) definition of a health issue, (g) description of a program, and (h) budget. These topical areas, combined with a service-learning approach, have evolved over the 12 semesters the instructor has taught the course and reflect a combination of knowledge attainment and practical skill application.

Class Structure

Before the semester, the instructor contacts a community partner who previously self-identified as willing to collaborate with undergraduate students. The instructor and organizational leadership work together to pinpoint the group’s funding needs and to plan the provision of background information about their agency’s programming for the students. The identified funding needs are introduced to students at the beginning of the semester. Importantly, while it would be preferable for students to team up with the organization to assess and identify their needs, the constraints of a semester-long course do not provide enough time to accomplish this and course-required proposal development. Additionally, the roles and expectations of the instructor, students, and community collaborators are outlined in an effort to ensure that primacy is given to student learning and course goals over organizational desires. Ultimately, this process helps ensure that everyone understands the roles and responsibilities of the players by providing students an overview of the cooperating organization to write a grant proposal for the partnering agency that meets their funding needs.

Notably, while proposal writing is the main thrust of the course, it is buoyed by academic work in resource management, leadership styles, communication skills, and effective organizational structures. Beginning in Week 3, students learn and develop grant writing skills. Discussions begin with various types of organizations (e.g., federal/state/local government, nonprofit organizations) and their management structures. The structure and internal functioning of the partnering group are then reviewed to ascertain the effectiveness of the existing organizational structure. For example, by reviewing organizational information and attending board of director (BOD) meeting, students review organization mission, bylaws, BOD meeting agendas and minutes, and BOD meeting management (e.g., use of Roberts Rules of Order). Importantly, not all organizations work efficiently and effectively; in these instances, BOD meeting attendance does not assist students in attaining the required knowledge, and sometimes the result does not assist students’ understanding. When this occurs, the instructor must backtrack to ensure students are otherwise able to meet this learning goal.

After the class has met approximately five times, the instructor forms groups with no greater than four students per group. The small groups work to develop a relationship with the community partner and its staff. Most often, each group is teamed up with a specific staff member who, in conjunction with the Executive Director, answers questions about the organization and the area/item for which it is seeking funding. As a class, students explore the variety of funding sources that are available to nonprofit organizations and spend time searching grants.gov (n.d.; https://www.grants.gov/) for federal Requests for Proposals (RFP) and sites such as Grantfinder (n.d.; https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/find-a-grant/).

The remaining portion of the term focuses specifically on grant writing skills and obtaining funding to support the programming need identified by the organization prior to the start of the term. Importantly, the appreciation and understanding that students have gained related to organizational structures and, in particular, the specific nonprofit that they are collaborating with lay the groundwork for pursuing funding opportunities that are aligned with the organizational mission and the programming need. After learning about the wide variety of funding available, students work with their community partner to identify which funding source they will pursue. Because of the time limitations of the course, in the majority of cases, the students and partnering organizations have chosen to pursue smaller state or local philanthropic funding sources with awards ranging from $5,000 to $10,000.

Once the potential funder and the RFP are identified, the structure of the course is driven by common components of most grants. Regardless of the funding source process, and submission requirements, student understanding of course content always includes a critical review of organizational needs resulting in written (a) letter of intent/interest, b) needs assessment/problem statement, (c) logic model, (c) program description, (d) letters of support, (e) memorandum of understanding, and (f) final presentation. Each component is presented to the class, and examples of the specific component are reviewed. Throughout the term, guest speakers share their successes and challenges in developing proposals and review examples of both funded and nonfunded proposal submissions with the class.

Student groups work together to discuss and gather necessary information for each proposal component; however, individual students are responsible for first developing their own response for each grant component. For example, in defining the problem (i.e., problem statement) for which the students are seeking funding, student groups must devise their own plan to collect knowledge that will define the issue for the funder. Students meet with their organizational partner or other student-identified local stakeholders to gain further insight into socioenvironmental factors that may affect the issue. Regardless of proposal requirements, an instructor-developed rubric is provided for each proposal component. This step assists in ensuring that specific items and course requirements are met by all students. Examples of course requirements for the problem statement include identification of: (a) Healthy People 2020 goal, (b) minimum of five demographic references that define the target population and the health issue, (c) minimum of five references to social indicator data, and (d) minimum of four peer-reviewed references that support the need to address the issue. Once each component is completed, both the class instructor and a peer provide feedback using a guide developed by the instructor. Peer review in this course goes beyond basic marking and requires students to employ a tool that assists them in discerning a writer’s main point, locating key points of support or relevant data (e.g., supportive data, socioenvironmental policies, peer-reviewed journals), and providing feedback on writing skills (writing clear, specific comments and questions). Instructor critique provides the opportunity for expert commentary, while peer review provides a different layer of feedback and enables students to collaborate and learn from viewing and analyzing others’ work.

Following the completion of one or two grant components (i.e., letter of intent, problem statement), students work with their group members to synthesize individual work into one formally written proposal that is reviewed by their peers a second time. Students receive credit for their own writing and the provision of feedback at the individual and group levels. Through large-group discussion, students reflect on their writing and feedback. Students then use the peer feedback they received from fellow students and the instructor to work with their group to integrate and synthesize best ideas into one final, small-group proposal. Each final group submission is graded using an instructor-developed grant scoring form. Collaborators also review the final submission and have an opportunity to provide constructive feedback. While feedback from the partnering organization is valuable, it is not incorporated into the final proposal grade. In the end, the majority of the proposals developed rage from 15 to 20 pages exclusive of letters of intent, letters of support, and memorandums of understanding. Since the inception of the course, students have obtained funds for two different organizational endeavors and have also applied for and been awarded capital goods valued at approximately $3,000.

