WY LIBRARIES ii Mini " STATE UNNER " MimiMinimum 3 1293 01046 S H il H i 1 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Integrating Service and Academic Study: Service-Learning and Faculty Motivation In Michigan Higher Education presented by Christine M. Hammond has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Education Dateiomhw 9 4 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution . . 0-12771 LIBRARY Mich'gan State University PLACE II RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 11 ' 3 2 1 2304 . ‘APR! 5 , . INTEGRATING SERVICE AND ACADEMIC STUDY: SERVICE-LEARNING AND FACULTY IOTIVATIOH IN MICHIGAN HIGHER EDUCATION BY Christine u. Hammond A DISSERTATION Submitted to nichigan state University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1994 ABSTRACT INTEGRATING SERVICE AND ACADENIC STUDY: SERVICE-LEARNING AND EACULTY NOTIVATION IN “ NICHIGAN HIGHER EDUCATION BY Christine M. Hammond Student involvement in community service projects is viewed primarily as an extra-curricular activity on most college campuses. However, an increasing number of educators are calling for greater integration between service and study through courses which incorporate service-learning. Support for service-learning is generally rooted in a commitment to volunteerism and has three recurrent strains: service-learning contributes to the vitality of the college or university: service-learning promotes civic responsibility which strengthens the nation; and service-learning contributes to the solution of problems in the wider society. No matter how persuasive advocates of community service and service-learning might be, decisions regarding the curriculum, subject matter, and instructional methods remain the domain of the faculty who control the content and method of courses. Research on faculty motivation describes faculty as independent workers who are motivated by the intrinsic rewards of research and teaching. These intrinsic factors center upon three conditions: (1) freedom, autonomy, and Abstract (Continued) control in doing their work: (2) the belief that the work itself has purpose and. meaning: and (3) feedback: which indicates that their efforts are, in fact, accomplishing the goal. This study contributes to the literature on service and academic study by providing baseline data on those faculty who were already engaged in service-learning in the State of Michigan, and by exploring the motivational components of service-learning from a faculty perspective. Instead of asking the familiar question, "Why don't faculty engage in service?" the study explores the motivations and experiences of those who have actually used service in their courses. Quantitative data were gathered through a survey of 250 Michigan faculty who had incorporated service- learning in their courses in 1992. The survey identified who utilized service-learning: assessed their initial motivations for involvement: identified the factors which contributed to their satisfaction or which discouraged their efforts in service-learning. Results indicated that faculty motivation for incorporating service is more strongly linked to pedagogical concerns than 'to service involvementm iRespondents also indicated limited support for service-learning on their respective campuses, identifying students as the strongest champions of such initiatives. Copyright by CHRISTINE M. HAMMOND 1994 DDICATI“ ro.ned and Hum, who supportedhme beyond all understanding. 1b.my'extended family; who strengthenedimy'resolve. To fa, whose support and confidence enabled me to couplete the task. Tb Emily'and Stuart, who will discover the joys of Service and Learning. And Tb the Praise and Glory of the God we knowmbest through true service to others. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many pe0ple have graciously provided support and guidance throughout my doctoral program and will have my lifelong gratitude and appreciation. Funding for the preparation and distribution came from the Michigan Campus Compact (MCC) under the leadership of Ms. Julie Busch, Executive Director. Members of the MCC Curriculum Deve10pment Committee, especially Dr. Arden Moon and Mr. Jeffrey Howard, were helpful and encouraging. Dr. Kathryn Moore, Chair of my Guidance Committee, managed to strike just the right balance between prompting and patience. By word and example, she kept me moving forward, reinforcing the value of incrementalism. Of special significance is the generous and consistent support I received from colleagues at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, especially Dean Michael P. Cox and Administrative Assistant Barbara J. Palmer. WOrds cannot capture my thanks for the day-to-day, week-to-week, month- to-month encouragement they have provided. Thanx. Finally, I was blessed with the best editor in the world. Thank you, Tom, for being sounding board, guide, and friend. All of these individuals share the credit for whatever value might be derived from this work. Of course, the responsibility for any error or oversight is mine alone. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. Introduction ............................................ 1 Focus of the Study ....................................... 1 Significance of the Study ................................... 3 Outline of the Study ...................................... 6 II. The Nature of Service-Learning .............................. 9 Definitions of Service-Learning .............................. 9 The Structure of Service-Learning Programs .................... 12 A Brief History of the Service-Learning Movement ............... 17 Youth Service: Product of the Gilded Age .................... l9 Collegiate Service: Youth Service and Higher Education ...................... 20 Collegiate Service and the Federal Agenda ...................... 22 Student Service Today: Patterns of Participation ................. 26 The Demographics of Student Service ........................ 28 Student Motivation: Student Service .......................... 32 Institutional Support for Service-Learning ...................... 35 Encouraging Faculty Involvement: Making the Case for Service-Learning ......................... 38 Social Responsibility and Curricular Reform .................. 39 Service-Learning: Fulfilling the Promise of Higher Education ............................. 41 Service-Learning and Civic Participation ...................... 44 Service-Learning for an Enriched Society ..................... 48 The Learning in Service-Learning ........................... 49 The Learning Dimensions ................................ 50 The Pedagogy of Service-Learning .......................... 52 Basic Concepts in Experiential Education .................... 52 ' Liberating Education .................................. 54 Holistic Education .................................... 56 Barriers to Experiential Education in Traditional Academe ...................... 58 The Educational Outcomes of Service-Learning ............... 65 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Chapter Page III. Service-Learning and Faculty Motivation ...................... 70 The Motivation-Hygiene Theory of Frederick Herzberg: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Faculty Motivation ............................................ 72 Herzberg on the Influence of Culture ......................... 73 Academic Culture ....................................... 74 Herzberg on the Role of Man .............................. 81 The Faculty Role in Academic Culture ....................... 82 Herzberg on Motivation .................................. 88 Faculty Motivation ...................................... 91 Motivation and Control .................................. 92 Motivation and a Sense of Meaning ......................... 96 Motivation and a Knowledge of Results ...................... 97 Elements of Faculty Dissatisfaction ......................... 102 IV. Methodology .......................................... 106 Primary Research Questions .............................. 106 The Use of the Quantitative Approach ....................... 107 Setting and Scope of the Study ............................. 108 Design of the Survey Instrument ........................... 109 Research Questions .................................... 110 The Service Dimension of Faculty Involvement ................ 110 The Learning Dimension of Faculty Involvement .............. 111 Service-Leaming Within the Academic Culture ................ 112 Service-Leaming Within the Faculty Role ................... 113 The Intrinsic Motivation of Faculty in Service-Learning: Responsibility, Freedom, and Control ..................... 113 Meaningfulness and Purpose in the Work Experience ................................ 114 Results, Feedback and Quality Relationships ................ 114 Barriers to Faculty Involvement: Dissatisfiers in Service-Learning ............................ 115 Data Collection ....................................... 116 Data Analysis ......................................... 117 Limitations of the Study ................................. 117 Problems of Definition ................................. 118 Problems of Emphasis and Motivation ...................... 120 Problems of Perspective ................................ 122 Problems of Context ................................... 122 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Chapter Page V. Data Analysis ......................................... 124 Introduction .......................................... 124 Demographic Information ................................ 125 Institutional Profile .................................... 125 Professional Profile of Respondents ........................ 125 Personal Profile of Respondents .......................... 127 General Responses: Faculty Satisfaction and Motivation ........................ 129 Satisfaction .......................................... 129 Motivation .......................................... 132 The Relationship between Satisfaction and Motivation ............................... 135 Summary ............................................. 137 Survey Responses to the Research Questions .................. 138 The Service Dimension of Faculty Involvement: Prior Involvement and Altruistic Motivation ................... 138 The Service Dimension of Faculty Involvement: Arguments on Behalf of Service-Leaming ..................... 141 The Learning Dimension of Faculty Involvement .............. 144 Service-Learning Within the Academic Culture ................ 148 Service-Learning and Academic Discipline .................. 148 Service-Learning and Institutional Type .................... 153 MCC Affiliation and Institutional Culture .................. 156 Service-Learning Within the Faculty Role ................... 164 The Intrinsic Motivation of Faculty in Service-Learning ..................................... 168 Responsibility, Freedom, and Control ...................... 169 Meaningfulness and Purpose in the Work ..................... 169 Results, Feedback, and Quality Relationships ................ 170 Barriers to Faculty Involvement: Dissatisfiers in Service-Learning ............................ 173 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Chapter Page VI. Discussion, Implications and Issues for Future Study .................................... 176 Research Question 1: The Case for Service-Learning ............ 177 Research Question 2: The Motivation of Faculty Who Have Used Service-Learning .......................... 179 Service-Learning and Academic Culture ..................... 181 In the Context of Disciplinary Culture ...................... 181 In the Context of Institutional Culture ..................... 182 Service-Learning and the Faculty Role ...................... 183 Service-Learning and Faculty Motivation .................... 186 Servoce-Learning and Faculty Dissatisfaction ................. 187 Implications .......................................... 189 Questions for Future Research ............................ 193 TABLE OF TABLES Table Page 1. Gender x Age ........................................... 128 2. Gender x Academic Degree ................................. 128 3. Gender x Academic Rank .................................. 128 4. Sources of Recognition x Satisfaction with the Overall Effectiveness of the Course ........................... 130 5. Factors Influencing the Use of Service-Learning ................ 133,34 6. Motivation and Satisfaction ................................. 136 7. Influence Factors Related to Prior or Current Involvement in Service ....................... 139 8. Influence Factors Related to Altruistic Motivation ................ 140 9. Administrative Support for Service-Learning ..................... 142 10. Influence Factors Related to Civic Values ...................... 143 11. Influence Factors Related Societal Values ...................... 144 12. Influence Factors Related to Teaching ......................... 146 13. Academic Disciplines of Respondents ......................... 149 14. Academic Discipline x Publications/Performances ................. 151 15. Academic Discipline x Motivation for Involvement ................ 155 16. Institutional Type x MCC Affiliation .......................... 153 17. Faculty Motivation x Institutional Type ........................ 155 18. Faculty Opinions x Institutional Type .......................... 155 19. MCC Affiliation x Intention to Expand Use ..................... 158 20. MCC Affiliation x Support for Service-Learning .................. 158 21. MCC Affiliation x Publications .............................. 159 22. MCC Affiliation x Recognition .............................. 159 23. MCC Affiliation x Opinions about Service-Learning ............... 160 24. MCC Affiliation x Faculty Initial Motivation .................... 162 25. Institutional Type x Opinions about Faculty Role ................. 165 26. Gender and the Motivation for Involvement ..................... 166 27. Support for Service-Learning ................................ 172 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Focus of the Study Student involvement in community service projects is viewed primarily as an extra-curricular activity on most college campuses (Kendall, 1990; Lieberman and Connolly, 1992). However, an increasing number of educators are calling for greater integration between service and study through courses which incorporate service-learning (Barber, 1989, 1991, 1992: Nathan and Keilsmeier, 1991: Newman, 1992: Stanton, 1987, 1990; Wieckowski, 1992). Politicians, practitioners, and philosophers offer many arguments to support the inclusion of service-learning in the formal curriculum (Bok, 1982, 1986; Boyer, 1981, 1987: Boyte, 1992; Bradfield and Myers, 1992: Coles, 1988; Levine, 1989; Stanley, 1989, 1991: Stanton, 1987; Wagner, 1990). This chorus of support for service-learning is generally rooted in a commitment to volunteerism and has three recurrent strains: service—learning contributes to the vitality of the college or university; service-learning promotes civic responsibility which strengthens the nation; and service-learning contributes to the solution of problems in the wider society (Agria, 1990; Barber, 1992: Conrad and. Hedin, 1987; Delve, Mintz and Stewart, 1990: Fitch, 1987). 2 No matter how persuasive advocates of community service and service-learning might be, decisions regarding the curriculum, subject matter, and instructional methods remain the domain of the faculty (AAUP, 1966: Bowen and Schuster, 1986). Faculty place great value on academic freedom, a freedom which requires that they control the content and method of courses. Research on faculty motivation describes faculty as independent workers who are motivated by the intrinsic rewards of research and teaching (Austin and Gamson, 1983; Bess, 1982; Bowen and Schuster, 1986; Cross, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi, 1982: Deci and Ryan, 1982: McKeachie, 1982: Rice, 1986). These intrinsic factors center upon three conditions: (1) freedom, autonomy, and control in doing their work; (2) the belief that the work itself has purpose and meaning: and (3) feedback which indicates that their efforts are, in fact, accomplishing the goal. Yet, these factors are rarely mentioned in the literature encouraging faculty participation in service-learning, a literature which emphasizes the external benefits of service initiatives for the university, the nation, or society. Three questions emerge from these contrasting perspectives: ( 1) What are the arguments and incentives offered by the advocates of service-learning in attempting to motivate faculty involvement in service-learning? (2) What are the motivations, satisfactions, -and dissatisfactions of the faculty who have utilized 3 service-learning strategies in their courses? (3) Are the arguments advanced in support of service- learning consistent with the motivational factors identified by faculty who are working to integrate service and academic study? This study will attempt to answer these questions. The Significance of the Study Why should faculty involvement in service-learning be encouraged? Stanton (1987) maintains that the faculty role in linking service to the curriculum is critical in order to ensure that students serve effectively; that they learn from the experiences; that civic education and civic participation and social responsibility be placed squarely within the academic mission of higher education and that the disincentives: to such student participation be removed. Lieberman and Connolly (1992) seek faculty support for service-learning because the faculty, in setting the research and teaching agenda, are in a strategic position to increase the quality of the service experience, and to provide continuity and consistency in the experience. Furthermore, faculty involvement would provide valuable role models for students and would enhance the credibility of service within the institution. In the book. WWW America, Ernest Boyer (1987) asserts that, "Service must be something more than ‘do-goodism.’ College sponsored programs must be as carefully thought out and as rigorously evaluated 4 as are the academic programs" (p.216). Furthermore, Boyer asserts that the need to enrich the service dimension cannot be left to the students alone: For the faculty, there exists the triad of responsibilities: teaching, research and service. Almost every college we visited recited these functions almost as a ritual. And yet, we found that service is often shortchanged in favor of the other two. Even when the obligation is acknowledged, service is often defined in narrow, uninspired ways We believe the quality of campus life would be enriched if faculty service became more than a catchword. (pp.217-218) The literature on service-learning is burgeoning with exhortations for faculty participation yet, ”Little attention has been given to the faculty role in supporting student service efforts" (Stanton, 1990, p.1) . In a 1988 survey of 52 member institutions of Campus Compact, Stanton (1990) attempted to assess the role of the faculty' in service-learning, as desired and. as practiced: The most frequently cited issues critical to the faculty role in public service were: (1) the need for a clear definition of public service: (2) a sound rationale for faculty involvement both as role models for students and as instructors who help students connect their public service experience to their academic study: (3) faculty's need for resources and time to learn how to link public service effectively with classroom instruction; and (4) the need for additional incentives and rewards for faculty to become involved in public service. (p.15) Stanton also noted that, "Survey responses indicate a gap between institutions' aspirations to promote an instructional 5 role for faculty related to public service and the level of activity actually taking place” (p.17). The needs identified by Stanton cannot be addressed without a better understanding of the role that faculty engaged in service-learning have currently assumed. Yet, if the current literature is any indication, service practitioners (often employed as academic or student affairs administrators) and service-learning faculty speak past each other, in conversations which often seem disconnected and sometimes adversarial. The very term, ”service-learning," reflects the dichotomy found in the existing literature. Practitioners and philosophers place strong emphasis on the "service" components. However, the literature on faculty motivation indicates that faculty would be more attracted by and committed to the "learning" that can be derived from a service experience. This study is intended to contribute to the very modest literature base on service and academic study in two ways: ( 1) by providing baseline data on those faculty who were already engaged in service-learning in the State of Michigan, and (2) by exploring the motivational components of service-learning from a faculty perspective. Instead of asking the familiar question, "Why don't faculty engage in service?” the study explores the motivations and experiences of those who have actually used service in 6 their courses. The implications of this research are both scholarly and practical. This exploration of the service dimension of the faculty role enhances our understanding of the scholarly profession by clarifying the circumstances under which faculty will modify their teaching to include a service component. At the same time, a better understanding of the perceptions of faculty who integrate service and teaching provides a base for extending and improving the quality of such efforts. In fact, the study has already proved useful: When the study was initiated, no comprehensive attempt had been made to identify those faculty who were already engaged in service-learning in the State of Michigan. As a result of the study, a faculty network of survey participants has been formed and related course materials have been circulated. Outline of the Study The research. questions for ‘this study can only' be answered by understanding two bodies of literature: the literature on service-learning and the literature on faculty motivation. .Accordingly, Chapter 2 reviews the literature on service-learning. The definition of the term "service- learning" is used to frame the discussion. Focusing first on the service component, the chapter traces community service efforts in education: the history of such initiatives, and current patterns of involvement and volunteer motivation. Attention is given to the arguments made most frequently by advocates of service-learning: that such initiatives enhance the role of colleges and universities, benefit the national 7 interest, and strengthen the society. Following this review is an examination of the educational reform efforts which have incorporated service-learning and the learning outcomes which are anticipated as students engage in service activities. Chapter 3 then reviews the literature on faculty motivation and experience. The work of Frederick Herzberg on motivation and job satisfaction is used as a theoretical frame, supported by subsequent studies on faculty culture, role, and motivation. Chapter 4 outlines the methods by which data for this study were collected. Quantitative data were gathered through a survey in Michigan of faculty who had incorporated service- learning in their courses in 1992. The survey focused on a) identifying faculty who were engaged in service- learning, b) assessing their initial motivations for such initiatives c) identifying the factors which contributed to their satisfaction with service projects and d) identifying factors which.discouraged their efforts in service-learning. Chapter 4 also discusses the limitations of the study. These limitations are related not only to the difficulties of statistical methodologies but, more importantly, to the difficulties inherent in a limited understanding of the how faculty define service-learning and the nature of faculty motivation. 8 Chapter 5 presents the results of the quantitative portion of the research. Chapter 6 discusses the results of this study and the implications of these findings. The dissertation. concludes *with. an. outline of questions for further research. CHAPTER TIC: THE NATURE OF SERVICE-LEARNING This chapter provides an introduction to the concept of service-learning by examining various definitions of the term, the history of the movement, current patterns of involvement, and pedagogical assumptions that separate service-learning from traditional teaching methods. The opening section addresses the question: What is service-learning and how does this approach differ from traditional teaching methods? Definitions of Service-Learning In a comprehensive review of more than 100 definitions of service-learning, Giles, Honnet, and Migliore (1991) found that two themes consistently emerged. In the first, service- learning was the label applied to a particular type of educational program -- an instructional method. In the second , service- learning represented the underlying educational philosophy espoused by those who engage in such initiatives. The authors note, As a program-type, service-learning includes myriad ways that students can perform meaningful service to their communities and to society while engaging in some form of reflection or study that is related to the service. As a philosophy of education, service-learning reflects the belief that education must be linked to social responsibility and that the most effective learning is active and connected to experience in some meaningful way. (Giles, Honnet and Migliore, 1991, p.7) 10 The current literature on service-learning reflects these two basic categories -- program-type and philosophy. The work in the first category has largely been done by students and community service coordinators with a "how to" emphasis on the service component: exploring how students can promote interest and involvement in service (Lieberman and Connolly, 1992: Farr, 1989: Meisel, 1988) and how practitioners can design and enhance their programs (ACTION, 1978, 1979; Cairn and Keilsmeier, 1991; Cotton and Stanton, 1990; Luce, 1988). The second dimension, more philosophical in nature, has been endorsed.by university presidents, politicians, and advocates of educational reform who believe that a stronger integration of service and scholarship will benefit their institutions, the nation, and/or the society at large (Bok, 1982, 1986: Bowen, 1977, 1982: Boyer, 1981, 1987, 1990: Carnegie Commission, 1967, 1973: Couto, 1987, 1992: DiBiaggio, 1988: Harkavy, 1991: Kennedy, 1991: Kerr, 1963: Newman, 1985, 1989, 1992; Payton, 1988; Schuh, 1986; Warren, 1991). Both the programmatic and philosophical dimensions of service-learning are reflected in the definition provided by Campus Compact and the National Society for Experiential Education, the two leading educational organizations in this field. In a joint publication, these two groups describe service-learning as a "particular form of experiential education, one that emphasizes for students the accomplishment of tasks which meet human needs in combination with conscious educational growth” (Luce, 1988, p.1.) This definition, as 11 applied to courses for academic credit, has been adopted for use in this study because it has three key components which distinguish service-learning from similar initiatives in community service, civic education, or social action: (1) the active involvement of students, (2) the accomplishment of service, and (3) the enhancement of learning. Summarizing various definitions of service-learning, Gomez suggests that, Service-learning is student learning and development through active participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences that meet real community needs and that are coordinated in collaboration with the school and community. . . [SJervice-learning is integrated into the students' academic curriculum and provides structured time for them to talk, write, and think about what they did and saw during the actual service activity. Service is the intentional integration of curricular content with community service activities . Effective service-learning led by committed, well- prepared educators yields documented outcomes benefiting young people, the community, and schools." (3.01 and 3.02) This chapter will first provide a brief review of the programmatic dimensions of service-learning: its structure and content. Second, the broader, philosophical dimension will be explored, including a brief history of the service movement in education, the endorsements given on behalf of service- learning, the pedagogical traditions which have adopted service-learning techniques, and the learning-outcomes made possible by such activities. 12 The Structure of Service-Learning Programs Service-learning takes many forms across a wide array of disciplines. For example, education majors may tutor disadvantaged youth: nursing students may sponsor blood pressure screening seminars or give community presentations on health-related topics: students in the natural sciences may monitor wetlands for changes in the growth of flora and fauna and apply their results to improve the environmental conditions: law students may assist the elderly in navigating the bureaucratic maze of social security benefits: accounting students may assist with income tax materials : marketing students may conduct research or develop advertising for a non-profit organization. These are only a few of the many ways service-learning is currently in use on college campuses. Yet, no matter what the setting, achieving the balance between service and learning brings service-learning a unique set of possibilities and challenges. Kennedy (1991) asserts that there are two primary tasks in teaching: intellectual management (choosing the best method, setting an appropriate pace, responding to questions, establishing a basis for evaluation, etc.) and logistical management (monitoring attendance, ensuring adequate resources, etc.). Service-learning presents pedagogical challenges to instructors on both dimensions. Those who incorporate service into the curriculum must recognize that "Community service components are more than ‘additions' to courses: integrating community service into a course 13 transforms the course material and the way in which it is taught. Community service experiences often require facilitation and an adaptation of standard teaching methods" (Lieberman and Connolly, p.79). At the outset, the technical components required for a service-learning experience can be quite complex: Community connections must be established and fostered: travel and other logistical elements must be negotiated: safety and liability issues must be weighed and.balanced. Yet all of these pale in comparison to the intellectual and pedagogical challenges. Intellectually, instructors must define the educational goals of the course and determine the role that service experiences might play in achieving those aims. Furthermore, they'must.assess the abilities of the students enrolled in the course and identify appropriate service tasks and settings for student participation. In service-learning, each student brings a different level of exposure to and sophistication with the problem at hand, a factor which may play a dramatic role in the nature of the learning experience for' the individual and the class as a whole (Kennedy, 1991: Shulman, 1986, 1987). For example, tutoring elementary students in an inner-city school may seem quite straight-forward: a matter of arranging pairs and finding convenient times. Yet, in that setting, one can easily imagine the difference between the educational experience of a student tutor who has grown up in a rural setting or in the suburbs and one who is familiar'with the circumstances of inner-city youth. Trying to cope with 14 the broad spectrum of student experiences in such a setting may reduce the instructor's ability to control the classroom environment, dissolving class cohesiveness as each student pursues*what could.aptly'be construed as an independent study. Frank: Newman (1992) warns of’ the jpedagogical risks related to service-learning as student sophistication grows: ”Service experience can be dangerous...for higher education because the net result is that students come into the classroom with more self-confidence, more knowledge, more willingness to challenge authority” (p.17). Service-learning has been integrated into many experiential courses already accepted in the curriculum: field studies, internships, practica, independent studies, clinical experience programs, co-operative experiences, and cross- cultural training (Arthur, 1991). Nonetheless, each attempt requires significant planning and follow-through. As is the case in clinical settings, service-learning has a technical, an intellectual and an ethical component. In her book, Literagy_Agtign, Louise Meacham reinforces the importance of the ethical dimension with the following example: When asked in the fall of 1986 about getting college and university people involved in literacy work, the program . director of the county-wide tutoring program burst out laughing. She became very serious, however, when she described a phone call she received late one fall semester. A student from a neighboring university had called and asked if he could ”please have an illiterate for a few weeks." The professor of a class he was taking had made tutoring a requirement for the course. The faculty member had done this without making contact with local literacy 15 groups. (Meacham in Liebermann and Connolly, 1992, p.61) As a means of avoiding such gaffes, The National Society for Internships and Experiential Education has adopted a set of 10 Principles of Good Practice for Combining Service and Learning (1989) : 1. An effective program engages people in responsible and challenging actions for the common good. 2. An effective program provides structured opportunities for people to reflect critically on their service experience. 3. An effective program articulates clear service and learning goals for everyone involved. 4. An effective program allows for those‘with needs to define those needs. 5. An effective program clarifies the responsibilities of each person and organization involved. 6. An effective program matches service providers and service needs through a process that recognizes changing circumstances 7. An effective program expects genuine, active, and sustained organizational commitment. 8. An effective program includes training, supervision, monitoring, support, recognition, and evaluation to meet service and learning goals. 9. An effective program insures that the time commitment for service and learning is flexible, appropriate, and in the best interests of all involved. 10. An effective program is committed to program participation by and with diverse populations. In order to meet the standards set by these objectives, most service-learning programs include five basic components: (1) assessment/placement -- assessing student skills and needs and arranging for appropriate placement in a service setting; (2) orientation/training -- in order to set expectations, provide the necessary technical skills and instill a helpful attitude in ‘volunteers (ACTION/NCSI” 1990): (3) supervision/monitoring -- which allows for early correction of 16 problems which may arise: (4) reflection -- which helps students to synthesize their service experience with the course content; and (5) evaluation. Evaluation is often among the most troubling aspect of service-learning for student and instructor. Experts caution that it is neither the service nor the good intentions but the learning that must be evaluated. Say Liebermann and Connolly (1992), While community service is educationally valuable, it is the learning derived from experience -- not the experience itself -- that should be awarded academic credit. As Donald Eberly of the National Service Secretariat notes, "The way to preserve the intellectual integrity of the service experience is to award academic credit for the demonstration of learning from the experience, not just for the experience.” (New York Times, 6/3/88) Methods of evaluating the learning in service-learning can take a variety of forms: the demonstration of a skill; the assessment of a journal, essay or report describing the knowledge or insight gained; the supervisor's certification of performance: observation in a simulated situation: assessment of a product prepared by the student: personal interviews: the assessments of those being served. Such evaluations are not designed to measure some pre-determined disciplinary content but, rather, to assess the growth of the student as a result of the service-experience. Summary This review of the programmatic dimensions of service- learning -- definitions, examples, principles of good practice l7 and course structure -- highlights many differences between service-learning techniques and traditional teaching methods. The technical, intellectual and ethical dimensions of such activities may pose greater challenges for faculty who choose to adopt such methods. Let us now turn to the philosophical dimensions which have traditionally supported such efforts, despite the challenges they present. To understand service- learning, one must consider dimensions of volunteerism and philanthropy in concert with educational theory and practice. Service-learning is not a wholly new technique or model but rather is an ‘gmgrging; phenomenon. It draws from long traditions of service and volunteerism -- from.Jane Addams to Ceasar Chevez, and is compatible with philosophies articulated by educators from John Dewey and Paulo Friere. The following pages of this chapter describe (1) the historical underpinnings of the service component of service- learning, (2) the arguments offered to encourage faculty involvement with service-learning, (3) the pedagogical traditions which incorporate service-learning, and (4) the learning which can be derived through a service-learning experience. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SERVICE-LEARNING MOVEMENT The following section sketches the history of the service-learning movement, paying particular attention to the question, Does the history of service learning provide clear evidence of its place in higher education and its claim to faculty attention? 