Notably, it is not beneficial for the collaborating organization to receive a multitude of completed grant applications; however, as a writing-intensive course, each student must be able to demonstrate competence in the various areas of leadership and communication, grant development, and writing. Thus, the combination of individual and group writing employed provides a unique approach where students learn about and put into practice CHES competencies and grant writing skills. As well, this approach to group work provides an opportunity for students to learn and demonstrate communication skills. By the end of the course, students have had the opportunity to practice these skills through their interactions with each other and their community stakeholder. They have also had the opportunity for reflective practice when developing their individualized grant components and in collaborating with other students to mesh all responses into one final response. At the conclusion of the course, students deliver a professional oral presentation of their work to stakeholders and provide the community group with a completed grant application.

Conclusion

Teaching undergraduate students the skill of writing a grant is challenging. In this instructor’s experience, expectations must be moderated as students are often fearful of the unknown and the substantial challenges presented by a writing-intensive, research-driven course. Furthermore, students need to have a clear understanding and have realistic expectations. In undertaking this endeavor, it is important that the students learn that grant writing is not easy nor is the process linear; however, they can be taught to do it successfully. Using a service-learning approach, by dividing the grant proposal into manageable sections and leading students through the process step-by-step, facilitates their understanding of the process. This approach provides students with a chance to place themselves in the role of the partnering organization and feel passion for the project that they pursue. While there is still much to learn about this process, this pedagogical approach to grant writing appears to result in increased learning and understanding coupled with a long-term commitment by students to community engagement.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Addams

H. L.

Woodbury

Allred

Addams

(2010). Developing student communication skills while assisting nonprofit organizations. Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 282-290.

Blair

B. G.

Cline

G. R.

Bowen

W. R.

(2007). NSF-style peer review for teaching undergraduate grant-writing. American Biology Teacher, 69, 34-37.

Borzak

(1981). Field study: A sourcebook for experiential learning. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cook

A. S.

(2008). Global dimensions in service learning: A collaborative grant-writing project. International Education, 37(2), 6-16.

Dewey

(1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.

Eissenberg

(2003). Teaching successful grant writing to psychology graduate students. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 328-330.

Falk

(2011). Teaching grantsmanship in a nonprofit leadership class. Journal of the Grant Professionals Association, 9(1), 78.

Freire

(1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed ( Ramon

M. B.

Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1970).

Furco

(1996). Service-learning: A balance approach to experiential education. In Taylor

(Ed.), Expanding boundaries: Serving and learning (pp. 2-6). Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service.

10.

Glaser

E. M.

(1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York, NY: Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

11.

Grantfinder. (n.d.). In Inside philanthropy: Who’s funding what, and why. Retrieved from https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/find-a-grant/

12.

grants.gov. (n.d.). In Search grants. Retrieved from https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html

13.

Griffith

J. D.

Hart

C. L.

Goodling

M. M.

(2006). Teaching grant writing with service learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18, 222-229.

14.

Hahn

(1941). [Untitled quotation]. In Pacific Crest Outward Bound School (Ed.), Book of readings. Portland, OR: PCOBS.

15.

Horn-Mallers

Ruby

J. R.

Garcia

J. A.

(2015). Skill and efficacy development in a human services grant writing course. American Journal of Educational Science, 1, 117-121.

16.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

17.

MacTavish

K. M.

McClelland

M. M.

Gray

Bowman

Moran

Burgy

(2006). Community-linked teaching strategies: Promoting experiential learning in human services. Human Service Education, 26(1), 99-111.

18.

Medina-Walpole

Barker

W. H.

Katz

P. R.

(2004). Strengthening the fellowship training experience: Findings from a national survey of fellowship trained geriatricians 1990–1998. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52, 607-610.

19.

Mennen

(2006). Use service learning to add real-world writing experience to your course. Business Communication Quarterly, 69, 192-195.

20.

Mooney

L. A.

Edwards

(2001). Experiential learning in sociology: Service-learning and other community-based initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 29, 181-194.

21.

National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (2016). Responsibilities and competencies for health education specialists. Retrieved from http://www.nchec.org/responsibilities-and-competencies

22.

Oberne

A. B.

(2015). Practice makes perfect: Integrating research skill building into undergraduate courses. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 1, 117-122.

23.

Raines

J. C.

Alvarez

(2006). Cash through collaboration: A relational approach to grant writing for social workers in schools. School Social Work Journal, 30(2), 45-63.

24.

Rubin

(1992). Education for research utilization in BSW programs. In Grasso

A. J.

Epstein

(Eds.), Research utilization in the social services (pp. 369-386). New York, NY: Haworth.

25.

Ruby

J. R.

(2005). Constraints to master’s level practitioner research: A literature review. Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 22, 59-67.

26.

Wooley

S. F.

(2004). A review committee as a way to teach grant writing skills. Journal of Health Education, 35, 366-368.

27.

Ziefert

Brown

K. S.

Krajewski-Jaime

(1995). Linking research and practice in diverse settings. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 1, 125-132.