18 The roots of service-learning are intertwined with the history and development of volunteerism and philanthropy, especially among high school and college-age youth (VanBuren, 1990: Independent Sector, 1990; Sherraden, 1991). While it is not the intent of this study to provide a full historical analysis of youth service in society, a sketch of the origins of the movement will provide a useful context for understanding current patterns of collegiate involvement. The term service-learning is sometimes used, almost interchangeably with the terms community service or "youth service." Service-learning emerged from early efforts to engage youth in community service and the continuing popularity of such programs today lends valuable support to service-learning as a component of the formal collegiate curriculum. Exhortations to charity and works of mercy span the millennia cross cultures. However, the origins of 29.11111 service as a distinct enterprise can be traced to the Gilded Age of American history, a period marked by the tidal wave of immigration and the impact of the industrial revolution. The link between service and the education of youth is clearly evidenced in the experiential educational philosophy of John Dewey (1915) and the perspectives on philanthropy advanced by Andrew Carnegie (1933), but it is especially evident in the work of Jane Addams (1910) and the settlement house initiatives. 19 Youth Service: Product of the Gilded Age It was Jane Addams who recognized the lure service would have for the young: "We have in America a fast-growing number of cultivated young people who have no recognized outlet for their active faculties. They hear constantly of the great social maladjustment, but no way is provided for them to change it, and their uselessness hangs about them heavily" (p.120). It was Addams who constructed an environment (both in program and philosophy) which enabled them to heed the call. ”A Settlement," she wrote, "Is above all a place for enthusiasms, a spot to which those who have a passion for the equalization of human joys and opportunities are early attracted” (p.184). In her book, Iggnty Years at Hull House (1910), Addams documented many of the tensions that remain inherent in service-learning today, including the tension between service and learning. It was no coincidence that her colleagues from the settlement movement in London implored her to take pains to see that Hull House would not become "too educational" (p.366). Yet Addams was drawn to the power of education and she attempted to reinforce the link between the mind and the heart in several different ways. Faced with the squalor of the immigrant tenements in Chicago, she chose to designate the first building at Hull House, not as a cafeteria or dormitory, but as an art gallery. In illustrating the necessity of cooperation among various labor unions, she used a concept 20 which modern educators would describe as "integrated" study. In her endeavors to link young and old for mutual benefit, Addams fostered relationships that today would be identified as ”mentoring." Early ventures in service-learning relied on the initiative of private individuals such as Addams, but national trends soon conspired to engage youth in social issues, especially through both World Wars, the Great Depression, and the organized labor movement (Agee, 1939; Day, 1952; Arendt, 1958). The writings of social conscience which emerged in the first half of the 20th century became standard texts for courses which integrated service and study (Lieberman and Connolly, 1992: Levine, 1989: Luce, 1988). Today, they continue to appear in service-learning bibliographies because they speak to the philosophical dimension of service and attempt to foster an.awareness.of the mutual benefits possible for both volunteer and recipient. Collegiate Service: Youth Service and Higher Education Throughout the Gilded Age and into the early 1920's, youth service was devoted to civic and social responsibility, and was separate from the academic enterprise. Participants in Hull House and similar ventures had often completed their formal education before accepting the challenge to employ their skills for the betterment of society. Although service was recognized as a valued dimension of higher education in both private church-related institutions and in the formation of the land-grant colleges, the 21 fulfillment of the service mission in higher education remained. elusive. .According’ to Crosson (1983), "Most colleges and universities proclaim a commitment to public service as part of their formal mission statement, but few have separate policy documents regarding public service" (p.97). When attempts have been made to specify the service functions of colleges and universities, activities have generally been justified in a scholarly, professional context, i.e., in the accumulation, preservation and transmission of knowledge. Universities contend that they serve society by contributing ideas of value, initiating social criticism, solving social problems and engaging in social activism (Crosson, 1983). The service-oriented efforts of students have generally been peripheral to institutional service functions. According to Theus (1988): Historically, volunteer activity has been unsung and unrewarded on college campuses. When it did exist, campus voluntarism was the step-child of the student activities office and campus social organizations. Fraternities and sororities often encouraged their members to ’do good,’ though mostly to elevate their house's image in the community. Student organizations often garnered participation with promises of social contact (dance-a-thons or fun runs, sold as dating bonanzas) or, more practically, with promises of credentials for employment. little of this activity had as its object the nurture of civic spirit or reflection upon the meaning of service. Bona fide service organizations have always existed on campus, of course. The Boy Scouts of America founded a collegiate service fraternity, Alpha Phi Omega, in 1925; it now has active chapters on 311 campuses. Circle K is another well-established, campus-based 22 national service organization. And campus ministries for years have tapped the conscientiousness of their members to tutor fellow students, rebuild neighborhoods, and provide child or elderly care -- in the name of God... (p. 30) Collegiate involvement in community service reached an all-time low in the 19503. The G.I.'s who flooded the campus in post WWII America believed firmly that they had already served their country and were now entitled to the benefits of the peaceful nation they helped to secure. President Dwight Eisenhower, honorary chair of the Citizenship Education Project developed by Columbia University's Teacher’s College, emphasized the need for "social investigation and social/political action" (Conrad and Hedin, 1987, p.744), but academic leaders, struggling to keep pace with the burgeoning growth of their institutions, had little time to launch bold new initiatives. Collegiate Service and the Federal Agenda Thus, it is not surprising that the call for student investment in national and community service did not emerge from academic convocations. Rather, it was the 1960 inaugural address of John F. Kennedy -- ”Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country" -- which resonated on college campuses and ushered in a new era of student activism. Student concerns for social justice and academic relevance, combined with increased frustration over the depersonalization of higher education in the 1960's, triggered numerous service initiatives, including the Voter 23 Registration Drives, the Peace Corps, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), and the War on Poverty. The voter registration. drives. of the ”Freedom. Summer’ of ’64" are especially noteworthy for they serve today as the model for ”Empty the Shelters” project, started by students at the University of Pennsylvania (1990) to eradicate homelessness (Collison, 1991). In some cases, the initiatives of the 19608 were linked to academic work, but more often projects were undertaken during a summer or holiday recess or as extra- curricular experiences. The 1970's witnessed a dramatic decline in service and philanthropy, within education and throughout the nation. This can be attributed in large part to the actions of the federal government. The Congressional Tax Reform Act of 1969, coupled with escalating inflation, severely crippled the activities of many foundations and non-profit organizations engaged in service. Furthermore, women, who made up a significant proportion of the nation's volunteers, began to trade community involvement for paid employment (VanBuren, 1990). Throughout the decade, several reports -- by the National Committee on Secondary Education, the President’s Science Advisory Committee, and the National Panel on High School and Adolescent Education -- highlighted the passivity of education and called for educational reform (Conrad and Hedin, 1987). Arthur Levine's 1979 work, WW, painted a frightening portrait of unsurpassed hedonism among the college population. 24 Some attempts were made to change the course of the ”me generation" in the 1970's. VISTA, the federal agency charged with domestic service, developed the National Student Volunteer Program (NSVP) ”to encourage school-based service programs via conferences, workshops, a quarterly journal, and a small grants program" (Lockwood, 1990, p.53). Legislation to promote youth involvement in community service was introduced but with little success. NSVP and other federal programs languished throughout the 1970’s, almost disappearing completely in the early' years of the Reagan-Bush administration (Lockwood, 1990). The impact. of'ideclining federal support for social welfare programs received mixed reviews among those concerned with service initiatives. In his response to William F. Buckley's book. GWWMQW ggungzy, Steven Conn, co-founder of the "Empty the Shelters" movement, issued an indictment of the Reagan administration: ...the Reagan administration had systematically gutted the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) program. It did the same to federal programs that traded financial help to medical students for service in underserved areas. Even the Peace Corps suffered abuse and neglect throughout much of the 1980s. It seemed clear enough that ‘service' was not high on Mr. Reagan’s agenda. (Conn, 1991, p.6) But others offered an alternate explanation, as noted by VanBuren (1990): 25 By 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan was committed to minimizing the role of government in societal welfare. He set in motion a series of cutbacks that placed more burden on the shoulders of private philanthropy and volunteerism, and he called on citizens to give of their time, talents and dollars. As a result, Americans today are volunteering at a level not seen for decades. (P-19) Whether motivated by the conservative or the liberal agenda, Americans.did renew'their commitment to service in the period following the Reagan years. Between 1984 and 1989, hundreds of service programs were initiated in high schools and colleges, and full-time youth service corps more than quadrupled in number, due in large part to Congressional legislation and the verbal encouragement of the Bush administration. The Office of Capitol National Service was created within the White House and the Points of Light Foundation was started as a separate national initiative to encourage voluntarism (Stroud, 1989). As Conrad and Hedin (1987) observed: In November, 1990 President George Bush signed into law the National and Community Service Act of 1990, the most significant community service legislation in many decades. The act provides funding for community service programs in schools and colleges and support for full-time service corps that students can enter after high school. In a period when every issue in education becomes more and.more politicized, this legislation stands out as a cause championed by both outspoken liberals and staunch conservatives. Even more remarkable, the law was passed in a time of severe federal budget austerity. (p.743) Perhaps more than any other curricular or co-curricular 26 program, service-learning initiatives have waxed and waned according to the level of governmental support. Support at the national level has increased during the Clinton Administration as federal funding has linked service to collegiate financial aid. On September 21, 1993, for example, President Clinton signed legislation creating the.AmeriCorps, a service program designed to provide tuition stipends and other benefits in return for public service. The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 aims at fostering service through AmeriCorps, a Civilian Community Corps, and VISTA. Student Service Today: Patterns of Participation Today, service-learning programs are gaining increased attention on college campuses. In addition to the federal support for service, Theus (1988) asserts that ”Three initiatives seem to have stimulated the perception that ‘greed is out, altruism is in’ and that student voluntarism pays off in the national interest" (p.27). The first of these was the creation of ”Campus Compact: The Project for Public and Community Service”, an initiative of 12 college and university presidents who committed their institutions to charter membership in 1985. As described by Nozaki (1993) , ”These presidents committed themselves to establishing community service as an integral element of undergraduate education and agreed to initiate and support efforts on the campus, state and national levels to expand service opportunities” (p.1). Among these academic leaders was Derek Bok (1986), then President of Harvard and a leading 27 advocate of service-learning, who asserted that introducing educational innovations was appropriate to the leadership role: In part because of their unique perspective and in part because of the authority of their office, academic leaders also have a special opportunity to mobilize support for new initiatives. If anyone is to have a vision for a university and communicate its basic directions and priorities, that person is likely to be a president or some other official with broad academic responsibilities. (p.193) With assistance from the Educational Commission of the States, the Campus Compact coalition mushroomed to include over 300 institutions in the next seven years (Nozaki, 1993). The second initiative, the Campus Outreach Opportunity League (COOL), began in 1984 when Wayne Meisel, a new Harvard graduate armed with a letter of introduction and support from Harvard President Derek Bok, walked 1500 miles to 65 East Coast colleges and universities and invited each to join in a student-focused network of community service. Fifteen institutions responded to the initial call: today the network includes over 700 campuses and over 200 service organizations (Lieberman and Connolly, 1992, p.2). The third initiative is represented by a cluster of government-supported agencies involving youth service. As the scope of youth service programs has expanded, so too has the definition "youth." While the image of youthful service might have conjured up visions of hard-working Civilian Conservation Corps or idealistic Peace Corps volunteers in previous 28 decades, today ”youth" service refers to students in high school, middle school or even elementary school who participate in. a *wide ‘variety of service ‘ventures from neighborhood clean-up efforts to drug-awareness campaigns. Youth Service America (YSA) , one of the largest service initiatives in the nation, was established to achieve three goals: to multiply service programs at all levels, to replace cliches and misconceptions about youth, and to foster bonds between youth and their home communities (YSA, 1988, p.2). During the 1980's, ten states passed legislation to encourage or require community service in high schools (Theus, 1988). These programs generally include one or more of the activities identified by Conrad and Hedin (1987): special events and co-curricular activities: events which gain academic credit or fulfill an academic requirement: events which serve as a laboratory for a traditional course: classes which focus on community service as a topic area: and intra- school programs with a school-wide focus. The Demographics of Student Service These youth service initiatives, targeted at ages 14-17, have had a significant impact on the service-learning movement in higher education because they provide students with their initial exposure to organized service programs. In 1990, Rutter and Newman (1990) estimated that 27 percent of high schools offered some form of community service program, involving approximately 900,000 students. A survey of public 29 schools in Michigan revealed that 54.5 percent had organized school volunteer programs and 15.7 percent had service- learning (i.e., credit-bearing) programs (Moon and Niemeyer, 1991) . A 1990 Gallup Corporation study conducted for Independent Sector, an advocacy group for non-prof it organizations, revealed that 58 percent of American teenagers, ages 14-17 , volunteered in 1989 , averaging 3 . 9 hours/week/volunteer. Independent Sector estimates that these contributions total 1.6 billion hours of volunteer effort, roughly equivalent to a $4.4 billion contribution to the nation's gross national product. Following its study of the American high school, the Carnegie Foundation proposed the creation of a ”Carnegie unit" -- a period of voluntary service which would take high school students into the community. Furthermore, the Foundation recommended that colleges and universities consider the completion of such service when making admissions decisions (Boyer, 1987). Studies indicate that voluntarism in high school does persist into the college years albeit at reduced levels. Alexander Astin has examined patterns of student service involvement using the longitudinal data of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) . In a 1989 follow-up study of 25,000 students who entered college in 1985, Astin found that the strongest correlation linking students to service was prior participation. This finding was supported by a 1990 study conducted by the Michigan Campus Compact 30 (MCC): 60.2 percent of college student volunteers had been involved in community service prior to matriculation (MCC, p.16) . However, Astin also discovered that the rate of voluntarism declined precipitously in college years. During their high school years, 21 percent of the students surveyed were frequent volunteers: during college that number dropped to 9.8 percent. The number of students who volunteered "occasionally" dropped from 54 percent in high school to 37.7 percent in college. In two 1986 Gallup surveys a 35 percent participation rate among students on 100 college campuses gave further support to Astin’s data on community service. Astin’s CIRP data have often been cited to emphasize a rise in the hedonism of college students throughout the 1970s and early 80’s. However, reviewing the trends in the CIRP data of the last twenty-five years, Astin observes: The value of ‘being very well off financially' has increased tremendously in popularity, while the value of ‘developing a meaningful philosophy of life' has declined precipitously....It is important to note ... however, that these trends peaked out in 1987 and have since shown slight tendencies in the opposite direction. (p.13) Despite the decline in service participation from high school to college, Astin also notes that During the last few years, we have seen a marked increase in student propensity to be activists. It is especially interesting that the rate of activism is higher even than what we observed in the late 19608....Student interest both in ‘influencing social values' and in ‘influencing the political structure' have shown sharp increases during the past four years. (p.14) 31 In the book. WWW Aneziee, Ernest Boyer (1987) reaches a similar conclusion: We, too, found that a growing minority of today's students believe they can make a difference and they are reaching out to help others. In our national survey, 52 percent of the students reported that their high schools provided.an opportunity for community service. And about one half participated in some kind of service activity during their college years. (p.214) Participants in the Boyer survey indicated involvement in eight different service areas: fund raising (47%): service activities (45%) church-service (41%); charity organization projects (31%): election campaigns (20%): work with the elderly or retirees (19%): environmental projects (17%); and hospital service (17%). Summary In tracing the history of the service-learning movement, one can see that support for such efforts has waxed and waned according to the national agenda. Furthermore, it is evident that community service, in both curricular and co-curricular settings, is currently receiving considerable support from government officials, university administrators and students. However, service-learning has not been included in the traditional descriptions of faculty service on most campuses, in part because it links service to teaching rather than to research or outreach. Since no other studies have been conducted to link faculty motivation and service, the next section presents information on the motivation of student 32 volunteers in the hope of gaining insight on this question. STUDENT NOTIVATION: STUDENT SERVICE Service-learning has grown, largely because of the enthusiasm of student volunteers. As we speculate about the role of faculty in such endeavors, we might ask: Would an understanding of the motivation and activities of student volunteers provide insight into the motivations faculty'might have for’becoming involved in service-learning? The following section describes the motivation of student volunteers and current patterns of involvement. The Motivation of Student volunteers Why do students volunteer? A prime factor is simply that they are asked. Thirty-six percent of teens surveyed in the Independent Sector report (1990) indicated that they volunteered because they were asked. Of those who had been asked to volunteer, 90 percent did so -- as compared with 87 percent of adults on a similar scale. Furthermore, the Independent Sector report identified the "growing emphasis on community service” in schools as a major factor in promoting voluntarism. Fifty-two percent of teens volunteered through their schools. The rate of voluntarism in schools which emphasized community service was significantly higher than in schools with no service focus. Ten percent of teen volunteers reported that their schools required community service for graduation and 26 percent were aware of one or more course 33 which required a community service project. The evidence of student satisfaction with service- learning is largely anecdotal but consistently positive. Consider, for example, the testimony of Alison Marks, a student volunteer working through Amnesty International to assist Central American detainees who were housed at the Port Isabel Processing Center in Texas: ”I was in school taking Latin American Studies but I wasn't doing anything to help change things ... I wanted to balance out my theories with experience" (Marks in Collison, 1991). In an effort to categorize such anecdotal evidence, Fitch (1987) organized the responses of 76 students with regard to their service experiences. In his sample, altruistic responses (”I am concerned about those less fortunate than me") emerged as the most prevalent motivation for student voluntarism. Mid-range responses indicated ego involvement (”It is an excellent way to show future employers that I am interested in the community and helping others”) and of lowest significance were responses centered on obligation (”It is an assignment or requirement for a class, organization or group I am in") (Fitch, 1987, p.487). These results are similar to those of the Independent Sector study (1990) which indicated that 47 percent of teens volunteered because they wanted to do something useful, 38 percent because they thought it would be enjoyable. In their studies of student volunteer motivation, Rutter and Newman (1983) identified five categories of interest: the acquisition and pursuit of social relationships: 34 personal growth and development; acquisition of useful skills and knowledge: community awareness and involvement; and career exploration or vocational experience. These categories mirror the findings of the 1986-87 study conducted by the Service-learning Center at Michigan State University (Edens, 1988). Motivations of the 1757 students who volunteered that year are provided in the following chart: Self improvement 90.5% Helping others 87.1% Developing interpersonal skills 86.7% Being involved with others 85.9% Doing something meaningful 85.9% Improving skills 85.9% Pursuing an interest 83.1% Broadening experience in the community 82.0% Gaining professional experience 76.5% Exploring a career 72.2% Personal reasons 71.8% Meeting a community need 68.2% Having fun 67.1% Learning from a professor 65.5% Deciding on a career 54.9% Fulfilling a class requirement 19.2% Alexander Astin’s research indicates that students most likely to volunteer in college were previous volunteers, come from a Roman Catholic or Jewish religious tradition, and rate helping others as a primary life goal. Students least likely to volunteer are those who show strong materialistic motives or who show ”a tendency to rationalize college attendance in terms of enhanced income" (Astin, 1990, p.2). Astin also identified several campus characteristics likely to enhance student participation, most notably involvement with peer groups on campus, majoring in the social sciences or in education, and attending an institution which belonged to the 35 Campus Compact. Astin found that student involvement increased through relationships with faculty strongly committed to social change and he asserts that: It is also of interest to note that the amount of interaction between faculty and students has one of the strongest effects on volunteer participation. Since many of the reform reports directed at undergraduate education have emphasized the importance of student- faculty interaction as a way of enhancing the learning process, it is also important to realize that there are additional benefits to student-faculty interaction beyond.any effects it might have on the student's educational progress. (Astin, 1990, p.10) Institutional Support for Service-Learning Largely in response to increased student interest, support for service-learning is growing on college campuses. WWW reported in 1990 that ”At least two dozen institutions have adopted new policies and many more are studying ways to encourage or mandate community service” (Dodge, p.1). For example, many colleges and universities now have a designated staff member (a community service or service-learning coordinator) who works to integrate the interests of students and the needs of the community. In addition, in 1987-88, the Association of American Colleges launched an initiative to encourage curricular attention to philanthropy, volunteerism and the work of non-profit organizations. Through grants from several major corporations, courses were developed to address such topics at eight institutions. 36 In addition to such initiatives, several colleges have decided to mandate service. At Wittenberg College, every sophomore is required to enroll in a program of service in topics such as literacy, health, the disabled, the elderly or the environment: thirty hours of community service are required for graduation. Bethany College (Ohio) requires 15- 20 hours of service for graduation. Tufts University maintains a Community Service Option for 50 incoming freshmen whose admission to the University is guaranteed by virtue of their participation in service. In 1989, Xavier University (Ohio) began offering five undergraduate fellowships, the recipients of which are required to devote 15 hours a week to community service. At Stanford University, the Center for Public Service reports that over 2000 students each year are involved in a wide range of projects from volunteerism to social advocacy; At Harvard, ”over 50 percent of all undergraduates are now involved at some period in their college career in tutoring disadvantaged children, staffing centers for the homeless, visiting old-age homes, or working for some other kind of community agency" (Bok, 1986, p.168). Perhaps the most dramatic effort was made by Edward J. Bloustein as President of Rutgers University. Bloustein proposed that all Rutgers undergraduates perform community service as a graduation requirement and has set about integrating service across the curriculum at that institution. Yet, as demonstrated in the examples above, the support 37 for service-learning has primarily come from students (e.g., COOL, Empty the Shelters, AmeriCorps, etc.), from academic administrators (e.g., college presidents, community service coordinators, student affairs professionals, etc.), or from broad.based educational groups (e.g., American Association of Colleges, the Campus Compact, the Educational Commission of the States). It has not come from the faculty. While it is true that service-learning is being integrated into the curriculum (Lieberman and Connolly identify 282 service-related courses nationwide in 60 academic areas), and that the influence of faculty is significant to the success of such efforts (Astin, 1990), faculty have been seen as reluctant partners. Advocates of service-learning speak of the challenge of ”getting faculty involved," as demonstrated by this advice found in mm: IQI_QQll£Q§_§LQQ£n§§ (ACTION: 1990): Many professors will not be familiar with the term ”service-learning” so be ready to explain that you’re talking about a field experience that combines community service with specific learning objectives. You may find professors who have trouble seeing how service is related to their field of knowledge...The skills needed to tackle human problems are often those of the generalist, whereas your professor’ may be concerned. primarily‘ with specialist skills -- those related to a specific subject area (p.9). The literature among administrators echoes a similar refrain: Student development professionals have known for many years about the value of extracurricular volunteerism and community service activities...Interest and cooperation of faculty must be encouraged in order to develop programs with an academic component 38 that will provide additional incentive for student participation. (Wieckowski, 1992, p.211) Summary The literature on student volunteerism indicates that prior involvement is a strong indicator of current and future participation. Altruistic motivations and their relationships with others are also key components for student investment in service initiatives. The campus climate can have an effect on student volunteer participation rates and, as a consequence, many colleges and universities are developing programs or instituting academic requirements to support such efforts. Given that faculty support appears to be a significant factor in encouraging community service on campus, advocates of service-learning are searching for strategies which will elicit faculty participation. In the next section, we will examine the most primary incentives and arguments set forth to bolster faculty involvement. ENCOURAGING FACULTY INVOLVEMENT: MAKING THE CASE FOR SERVICE-LEARNING Advocates of service-learning have tried to elicit faculty involvement by enumerating the benefits of service for the student, the institution, the nation and the society. The following section summarizes the arguments most frequently presented in the service-learning literature to foster faculty support. As already documented, support for service-learning has grown dramatically in the past decade. Increased student 39 investment in service activities, coupled with the financial incentives provided by state and federal programs, have placed service-learning on the nation's educational agenda. Yet the literature in the previous sections enumerated the ways in which service-learning challenges traditional teaching methods, requiring more time and energy on the part of faculty. The literature also revealed a pattern of modest (although increasing) institutional support for service- learning, coupled with sporadic incentives from the state and national government. The growing popularity of community service among the young has been documented but there has been no corresponding indication of an upsurge in faculty interest. Similarly, the assumption that faculty would share the motivations of their students, who often volunteer because of previous involvement in high school or for altruistic reasons, would be largely speculative. How do advocates of service- learning encourage faculty participation? In the following pages, the most persuasive arguments from the literature are set forth as a response to this question. Social Responsibility and Curricular Reform Support for service-learning has been drawn from two reform movements in higher education: the drive to enhance social responsibility and the desire to revitalize undergraduate education (Stanton, 1987). Both sets of reformers are concerned with the application, integration and evaluation of knowledge: the ability to develop perspective: the practice of analytical skills and the political and social 40 action skills necessary for scholarship (Stanton, 1987, p.182). Each branch.of the reform movement allies itself with a different dimension of service-learning. Those who are concerned about social responsibility focus on the service dimension while undergraduate reformers see service-learning as a tool which will bring relevance to academic study. Stanton maintains that If there is potential for convergence between these two distinct, but complementary traditions, then faculty' participation and support for students' public and community service becomes integral. Faculty have a central role to play in ensuring that these experiences are continually challenging and educational as well as useful for the community on the receiving end. As interpreters of the college's or university's mission, faculty are in the critical position for supporting students’ interest and activities in public and community service. More importantly, they'must assist students in reflecting critically about their public service experience and in relating them both to broader social issues and to liberal arts disciplines. (Stanton, 1987, p.184) From those who advocate service-learning as a strategy for enhancing social responsibility, three arguments emerge: 1. Service-learning is consistent with the aims of higher education. 2. Service-learning encourages civic responsibility which is beneficial to the nation. 3. Service-learning enables students to contribute to the welfare of society. These three incentives, used to solicit faculty support and involvement for service-learning, are discussed in the 41 following pages. Subsequently, the learning dimensions of service-learning, most frequently cited by advocates of educational reform, are discussed. In Chapter Three these perspectives on service and learning will be compared with the literature on faculty motivation. Furthermore, these arguments have been integrated into the survey instrument for this study, as described in Chapter Four. Service-learning: Fulfilling the Promise of Higher Education As an institutional mission, service can be traced back to the Morrill Act of 1862 and the Hatch Act of 1887 which established the agricultural experiment stations. In principal, if not in action, service was readily embraced and spread beyond the land-grant institutions: In 1903, David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, declared that the entire university movement in the twentieth century "is toward reality and practicality." By 1908, Harvard president Charles Eliot could claim: ”At the bottom most of the American institutions of higher education are filled with the modern democratic spirit of serviceableness. Teachers and students alike are profoundly moved by the desire to serve the democratic community...All colleges boast of the serviceable men they have trained, and regard the serviceable patriot as their ideal product. This is a thoroughly democratic conception of their function." (Boyer, 1990, P-5) Academic leaders today continue to embrace the service mission but their rhetoric has become more inclusive, and, perhaps, even less measurable. For example, Mawby (1987) states that service in higher education may be "best conceived as dynamic and creative teaching and research carried out in 42 the full dimensions of the human life-span and the broad range of human associations both on and off campus" (Mawby in Arthur, p.38). Crosson ( 1983) describes "The service orientation of colleges and universities...as uniquely American and one of the great strengths of American higher education" (p.10) . Yet, in recent years, public satisfaction with the academy's ability to fulfill these functions appears to be waning. A 1988 survey conducted by the Gallup Corporation for the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) asked citizens to grade higher education on its overall performance and on accomplishment of specific tasks. The over-all grade was moderate: 38 percent.of respondents gave academe a "B"; 35 percent gave it a "C." However, on three of the specific tasks enumerated in the study, a majority or near majority gave higher education a ”C” or below: (a) preparing students to be productive members of the workforce (52%): (b) making young people good citizens (58%); and (c) offering opportunities to explore one's values (48%) (CASE, 1989, p. 4). These are the tasks which advocates believe could, in part, be addressed through service-learning experiences. Given that the citizenry, through taxes or tuition, provides the support for higher education in stringent economic times, it is no surprise to hear calls for accountability: "We are citizens of academic communities that hold great power, operate on quasi-public funds, yet face insufficient criticism about their day-to-day operations” (Levine, 1990, p.26-27). 43 The call for service as a part of a renewed and refocused academy goes beyond a budget rationale to the efficacy of undergraduate education. According to Newman, "the University is slipping toward the academic equivalent of the hospital -- a place where academic specialists come to practice rather than a place where students come to participate in an academic community” (Newman, 1992, p.4). Boyer (1987) insists that, "there is urgent need in American teaching to help close the dangerous and growing gap between public policy and public understanding” (p.279). A similar refrain emerges from the work of the Wingspread Group on Higher Education (1993): What does our society need from higher education? It needs stronger, more vital forms of community. It needs an informed and involved citizenry. It needs graduates able to assume leadership roles in American life... (Po 2) In response to these concerns, service-learning is seen as one mechanism for enhancing the quality of undergraduate education and thereby enhancing the reputation of academe: Only if we (in higher education) become the sources of ethical vision for our society and only if we graduate students who have the ethical intelligence to create a better society will undergraduate education once again distinguish itself in the public eye as something more than just another function of society, as something of qualitatively distinct value. Only then will education be perceived as unequivocally worthy of national investment and as the evident path for producing our country's leaders. And only then will American education once again be granted the autonomy, the respect, and dignity that is rightly accorded to all great ethical teachers. (Bloom, 1987, p.16) 44 Service-Learning and Civic Participation Perhaps the most prominent of the three arguments supporting service-learning centers on the desire to enhance civic participation and affect issues of social justice at the national level (Barber, 1989, 1991, 1992; Boyer, 1981, 1987, 1990: Salisbury, 1988: Swezey, 1990). For those who espouse this view, service acquaints young people with the fundamental principles of democracy, and enables them to observe the impact of their contributions on others. However, even among those who ground their support for service-learning in the cause of civic participation, different voices may be heard. According to Newman (1992): Democracy depends for its success on two characteristics in the citizenry. The first characteristic we might call goodness, being a good.person: recognizing the rights of others; understanding that sharing is important: have a sense of responsibility; being, at the core, a decent person....The second characteristic is a willingness to be part of the community, or more accurately, part of many communities. At its root, democracy'ie community. (Newman, 1992, p.3) As a means of translating the goals of civic participation into course syllabi, Keith Morton (1993) delineates four program models. The first he labels as service-learning for Liberal Democracy, a model which is characterized by the relationship of individual to state. These programs usually rely on core documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence to discuss the tension between personal rights and obligations. The second 45 model is based on Participatory Democracy and often includes alternative forms of political expression such as populist movements with a focus on empowerment. Third is the model of Social Justice which seeks to provide student participants with a first-hand experience with social injustice and prompt an analysis of long-term solutions. The fourth model is labeled Service as Citizenship, which views service as the ”defining act of citizenship and the essential building block of community." Recently, this fourth philosophy has received greater attention through the work of Amitai Etzioni, Robert Bellah, Ben Barber, and other scholars who have joined together as "communitarians." Those who view service-learning as a tool for civic education challenge scholars to examine the contradictions inherent in the traditional structure of collegiate life. As Leslie Hill (1992) points out: Students' experiences in college and universities are likely to reinforce prevailing views of power. Both the hierarchical structure of academic institutions and the content of curriculum and pedagogy socialize students to prevailing political norms and underscore selected aspects of what is generally observed as politics. In interactions with faculty and administrators, students are likely to perceive themselves as isolated, relatively powerless actors, and to invest energy in dyadic relations with individual faculty and administrators for personal gain rather than in collective activities directed toward communal goals. (p.15) That is, although one might teach em; democracy in the college classroom, one cannot presume to teach democratic 46 skills in institutions which are entrenched in bureaucratic or autocratic systems. Mabey (1992) identifies five barriers to developing civic leadership: an egocentric view of society: an emphasis on individualism: reliance on the "expert" or the "professional”; a mindset that leadership requires a title or an-—-f Use of ServiceéLearning Affiliation Expand Use Will Not Undecided Expand Use MCC Member 55.3t 18.4% 26.3t (‘2) (14) (20) Non-MCC Member 37.9% 35.1% 27.0% (14) (13) (1°) These responses indicate that faculty at MCC institutions are more likely to expand the use of service learning than their counterparts at non-affiliated institutions. Top-down support for service-learning appears to be higher at MCC institutions, as one might expect. MCC respondents were more likely to receive ready approval for their courses from curriculum committees and administrators (62.5%) than did their non-MCC counterparts (48.6%). In addition, as indicated in Table 20, MCC faculty received stronger support from their department chairs while non-MCC faculty reported stronger support from their faculty colleagues. Table 20: MCC Affiliation and Support. Mean Scores: 1IStrongly Influenced; 4Ilo Influence. I Statement I MCC I Non-MCC Total My faculty colleagues support 2.0 1.8 1.9 my efforts in service-learning My department chair supports 1.8 2.0 1.9 m efforts in service-learning The chi-square analysis also revealed a relationship between MCC affiliation and the number of faculty reporting publications, exhibits, or performances related to their 1159 service-learning work as illustrated in Table 21: Table 21: MCC Affiliation x Publications, Exhibits, Performances 0. 68 —_ Affiliation Publications No Publications Work In Progress MCC Member 26.9% 61.5% 11.5% (21) (49) (9) Non-MCC Member 43.6% 43.6% 12.8% (5) (17) (5) _ A.higher percentage of non-MCC respondents reported that they had received released time to develop the course (51.43%) than did their MCC counterparts (37.5%). Non-MCC respondents reported a higher level of recognition than did their MCC counterparts, as evidenced Table 22: Table 22: MCC Affiliation x Recognition Cells contain counts/column percentages for checked responses Each respondent could check more than one answer (i.e., each source of tion is an indggggdent variable) Source of MCC Member Non-MCC Recognition Institution Institution N I 70 N'37 I Received no 58.6% 18.9% recognition (41) (7) Recognized by 28.6% 51.4% students (20) (19) Recognized by 12.9% 40.5t faculty colleagues (9) (15) Recognized by 4.3% 27.0% state agencies (3) (10) Recognized by 12.9% 27.0 administrators (12) (10) Recognized by 12.9% 37.9% Community Service (9) (14) Agency In Question 37, respondents were asked to provide their opinions on eighteen statements related to service-learning. 1160 These items were rated on Likert scale, with 1 representing "strongly agree" and 5 representing "strongly disagree". Of the 18 items presented in Question 37, the mean scores of MCC and Non-MCC respondents showed significant differences on the following four statements: le1. 23: MCC Affiliation x Opinions About Service-Learning — Statement Mean Score: Mean Score: Mean Score: MCC Non-MCC All This institution places 2.3 2.7 2.4 a high priority on student involvement in service. |This institution places 2.49 1.6 2.2 a high priority on faculty research. My faculty colleagues 2.5 2.2 2.4 are interested in service-learning 2.2 1.9 2.1 Service-learning should be required for graduation ‘ I The responses presented Tables 19 - 23 suggest a pattern of contrasting cultures among the academic institutions which participated in the survey. At the time of this study, membership in the Michigan Campus Compact was dominated by four-year private colleges.‘ In such settings, service- ‘The relationship between MCC affiliation and institutional type may be reflected in two ways. First, small private colleges (which are more likely to be members of MCC) are less likely to emphasize research and publication. Second, small private colleges are more likely to focus on the liberal arts while larger, public institutions are more likely to focus on applied subjects which may include a service-learning component which is more clinical in nature. One might further speculate that faculty who incorporate service as an experiential dimension of a clinical course may find that their work is more accepted, i.e. , has greater academic legitimacy. Such acceptance would enhance faculty satisfaction 161 learning appears to be an administrative initiative which is gaining, but has not yet won, full faculty endorsement. 5 Perhaps the most interesting of the comparisons which emerged from the Chi-square analysis with regard to MCC affiliation involved the differences which centered on initial motivation for becoming involved in service-learning. The mean scores (using a Likert scale with 1 indicating ”strong influence") between respondents from MCC and Non-MCC institutions are presented below: with their efforts. 5Support for this assertion.is based on the fact that.MCC faculty perceive a strong institutional priority for student service‘and also report that they received.strong support from committees, academic administrators and department chairs. Non-MCC faculty perceive a lower level of institution commitment to student service but a higher degree of support and recognition from their students and faculty colleagues. Table 24: MCC Affiliation and Faculty 162 lIStron l Influenced 4Ilo Influence Initiad. Motivations Mean: Score: Motivation Mean Score: Mean Score: Mean Score: MCC Non-MCC All Respondents Respondents Respondents Current involvement in 2.0 2.4 2.1 Community Service Enjoy working with 1.8 1.8 students in co- curricular settings Service: an important 1.9 2.5 component of faith life. I Service-learning: to 1.7 2.3 affect social change Service-learning: to 1.7 2.0 help people in need Service-learning: tool 1.6 2.3 for civic education Service-learning 1.6 2.4 promotes civic involvement Service—learning 1.7 2.2 builds moral character Service-learning 1.8 1.5 prepares students for employment Service-learning 1.6 2.1 fosters community Service-learning 1.6 2.1 promotes multi- cultural understanding Service-learning 1.8 1.5 teaches critical thinking Service-learning 2.0 1.3 provides professional training Service-learning: as 1.6 1.4 experiential education Service-learning is a 3.3 2.3 departmental requirement I was required to 3.2 3.1 teach this as part of my teaching load 163 As Table 24 indicates, the faculty at MCC institutions tend to emphasize personal and altruistic motivations whereas the respondents from non-MCC institutions appear to be more strongly oriented toward the pedagogical aspects, particularly with regard to practical or experiential education.“ In addition to the relationship between affiliation and motivation and satisfaction, the chi-square analysis also revealed a significant relationship between affiliation and the two of the items identified as barriers to faculty involvement. Over 10% (11.5%) of the respondents from MCC institutions identified inadequate compensation as a barrier to service-learning involvement, compared to 2.6% of the non- MCC respondents. Some MCC affiliates (6.4%) also reported difficulty in gaining student support for their efforts whereas none of the non-MCC affiliates reported a similar concern. The findings presented thus far have discussed the relationship between service-learning and the academic culture -- as expressed through the disciplines, through institutional type and through affiliation with the Michigan Campus Compact, a service-oriented coalition. We now turn to the second dimension of the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter Three, faculty role. ‘ This result is consistent with the responses presented in Table 19 regarding disciplinary orientation. MCC institutions are more likely to be private, church-related institutions whose missions may encourage an orientation to altruistic service whereas non-MCC institutions may utilize service-learning in more clinical settings, therefore emphasizing its pedagogical dimensions. 164 (4) Service-learning Within the Faculty Role The literature on faculty motivation indicates that faculty construct their professional roles within the context of the academic culture. The nature of the role is often determined by the perceived emphasis given to research or teaching, with service often relegated to a lower status in professional priorities. The following responses provide some insights into the way in which respondents perceive their faculty role. Is service-learning perceived as a component of scholarly research? .Although 80% of respondents believed that service- learning contributed to their academic discipline, respondents were more evenly divided about the outcomes of their service- learning endeavors as measured in traditional scholarly terms. While 62.5% strongly' or' moderately’ agreed. that service- learning contributes to their scholarly research, only 45.7% reported that their work in service-learning had actually led to any publications, exhibits, or performances either completed or in progress. The chi-square analysis revealed that responses to questions about faculty role were related to institutional type, as presented in Table 25 below: 165 Table 25: Institutional TIP. 8 Opinions about the Faculty Role (Mean Scores: 1 Statement Teaching is my most important professional responsibility Service-learning contributes to my scholarly research Do faculty who utilised service-learning believe that it is considered positively in promotion/tenure decisions? Interestingly, the plurality of faculty were neutral in their opinions about the role of service-learning. About one-third (33.1%) indicated that they felt service-learning would not be considered positively in tenure decisions. Only 20.2% strongly or moderately believed it would be an asset in the tenure promotion process. What is the relationship between gender and involvement in service-learning? Educational research has shown that men and women approach their scholarly careers with different expectations and report differing experiences in fulfilling their responsibilities. The chi-square analysis did reveal a relationship between gender and faculty motivation on 10 of the 24 motivational items listed. Table 26 provides the mean scores of respondents for these items, according to gender; the lower the score, the stronger the influence. 1166 Table 26: Gender and the Motivation for Involv-ent. Mean Scores: 1-Strongly Influenced 4=Mo Influenced. Mean In my youth service was an important aspect of my family life. II was involved in service 3.19 2.35 2.81 during high school. I was involved in service 2.94 2.34 2.67 during college. Service-learning promotes 1.83 1.48 1.67 multi-cultural understanding. Service-learning is an 1.74 1.46 1.61 effective way to present disciplinary content material. Service-learning teaches 1.74 1.68 1.71 critical thinking. Service-learning encourages 1.64 1.42 1.54 self-directed learning. Service-learning provides 1.86 1.57 1.73 pro-professional training. Service-learning is an 1.58 1.40 1.50 effective form of experiential education. I was required to teach this 3.47 2.88 3.20 course as a part of my teaching load. In addition to the motivational items listed above, the chi-square analysis demonstrated a relationship between gender and publication: men are more likely to list a publication, exhibit, or performance as a result of their work as compared to women (40.3% men vs. 27.6% women). Women are more likely to have a work in progress (7.5% men vs. 17.2% women). What is the relationship between academic rank and involvement in service-learning? The largest percentage of respondents (23.4%) were tenured, full professors. Nearly 167 three quarters (74.2%) of respondents were tenured or tenure- track. The chi-square analysis revealed that instructors and full professors felt the greatest amount of collegial support for their efforts. Only one clear relationship emerged with regard to age: Virtually all respondents under the age of 30 intend to continue to use service-learning while a slightly lower percentage (90.6% of those age 41-50: 91.5% of those 50+) report the intention to continue use. Do faculty'who utilised service-learning receive rewards or recognition for their efforts? Over 40% (44.8%) of respondents reported they had received no recognition for their efforts in service-learning. Of those who had received recognition, the majority (65.1%) identified students as the source. Recognition from faculty is ranked second (42.9%): from a community agency or group (38.1%) as third; from administrators (31.8%) as fourth; and from state, regional, or national organizations as fifth (22.2%). The chi-square analysis revealed a relationship between gender and recognition only with regard to recognition from administrators. More than twice as many men indicated that they had received recognition from administrators (24.1% of the men) than did women (11.1% of the women). Thus, in terms of faculty role, faculty who incorporated service and academic study were more committed to teaching than to research, regardless of their institutional affiliation. Although most reported that service-learning contributed to their academic disciplines and many (45%) 168 reported corresponding publications and performances, only 20% perceived that such efforts would be viewed favorably in promotion and tenure decisions. Those who had been recognized primarily cited support from students, colleagues and community agencies, with administrators ranking fourth among those who recognized such efforts. The following section.discusses the relationship between service-learning and the third dimension of the conceptual framework set forth in Chapter Three, the intrinsic motivation of faculty. (5) The Intrinsic Motivation of Faculty in Service-Learning As discussed in Chapter Three, research using Herzberg's theories suggests that faculty are intrinsically motivated. Researchers have identified three primary conditions which promote faculty satisfaction: a sense of responsibility, freedom, and control over their efforts; a sense that their work has meaning and purpose; and an awareness of and appreciation for the results of their efforts, including positive feedback gained through quality relationships with students and faculty colleagues. Survey items which provide insight into these dimensions of faculty satisfaction are presented in the following sections. 169 Responsibility, Freedom and Control Were faculty who utilised service-learning required to do so? As indicated in Table 4, few faculty respondents were motivated to teach these courses because of external requirements. Anova tests revealed that these two items were the least significant factors in faculty decision making with regard to service-learning. Were faculty' who utilised service-learning free to develop the course(s) as they felt was appropriate? (Q. 28, 37-0, 70-B) Respondents indicated that they had freely chosen the service.component: over'90 percent (90.4%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, "I was free to develop this course as I felt appropriate" (Q. 376). A large percentage (90.2%: Q. 28) reported that course approval was readily'given by the necessary curriculum committees and/or administrative authorities. Curricular policies were only perceived as a difficulty for 9.4% of respondents (Q70-B). The Intrinsic Motivation of Faculty in Service-Learning: Meaningfulness and Purpose in the Work Experience. Do faculty‘who utilised service-learning gain a sense of purpose and achievement from their efforts? As we have seen, faculty who had chosen to integrate service and academic study reported a high degree of satisfaction with their efforts. Over 96% (96.1%) reported being very satisfied or satisfied with their efforts (Q. 21) . Only one respondent who was dissatisfied provided a comment to the question, "Students have found the course is not able to count in many areas. 170 This needsto be worked on. It needs to be made part of a program versus an elective." Furthermore, the majority (91.4%) of respondents believed that the service undertaken did meet a community need. A slightly higher number (92.1%) felt that their goals for the course were achieved. The Intrinsic Motivation of Faculty in Service-Learning: Results, Feedback, and Quality Relationships. Do faculty who utilised service-learning identify student relationships as a strong' motivator for their efforts? Consistent with the research on faculty which correlates motivation and student interaction, faculty in service- learning appear to have been influenced by their relationships with students. Eighty-three percent (83.1%) indicated that they were significantly or moderately influenced to use service-learning because they enjoy working with students in co-curricular settings (Q. 45) . In Anova tests, this item was a significantly stronger motivator than prior or current involvement in service and than departmental or teaching load requirements. Student feedback, in the form of written eValuations or personal discussions, was the primary avenue by which instructors received feedback about the course. Since satisfaction with these courses, predicated on feedback, is reported.as very high (96.1%), it can be assumed that feedback from students must be quite positive. Faculty also relied on feedback from the community agency and the clients being served. It is interesting to note that feedback from the community service coordinator on the campus 171 received the lowest response rate, with only 3.8% utilizing written evaluations from these offices and only 7.8% using discussions with these offices to gain insight about their classes (Q. 20). Do faculty who utilised service-learning receive rewards or recognition for their efforts? As illustrated in the Table 22, many respondents reported they had received no recognition for their efforts. Of those who did report such recognition, the majority cite students as their main source of approbation. What are the perceptions of faculty who utilised service- learning with regard to the support they received from faculty colleagues, students, and the community for their efforts? As indicated in Table 27, faculty perceived student support for service-learning to be quite high, with 93.7% strongly or moderately agreeing that students support such efforts (Q. 34). II72 Table 27: Support for ServiceéLearning SA I Strongly Agree; MA I Moderately Agree;1l I Neutral; MD I Moderately Disagree; SD1== Strongly Disagree. Ilene Score: 1.I Strongly Agree; 5 -- Strongly Disagree. ! — ‘ Statement SA MA N MD SD NA Mean 30. My faculty 42.5% 33.9% 17.3% 4.7% 1.6% 0 1.9 colleagues support my (54) (43) (22) (6) (2) efforts in service- learning. N I 127 31. My department chair 56.3% 21.1% 10.9t 5.5% 3.1% 3.1% 1.9 supports my efforts in (72) (27) (14) (7) (4) (4) service-learning. N I 128 32. My dean/provost 46.9t 25.0t 17.2% 4.7% 3.9% 2.4% 2.0 supports my efforts in (60) (32) (22) (6) (5) (3) service—learning. N I 128 33. The President of the 41.7% 24.4% 22.8% 6.3% 0 4.7% 2.1 institution supports my (53) (31) (29) (8) 6 efforts in service- learning. N I 127 34. Students support my' 66.1% 27.6% 4.7% 0.8t 0 0.8% 1.4 efforts in service- (84) (35) (6) (1) learning. N I 127 35. Community members 64.0% 23.2% 9.6% 0 0.8% support my efforts in (80) (29) (12) (1) service-learning. N I 125 — m An analysis of variance conducted on these various sources of recognition (Omnibus F = 7.12, DF=5, p=0) did reveal significant differences between the items. Subsequent t-tests indicated that support from students and the community was significantly, stronger than support from faculty colleagues, the department chair, the dean/provost or the President. In addition to overt support for service-learning, a majority of respondents (58.3%) indicated that faculty colleagues shared their interest in service-learning: 76% are aware of other faculty on campus who utilize service-learning. 173 (6) Barriers to Faculty Involvement: Dissatisfiers in Service-Learning. According to Herzberg, intrinsic and extrinsic factors operate on different planes with regard to worker motivation and satisfaction. Thus, faculty dissatisfaction may relate to extrinsic factors such as compensation and perks, but adjustments in these factors will not necessarily enhance satisfaction. Several survey items were designed to identify factors which might be sources of dissatisfaction for faculty who were involved in service. Do faculty who utilised service-learning perceive that adequate compensation and support were given to such efforts? Survey results indicated that little actual monetary support was channeled to service-learning. Only 5.5% of respondents received additional compensation for teaching a course with a service component; 7.3% were allocated graduate assistant support; 9.7% were permitted released time to develop the course; and 11.2% were permitted released time to teach the course. (Q. 23, 24, 26,27). However, a large percentage of respondents (41.5%) indicated that the size of the course had been adjusted to account for the service component (Q. 25). Although not in overwhelming numbers, faculty did indicate that lack of financial support could make service-learning more difficult to implement than traditional teaching methods. Almost a quarter of respondents (24.8% identified inadequate funding to cover course costs as an issue (Q. 70B) and 10.3% indicated that inadequate compensation was a difficulty in 174 this method (Q. 70L). The chi-square analysis revealed a relationship between gender and support on two items: women were more likely to identify inadequate funding for service learning (26.9% women vs. 17.5% men) and a lack of community support (6% women vs. 1.8% men) as barriers to service-learning. Do faculty who utilised service-learning perceive administrative policies as a barrier to their efforts? Eleven percent (11.1%) of respondents identified administrative policies as a barrier to service-learning (Q. 701); 10.3% indicated that a lack. of support from. superiors was a difficulty (Q. 70M). It is interesting to note that, of all the items presented for faculty opinion, the analysis of variance indicates that the item receiving the strongest Wen; was "Service-learning is considered positively in promotion/tenure decisions." Do faculty'who utilised service-learning identify issues of time and task as barriers to their efforts? An analysis of variance test (Omnibus F I 39.86, DF I 16, p=0) revealed five items as the :most significant. barriers to faculty participation in service-learning. Three of the five items were: the coordination of many people, the coordination of many tasks, and the increased time required. Seventy-one percent reported concern about the difficult of coordination many people (Q. 70C): 65.8% reported concerns about increased time demands; 47.0% reported concerns about the coordination of many tasks (Q.70J). It is not surprising that 91.5% of 175 respondents strongly or moderately agreed that service- learning requires more time and energy on the part of the faculty (Q.37I). These three concerns remained significant even when cross-referenced with the existence of a service- coordinator on campus. If a service-coordinator existed on the campus, it appears that the majority of faculty did not utilize that person to reduce their investment of time and energy with regard to the course. Do faculty who utilised service-learning perceive pedagogical concerns to be barriers to service-learning? Of the five factors identified above, the remaining two were pedagogical concerns: difficulty in adjusting to differing levels of student readiness, and difficulty in evaluating student work. .Although neither item was perceived by the majority of respondents as a barrier, 41.0% indicated that adjusting to differing levels of student readiness made service-learning more difficult than traditional teaching methods: 34.2% found difficulty in evaluating student work. Summary. In this chapter, survey data were used to describe the personal and.professional characteristics of respondents: their initial motivations for attempting service-learning; and their satisfactions and dissatisfactions with the service experience. The concept of motivation was used as a frame for organizing survey responses according to the specific research questions identified in Chapter 4. Chapter 6 will discuss these factors, examine the implications of these findings, and explore questions for further research. Chapter 6 Discussion, Implications, and Issues for Future Study Examining the 'motivation for' service is not a new endeavor. Since ancient times, religious traditions have exhorted people not only to perform good deeds but to undertake such works for the nigh; reasons. Jane Addams (1910), a matriarch in the service movement, spoke earnestly of the intrinsic benefits available to service practitioners, ”As more exposed to suffering and distress, thence also more alive to tenderness" (p.308). However, when service is combined with learning, as it is in Wing, a struggle between priorities becomes almost immediately apparent. Should the emphasis be on sexyigg or on learning? In the prologue to his book, Ih§_gall_gf_§ezyigg (1993), Robert Coles uses the poignant words of a Pueblo boy to describe the tension between the idealism of service and the methodology of education. The young boy questions the motives of the VISTA volunteers who have come to work in his village school, relating, ”‘My dad said the VISTA people want to change the world, and the teachers just want to teach, so there's a difference.'” (p.xxv). There is evidence of a similar "difference” in service- learning efforts on college campuses today. This dissertation 176 177 has attempted to define the critical elements of that difference by comparing the rhetoric of service-learning with the motivations and experiences of faculty members who have actually incorporated service into their courses. This chapter will synthesize the results of the study according to the three primary research questions, discuss the related implications, and identify questions for further research. 1. What are the arguments and incentives offered by the advocates of service-learning in attempting to motivate faculty involvement in service-learning? Despite the glowing praise service-learning often receives in the popular press, the review of the literature revealed that it has remained largely a co-curricular activity within higher education, with the emphasis more on service than on learning. Many students, administrators, and politicians argue that service-learning deserves a place in the formal curriculum because it can enhance the reputation of academe, inculcate civic virtues, and foster cooperation in a global village. As we conclude this study, let us compare these arguments for service-learning with the survey results, again using the concept of motivation as a guide. As noted in Chapter Two (p.9), over 100 definitions of service-learning can.be found in the related literature today (Giles, Honnet, and Migliore, 1991). Stanton (1987) identifies the need for a clearer definition of service- learning as fundamental to the growth of the service movement. The definition of service-learning chosen for a course, for a 178 campus, or for a national effort will affect the goals of the program, the choice of activities, the selection of participants, and ultimately, the evaluation of the outcomes of the enterprise. Although a clearer definition and common terminology could benefit the service-learning movement, the results of this study suggest that it is equally important to identify and account for the motivation of those involved. No matter how succinct a chosen definition.might be, the motivations of those involved will provide the philosophical and programmatic interpretations which will set the course for service- learning. Students, teachers, and administrators have been drawn to service-learning for various reasons: some parallel, some intersecting. The literature on volunteerism reveals that student volunteers often become involved in service-learning because of prior experience with youth service (Astin, 1989; MCC, 1990). They are often motivated by a sense of altruism, and a desire to improve society (Astin, 1989; Boyer, 1987: Edens, 1988: Fitch, 1987). For many, ego involvement, -- the desire to be included and to feel a part of some endeavor, -- offers a secondary motivation (Edens, 1988; Fitch, 1987: Independent Sector, 1990). The motivations of students focus on the sgzyigg dimension of service-learning. Likewise, administrative efforts emphasize the service dimension. Administrators may advocate service-learning as a strategy for connecting the campus with local community, as 179 a means for engendering good will, and as a way of promoting civic values. In contrast, the results of this study indicate that faculty perceive service as a by-product of student learning. Unlike the pattern found among student volunteers, prior and current involvement in service endeavors was not of primary influence for faculty participation. And, although many respondents believed their efforts enhanced the reputation of their institution and contributed to their communities, these achievements were of tertiary significance. The Scripture tells us that ”Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matthew, 6:21). Students, teachers, practitioners, politicians and philosophers seek different treasures from their involvement in service- learning. If we fail to make explicit the motivations, the treasures, which call us to service-learning we begin to speak past each other, fragmenting our efforts and fostering competition rather than collaboration. To date, the service-learning literature has failed to give adequate attention to the learning dimension which is of greatest interest to participating faculty. This leads us to the second primary research question of this study. 2. What are the motivations, satisfactions, and dissatisfactions of the faculty who have utilised service-learning strategies in their courses? Stanton (1987) suggests that support for service-learning 180 can be drawn from two reform movements in higher education: one based on the desire to provide service and foster social responsibility: the second based on the desire to revitalize undergraduate education. From either perspective, service- learning is seen as means to an end. However, it is the motivation of the participants that determines which end is of greatest import: heightened service or heightened learning. The results of this study demonstrate that faculty emphasis is clearly on the latter. Pedagogical goals (conveying disciplinary content, teaching critical thinking, encouraging self-directed learning, enhancing the relevance of course material, and utilizing experiential education) led the faculty in this study to incorporate service and academic study. In adopting service-learning, respondents were more attuned to the issues identified by educational reformers than to the issues presented by service advocates. The emphasis on pedagogy was expressed by the two items which clearly held primary significance above all others: ”Service-learning brings greater relevance to course material" and ”Service-learning is an effective form of experiential education." Of strong secondary importance were the factors related to student learning, factors which reinforce the faculty's commitment to the educational dimension of service—learning. These items included the preparation for employment, the development of values, and the encouragement of self-directed learning. Faculty who adopted service-learning were far more influenced 181 by issues of teaching and learning than they were by their own prior or current service involvements. And although civic education and social change had some influence, these factors did not have the same level of support as those involving teaching and learning. By organizing the survey responses according to the three dimensions of Herzberg's work (culture, role, and satisfaction/dissatisfaction) identified in Chapter Three, we can gain greater insight into the satisfactions and dissatisfactions of the respondents. Responses in the Context of Academic Culture. The review of the literature revealed that scholars interpret the academic world through their experience in a disciplinary culture and an institutional culture. Disciplinary Culture. In this study, disciplinary cultures did not seem to affect the likelihood that respondents would continue and/or expand their use of service- learning. However, disciplinary orientation was related to the concept of motivation. Respondents in the Arts and Humanities and those in the Social Sciences seemed to hold stronger altruistic beliefs than their colleagues in other disciplines. Respondents in education, health-related, and social science disciplines were more likely to have published or exhibited work stemming from their involvement in service- learning, a fact which is inconsistent with the typology of academic disciplines developed by Becher (1984, 1987) (see 182 Chapter Three, p. 77). .According to Becher, education.and.the social sciences have a "contextual association" and, generally, a lower publication rate. Further research would be needed to explore this comparison more fully, but one could speculate that service-learning provides and entre into research settings for scholars in these disciplines. Institutional Culture. In the context of institutional culture, respondents at four-year private and public colleges showed a greater likelihood to continue and/or expand their involvement in service-learning than did their colleagues at two-year public institutions. Consistent with the findings of Astin (1990), faculty at private four-year institutions reported that their institutions placed a high priority on student involvement in service. In this study, this perception may also be linked to the higher representation of private four-year schools in the Michigan Campus Compact, a consortium which requires an institutional commitment to service from the institution’s president. If we treat the affiliation with the Michigan Campus Compact (MCC) as a dimension of institutional culture, we see that responses from member schools differed significantly from responses of :non-member’ schools, on ‘the following items: faculty motivation, faculty satisfaction, and institutional support. Respondents at MCC institutions tended to emphasize personal and altruistic motivations whereas their colleagues at non-MCC institutions appeared more strongly drawn to the 183 practical or experiential aspects of service-learning. Although it cannot be proved by the statistical analysis for this study, one might speculate that the non-MCC institutions have a somewhat stronger clinical orientation in their service—learning efforts. Because MCC requires a Presidential commitment to community service, one might expect that the institutional culture of member institutions would be more hospitable to service initiatives and thus increase faculty satisfaction with such efforts. However, MCC respondents appeared less satisfied with their efforts in service-learning than did their non-MCC counterparts. To add an additional complexity, MCC respondents were somewhat more likely to expand their use of service-learning. Thus, although only 49% of MCC respondents indicated that they were very satisfied with their efforts: 53% of MCC respondents indicated that they intend to expand the use of service. Several factors could explain these findings: perhaps faculty at.MCC institutions have a stronger commitment to and therefore higher expectations of service- learning: perhaps faculty on MCC campuses were motivated by altruistic concerns (as shown above) and experience more difficulty and frustration in gauging the success of their efforts: perhaps service-learning is relatively new on MCC campuses (the Compact was formed in 1988) and therefore respondents are still experimenting with the method: perhaps faculty at MCC institutions are feeling some subtle institutional pressure to make such initiatives work. 184 Institutional support for service-learning also appears to differ between MCC and non-MCC institutions. Top-down support, in the form of course approval, appeared to be higher at MCC institutions but support from students and from faculty colleagues appeared higher at non-MCC institutions. Non- member schools also reported more "tangible" support in the form of release-time and recognition. Correspondingly, a higher percentage of respondents from MCC institutions reported inadequate compensation as a barrier to their service-learning efforts than did their colleagues at non-MCC institutions (11.5% versus 2.6%). Do these findings imply that rhetoric may be stronger than reality at Compact institutions? Further research would be required to plumb these responses more deeply. Responses in the Context of Faculty Role. Faculty in this study, especially those at four-year private institutions, viewed teaching as their primary professional responsibility. While most (62.5%) believed that service- learning had contributed to their scholarly research, less than half (45.7%) indicated that their work in service- learning had led to any publications, exhibits or performances. Although the ability to publish appeared to enhance the satisfaction of respondents, the lack of publication did not seem to reduce faculty satisfaction. Research regarding faculty role has frequently indicated the need to design reward structures on campus which will encourage desired faculty behaviors (Austin, 1992: Lynton and 185 Elman, 1987). With.this concern in mind, it is interesting to note that over 40% of respondents indicated that they have received no recognition for their work in service-learning. Furthermore, students, colleagues, and community agencies are seen as the primary source of recognition for those who have received such accolades. This finding should be of particular interest to those who wish to encourage faculty participation in two ways. First, it would seem.that there is room for more acknowledgement of faculty efforts. Second, it should be noted that faculty identify students and colleagues as sources of support and recognition, with a far lower emphasis on administrative awards. Prior research has shown that the interpretation of the faculty role is also a function of personal characteristics such as age and gender (Boyer, 1990; Cross, 1990). In this study, the majority of the faculty were tenured or tenure- track with the largest percentage being tenured, full professors. This finding appears to be consistent with the research by Boyer (1990) which indicates that faculty tend to become more involved in service as they become more comfortable in the faculty role (see Chapter Three, p. 96). With regard to gender, female respondents were more likely than male respondents to have been influenced by prior involvement in service. Consistent with the work of Cross (1990) (see Chapter Three, p. 97), female respondents were more strongly influenced by the desire to promote multi- cultural understanding. Eble and.McKeachie (1985) found that 186 male assistant professors were more commitment to research while women were more committed to teaching. In this study, men were more likely to have published in connection with their work on service-learning although women were more likely to have a work in progress. Responses in the Context of Faculty Motivation. Research on faculty motivation has identified three major determinants of faculty motivation and satisfaction: (1) perceived responsibility for and control over their work, (2) perceived meaningfulness and purpose in their work, and (3) a strong knowledge of the results of their efforts. As described in the following paragraphs, these three conditions were also reflected in the responses of faculty in this study. Responsibility, Autonomy and Control. Respondents consistently reported that they were not pressured to incorporate service because of institutional or departmental requirements. Furthermore, they were free to design and develop the course as they deemed appropriate. Meaningfulness and purpose in the work. As indicated in the discussion of faculty role, for the respondents in this study, "work” equals teaching. Respondents were very satisfied with their efforts, believed that their goals for the course had been realized, and that the service undertaken had met a genuine community need. A knowledge of the results of their efforts. Given that the respondents in this study see themselves primarily as teachers, it is not surprising' that. they’ were strongly 187 influenced by their relationships with students. A high percentage (83.1%) indicated that they enjoyed working with students in co-curricular settings. Student feedback, in the fans of written evaluations or informal conversations, was responsible for the high rate of faculty satisfaction. Over 93% of the faculty reported that students supported their efforts. Perceived support for service-learning declines as the administrative rank rises. Although over 93% of respondents report that students support their efforts, only 66.1% perceive such support from the President of the institution. When considering the role of feedback in enhancing faculty involvement, it is interesting to note that only 11.6% of respondents sought the advice or evaluation of community service coordinators to gain insight about their classes. Responses and Faculty Dissatisfaction. The research on faculty motivation suggests that the coordination of many tasks and/or many people can pose a significant impediment to faculty morale. The same observation holds true for this study. Of the five items identified as the most significant barriers to faculty involvement in service-learning, three were related to the coordination of many people, the coordination of many tasks, and the increased time required by such endeavors. These responses trigger a consideration of a larger question: what is the relationship between faculty engaged in service-learning and the service coordinators. As indicated in Chapter Four, this study was initially hindered 188 by the inability of service-coordinators to identify the faculty who were engaged in service-learning on their campuses. Survey responses reflect a corresponding lack of awareness or connection. Approximately one quarter (26.2%) of the faculty respondents reported that no service coordinator existed on their campus. However even among those who were aware of a service coordinator on.their campus(74.8%), nearly half (47.9%) reported that they did not use the service- coordinator to design, implement, monitor or evaluate their course. Less than 12% of respondents indicated that they turned to service-coordinators for feedback. It would appear that faculty are reluctant to utilize service coordinators despite the fact that such staff members might be able to reduce the faculty's work load in administrative tasks. The remaining two barriers identified by respondents were pedagogical in nature and replicate the difficulties identified in other forms of experiential education: difficulty in adjusting to differing levels of student readiness and difficulty in evaluating student work. The results of this survey have enabled us to identify the factors which influenced faculty to incorporate service and academic study, the dimensions of academic culture and professional role which affect their involvement, and the conditions which relate to their satisfaction and dissatisfaction with such initiatives. The information presented above can now be applied to address the third research question of this dissertation: 189 3. Are the arguments advanced in support of service-learning consistent with the motivational factors identified by faculty who are working to integrate service and academic study? As has been shown through the preceding analysis, the responses of faculty members who participated in this study were much more consistent with the literature on faculty motivation than they were with the literature on service- learning. Although there was evidence of faculty concern for the well-being of their institutions, the nation, and our society, the faculty's jprimary' reasons for investing’ in service-learning center on the intrinsic factors related to their core function: teaching and learning. Implications The implications of this study can be interpreted in the broad context of higher education and, of course, in the more specific area of service learning. The following pages discuss what I have learned from this study and what I believe can be useful to others. First, in the broad context, I hope that the responses provided in this study will be taken be taken to heart by the administrators most frequently charged. with implementing service-learning -- those in student affairs. Professionally, I ”grew up” in student affairs and, despite brief forays into other academic areas, it is there that my heart remains. I greatly admire those within the student affairs profession who have attempted to link the dynamic energy of our students with the critical needs in our 190 communities. However, I am extremely concerned about a refrain that echoes all too frequently at student affairs conferences and in the corresponding professional literature. For an example let us return to Wieckowski (1992) (see Chapter Two, p. 38 for initial citation): It seems likely the student development community understands the intrinsic value of service opportunities and their philosophical underpinnings. . . [However] attention needs to be directed to educating faculty about these contemporary concerns. As a group, faculty have been notoriously reluctant to adopt a more pragmatic or comprehensive philosophy toward their curricular and educational efforts. (p.208) This quote appeared in the NASPA Journal, one of the major journals for the profession, produced by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Its tone probably resonated with many experienced practitioners and served to bias new professionals as well. Those familiar with student affairs will recognize the chorus: "If only we could get faculty to..." The wish list varies: if only we could get faculty to spend more time with students, to become more involved in residence halls, to attend more student activities, or to be more sensitive to student needs. This study has focused on one slice of such rhetoric, the arguments centered on encouraging the integration of service and academic study. The results of the study provide us with two important lessons: 1. Instead of lamenting the vast numbers of faculty members who are not doing what administrators would have them do, 191 benefit might be derived from identifying the faculty who are involved and listening to their perspectives. 2. When we speak of wanting faculty to as; something, we might recall that they Ming something: they are teaching. And, as evidenced by faculty in this study, teaching is their number one priority. Second, it is my hope that the information provided in this dissertation will be useful to students and practitioners who wish to promote service-learning programs at the national, state, or campus level and to faculty who wish to share the possibilities of service-learning with their colleagues. What does this study tell us about the possibilities for integrating service in the formal curriculum? Above all, we have seen that the faculty who choose to utilize service- 1earning are intrinsically motivated and place their highest priorities on teaching and learning. Those who wish to encourage faculty involvement might find valuable allies in those who are working to improve teaching and undergraduate education. By offering service-learning as one useful method for expanding the relevance of course material and strengthening the bond between teachers and students, advocates would be more likely to pique the interest and foster the involvement of faculty. The connection between service-learning and pedagogy presents both a challenge and an opportunity. It is a challenge because, at least for now, funding for such initiatives is more closely linked to service than to learning. The link offers an opportunity because 192 faculty clearly value their relationships with students. Consequently, they may be willing to risk trying a new method like service-learning, despite its increased time commitment and inherent difficulties, to increase student satisfaction and learning. In the context of academic culture, the study indicates that faculty satisfaction will increase with the opportunity to share one’s work with supportive colleagues, on campus or through publications. Therefore, advocates might do well to spend time identifying the faculty who are utilizing service- learning, building a supportive network among those individuals, and providing outlets for the dissemination of their work. Responses to the survey suggest that "good- player" awards from administrators hold far less weight than the relationships with and the recognition gained from students, peers and community agencies. Therefore, advocates would do well to incorporate these elements into the collegiate reward structure. Faculty in this study were very satisfied with their service-learning experience. They chose to incorporate a service component and there was little hint that any requirements had been imposed upon them. Advocates of service-learning ‘will do ‘well to bear this in. mind in developing systems of evaluation. Because many service- learning initiatives are funded through grants, there is a growing call for accountability and measurable outcomes. Again, this poses Iboth. opportunities and challenges for 193 faculty involvement. Evidence of clear, demonstrable outcomes may lend needed credibility to experiential education and provide positive feedback ‘which. would encourage faculty involvement. However, if the emphasis becomes so heavily oriented to outcomes and results that faculty feel pressured to justify their efforts in statistical terms, their sense of autonomy -- and.thereby their sense of satisfaction.--‘will be undermined. Supporting faculty involvement in service-learning includes removing barriers to their efforts. In this regard, the gap between service coordinators and faculty is particularly troubling. While it is understandable that service coordinators could not know the contents of the syllabus for each course on campus (particularly at a large university), efforts to identify service initiatives could foster cooperation and enable coordinators to be of assistance to faculty who are willing to integrate service and study. Furthermore, the coordinator could be instrumental in building a network among faculty who utilize service-learning, thereby increasing campus-wide support for such endeavors. Questions for Future Research Summarizing the work of a‘Wingspread conference in March of 1991, Giles, Honnet, and Migliore have set forth the ;-:-, y, ,.-,.1 . y... , ,. .z, - ,,. ;1_, ,. , ,- 12295. In this piece the authors call for specific research to center around two central questions: 194 1) What is the effect of service-learning on intellectual, moral, and citizenship development of participants? 2) What is the effect of service-learning on the advancement of social institutions and democracy? (p.9) Parks (1970) put the question more directly, "Meaning well is not enough. Let us talk about whether all this do- gooding is doing any' good. Let us talk results, not intentions" (p.4) . With regard to service-learning, the results are anecdotal and inconclusive. There are those who believe (as did Tolstoy) that true moral or social refomm is possible only through individual effort, not by social engineering or group efforts such as service-learning. The cynic of his day, Nathanial Hawthorne asserted that, "There is no instance in all of history of the human will and intellect having perfected any great moral reform by methods which it adapted to that end. " Philosophical debates aside, current research in service- learning unfortunately fails to countermand Hawthorne's lament. Research on service-learning consistently echoes the findings of Conrad and Hedin (1991), In assessing the impact of service programs, researchers have mainly been concerned about the effect on the volunteer and have seldom taken into account what young people accomplish for others. . . .While quantitative research yields reasonably consistent evidence on the positive impact of community service, ...methodological problems stand in the way of establishing a clear causal connection. (pp.747-748) How can we determine the effects of a program, especially 195 with regard to its "success” or ”failure” if the initial goals and motivations have not been identified at the outset? Therefore, in assessing the effects of service-learning researchers must continue to be mindful of the link between motivations and outcomes, and be open to the possibility that effects can be deleterious as well as beneficial. When we investigate the motivations of all those connected in service- learning, -- students, teachers, administrators, community agencies, recipients, -- we begin to probe the truly difficult problems for further research. For example, current research indicates that student volunteers are generally altruistically motivated. However, if service becomes simply another course requirement, the motivation of teachers and learners may be significantly altered. According to Rutter and Newman (1989), "the performance of a socially desired service in a technically proficient way will not necessarily result in greater social responsibility, commitment or political action" (p.373). Dodge (1990) reports that such dilemmas are already at hand: "Although they applaud community service by students, some college administrators worry that institutions may be sending unmotivated students out to help others. That may do more harm than good, they say” (A30). There is room for further consideration of the motivations of academic leaders as well. While many are, no doubt, altruistically inclined, consider Briscoe's (1988) description of the incentive for education's involvement in the PennSERVE project launched by Governor Robert Casey in the 196 fall of 1988: In Pennsylvania less than 20% of the taxpayers have children in the public schools. Unless schools make themselves of service to their communities in non-traditional ways, they are unlikely to command the support they need. Community service can help us move from begging to bargaining. (p.760) Communities and community agencies are not oblivious to such schemes and, as documented by Harkavey and Puckett (1991) , residents can be quite suspicious about the intervention of students and scholars who have no vested interest in the neighborhood but who are all too willing to impose their own vision of ”improvement" upon others. Even with the most noble intentions, the short-term nature of academic assignments poses a barrier to effective service. The motivation of volunteers to "make a difference" in one term, one year, or even four years may differ dramatically from the motivation of a community leader who has come to appreciate the deep entrenchment of social problems and who is committed to long-term solutions. The ethical dimensions of service-learning may be even more difficult to study than the search for measurable outcomes because they force us to examine the interaction between participants in a service venture. It would be useful and illuminating to adopt a systems approach, perhaps utilizing case studies, to analyze a service-learning program from a variety of perspectives. What were the initial motivations of the students, the teacher, the service 197 coordinator, the community leader, the recipients? What were their'expectations, experiences, frustrations, satisfactions, and evaluations? Only by looking at service-learning in its totality will we gain full insight into the potential of this valuable movement in higher education and come to appreciate the admonition provided by Neusner (1988), "It is not enough simply to give: Giving must be thoughtful; it must be marked by reflection, respect for the other party, and hence humility on the part of the donor" (pp.17-18). In conclusion, we can thus appreciate that worthwhile service requires both thought and action. Integrating service and academic study in the formal curriculum would foster the thoughtful application of well-intentioned activities to real social problems. Recognizing the legitimate interests of faculty in this educational enterprise can promote a more balanced approach to service-learning in higher education. APPENDIX A 198 Michigan Institutions Initially Invited to Participate in the Survey Source: 1993 HEP Higher Education Directory 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Adrian College Albion College Alma College Alpena Community College Andrews University Aquinas College Baker College System Bay De Noc Community College Bay Mills Community College Calvin College Calvin Theological Seminary Center for Creative Studies - College of Art and Design Central Michigan University Charles S. Mott Community College Cleary College Concordia College Cranbrook Academy of Art Davenport College of Business Delta College Detroit College of Business Detroit College of Law Eastern Michigan University Ferris State University G.M.I. Engineering and Management Institute Glen Oaks Community College Gogebic Community College Grand Rapids Baptist College and Seminary Grand Rapids Community College Grand Valley State University Great Lakes Christian College Great Lakes Junior College of Business Henry Ford Community College Highland Park Community College Hillsdale College Hope College Jackson Community College Jordan College Kalamazoo College Kalamazoo Valley Community College Kellogg Community College Kendall College of Art and Design Kirtland Community College Lake Michigan College Appendix A Item 1 199 Appendix A Item 1, Continued Michigan Institutions Initially Invited to 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. Participate in the Survey (Continued) Lake Superior State University Lansing Community College Lawrence Technological University Lewis College of Business Macomb Community College Madonna University Marygrove College Michigan Christian College Michigan State University Michigan Technological University Mid Michigan Community College Monroe County Community College Montcalm Community College Muskegon Community College North Central Michigan College Northern Michigan University Northwestern Michigan College Northwood Institute Oakland Community College Oakland University Olivet College Reformed Bible College Sacred Heart Major Seminary/College and Theologate Saginaw Valley State University St. Clair County Community College Saint Mary's College Schoolcraft College Siena Heights College Southwestern Michigan College Spring Arbor College Suomi College Thomas M. Cooley Law School University of Detroit Mercy University of Michigan - Ann Arbor University of Michigan - Dearborn University of Michigan - Flint Walsh College of Accountancy and Business Administration Washtenaw Community College Wayne County Community College Wayne State University West Shore Community College Western Michigan University Western Theological Seminary William Tyndale College Yeshiva Beth Yehuda- Yeshiva Gedolah of Greater Detroit A547 BflMPAfi/E’" EIKELLOGG CENTER M CH IGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E15. LNOSING MCHIGA: ‘8624 (S t T) 353'9333 he Airman Census Conner: .s .‘gncec tr. part by a gram tram {he WKflMmHWQWHV smunsrmwm 200 Appendix A Item 2, Page I of 7 January 26, 1993 Dear Greetings from Michigan Campus Compact! This letter comes with two purposes: First, it gives me great pleasure to announce the creation of the Michigan Resource Services Center(MRSC) which will be housed at Michigan Campus Compact. As you may recall. funding for the MRSC was obtained through the Michigan Commission on Community Service as a part of the National Community Services Act Allocation. Ms. Chris Hammond. an MSU doctoral student in higher education. will be collecting and organizing resource materials for the Center. Chris will provide an update on the Center's progress at the Service Coordinator's meeting on Friday. February 12th at Grand Valley State University. I know she welcomes your suggestions and looks forward to working with you. Collecting information for the Resource Center dovetails with a primary research goal of the Compact in 1993: the development of a resource/support network of faculty who currently incorporate servicelearning in their academic counes January 26, 1993 Page 2 This brings me to my second purpose. Your assistance in identifying involved faculty is a critical first step in this effort. Could you please complete the attached sheet, providing faculty names and the titles of courses on your campus which include a service-learning component? Please use the enclosed envelope to return your survey or bring it to the Service Coordinator's meeting on February 12th. The information you provide will be used by the Michigan Campus Compact Curriculum Development Committee as the basis for a study of service-learning initiatives in Michigan higher education. Such a study is called for in the provisions of the second phase of the Compact's grant from the Kellogg Foundation. Faculty members will be invited to participate in the study which will focus an instructional design and methodology. Campus service coordinators will receive capies of the survey instrument. responses for your campus. and the overall results of the study. The collection of this data will be an important step toward faculty collaboration in the service-learning movement. Your suggestions for the Resource Center and your assistance with the attached survey are greatly appreciated. I realize that we have made several requests for time, attention and information in recent months as new initiatives have begun. but I hope you trust. as l do, that the resulting information will benefit all of us. our institutions, and most importantly. our students. ' i look forward to seeing you on February 12th! Sincerely, Julie Busch Executive Director cc: President MCC Faculty Representative JB/ch Encl. 31 Ktitoé g" "r” 313 26' 1993 east UHSth MECHIGAN 45824 202 Appendix A, Item 2 Page 3 of - / 353-9333 Dear Dr. I am pleased to provide the enclosed copies which serve to alert you to the inauguration of two new Compact initiatives. The creation of the Michigan Resource Services Center is a product of our collaborative effort with the Michigan Community Service Commission and is funded through the National Community Service Act. The research project of the Curriculum Development Committee will provide valuable information on the status of service-learning in Michigan higher education and will also contribute to the fulfillment of the goals outlined for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation in our Phase II funding proposal. 1 hope, and trust, that you share my enthusiasm for these endeavors. Because we do not yet have the name of your community service designee, could I ask you to please forward these materials to the appropriate staff member for response? As always, the staff would welcome and appreciate your comments and suggestions. I look forward to seeing you in the near future! Sincerely, .lu e Busch Executive Director JB/ch Encl. The Mimgan Campus Compact rs funded in 9.2.7 by a get: from [he WK Katy; Fauna/~37 0! 851-9 Cress. I.!.:‘:ga't «i .:-. .- . 203 :_. Appendix A '3'" "' Item 2 o/é. ’ .53"? Page A of 7 I 0 v c A M artsy-v2 BUMPAET " . ‘5'} 5 31 KELLOSG CENTER :filCHlGAtJ STATE U‘ilVERSilY EAST u:.$ar.G .‘.‘»iCI-ilGAN 43524 {51H 353-9393 C 'l-S'Elilfi integrating Service and Academic Study: Service-Learning Courses in Michigan Higher Education Introduction Please use the space provided inside to list academic courses which include a service-learning component and the names of corresponding faculty. For the purpose of this study, an academic course is defined as an approved course offered for undergraduate or graduate credit between January, 1992 and January, 1993. (Please feel free to include other courses outside of this time frame if you believe them worthy of inclusion in this study.) The study adOpts the NSEE definition for service-learning: 'Service-learning represents a particular form of experiential education. one that emphasizes for students the accomplishment of tasks which meet human needs in combination with conscious educational growth.’ Please return your completed survey by Friday. February 12. 1993 to: Michigan Campus Compact 31 Kellogg Center Michigan State University East Lansing. MI 48824 College or University Name: This survey completed by: Please list all service-learning courses available at your institution from January. 1992 to January, 1993. Use additional sheets if necessary. The Master arm's Comma. I . . ..r- . .. .. Home: 4: m7 0va a :- 6”! fly,” 1 I.3 11K 5573;; Bursa? 2' 8317? C'C‘j‘ I‘iCZQ‘E' 204 Appendix A Item 2 Page 5 of 7 Service Coordinator Survey Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Faculty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 Spring '92 Summer '92 Fall '92 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Faculty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 Spring ‘92 Summer ‘92 Fall '92 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Faculty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 Spring '92 Summer ‘92 Fall '92 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Faculty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter ‘92 Spring '92 Summer '92 Fall '92 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Facdlty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 Spring '92 Summer '92 Fail '92 205 Appendix A Item 2 Page 5 of 7 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Facutty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 Spring '92 Summer '92 Fall '92 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Faculty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 Spring '92 Summer '92 Fall '92 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Faculty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter ‘92 Spring '92 Summer '92 Fall '92 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Facutty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 Spring '92 Summer '92 Fall '92 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Faculty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 ' Spring '92 Summer '92 Fall '92 206 Appendix A Item 2 Page 7of 7 Service-Coordinator Survey - Continued Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Faculty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 Spring '92 Summer '92 Fall '92 Course Name: Course Number: Academic Department Faculty Name(s) Faculty Office Address: Faculty Office Telephone Number: Term Offered (Please circle) Winter '92 Spring '92 Summer '92 Fall '92 Please indicate your confidence level with this information: O lam certain that this is a complete list of service-learning courses at our institution. 0 I am fairly certain that this list represents most service- leaming programs at our institution. O This list contains partial information based on our awareness of course offerings. O Other. Please explain Other comments or suggestions for this research project: Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please return your surveys to: Michigan Campus Compact. 31 Kellogg Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 by February 12, 1993. Thank you! 207 Appendix A Item 3 List of Participating Institutions, Institutional Type and Affiliation with Michigan Campus Compact Institution Type MCC/Non-MCC Adrian Private MCC Alma Private MCC Andrews Private MCC Aquinas Private MCC Calvin Private MCC Hope Private MCC Madonna Private Non-MCC Northwestern MI Private Non-MCC Eastern MI Public Non-MCC Grand Valley Public MCC Northern MI Public MCC Oakland Public Non-MCC Western MI Public MCC U of M/Flint Public Non-MCC MSU Research MCC U of M/Ann Arbor Research MCC Wayne State Research MCC Lansing C. C. Community C. MCC Muskegon C.C. Community C. Non-MCC Oakland C.C. Community C. MCC Detroit College of Law’ Legal Education Non-MCC Thomas M. Cooley Law Legal Education Non-MCC School Calvin Theological Seminary Non-MCC Seminary 208 fir % 'am/ CAM US BOMPA 31 KELLOGG CENTER MICHIGAN STATE Utll‘JERSlTY EAST LANSING MICHSA': 45324 (517) 353-9393 Michigan Campus Compact Survey: Integrating Service and Academic Study April, 1993 nitroducnon This survey is being conduCted by the Curriculum Committee of the Michigan Campus CompaCI to obtain information about courses in Michigan higher education which include a service-learning component. Your responses will contribute to the research and resource base of the Compact and the Michigan Community Services Resource Center. Three general research quesdons have guided the development of this survey: 1. What are the characterisu'cs of courses which incorporate service-learning? 2. What institutional support is provided and/or required for the development and implementation of such courses? 3. What are the characterisrics and the perceptions of faculty who teach such courses? For the purpose of this study, an academic course is defined as an approved course offered for undergraduate or graduate credit between January, 1992 and January 1993. The Study adopts the National Society of Experiential Education (N SEE) definition for service-learning: "Service-learnin g represents a particular form of experiential education, one that emphasizes for students the accomplishment of tasks which meet human needs in combination with conscious educational growth.” Because we recognize the many demands on your time and value your participation, the survey has been designed to allow completion in less than 20 minutes. However. we would greatly appreciate your written comments, advice you might offer to other faculty or to the Compact staff, and c0pies of your course materials. Survey responses will be treated confidentially. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by completing and retuming this questionnaire. Please use the enclosed envelope to return the survey by Friday, May 7, 1993. Thank you for your time and c00peran'on! Chris Hammond Julie Busch Project Coordinator Executive Director Michigan Resource Service Center Michigan Campus CompaCI The Mecca". Carnpts Compact is fumed :7 part by a gran: from the WK K9329; Formation 0‘ 827's Cree, Marge: 209 Section 1: Characteristics of Service-Learning Courses 1his section seeks to gather basic information about design of service-leaming courses and their role in the curriculum. Please check the appropriate resporse. 1. Type of Institution: 0 Four-year public 0 Two-year public 0 Four -year pivare O Tun-year private 2. Name of Institution (Optional): 3. Course Title (Optional): 4. Academic Department in which this course was taught: 5. Was this course offered for academic credit? 0 Yes 0 No 6. Number of terms you have taught this course with a service-learning component; 0 l O 2 O 3 0 4+ 7. Did you team teach this course with anorher instmctor’? 0 Never 0 Sometimes 0 Usually 0 Always 8. What ha been the average class size when you have taught this course with a service-learning component? 0 l -lO 0 11-20 0 21-30 0 31-40 0 41+ 9. Approximate percentage of students by gender? _% male _% female 10. How does this course fit into the curriculum? (Please check all that apply) 0 Underg'aduate - lower division 0 Required for a major O Undergraduate - upper division 0 -- Elecrive for a major 0 Graduate 0 Required: General Education. Core or Distribution Sequence 0 Elective: General Education, Care or Distribution Sequence 11. For this course, participation in service was: 0 Required 0 Recommended 0 Suggested O Offered as one assignment Option Other - Please explain: 12. Students in this course primarily fulfilled the service component by working: 0 Individually O in larger groups (6+) 0 In pairs 0 As a class activity 0 In small groups (3 - 5) O Other. Please explain: 13. Many campuses have designated a faculty or Staff member to coordinate community service or volunteer aetivities. To what extent was such a person/office used in the development/implementation of this course? (Please check all that apply) No service coordinator/office exiSts on this campus The service coordinator/office was not used for this course Assisted in identifying service activities and/or service agencies Assisred in arrangements of service aetivities and/or with service agenicies Oriented (or assisted in orienting) students to service experience Conducted (or assisted in conducting) experiences which helped students learn from the senice experience Supervised (or assisted tn supervising)srudent participation Evaluated (or assisted in supervising) student performance Other. Please explain: OOOOOOOOO 210 14. How were community service activities arranged for students? (Please check all that apply) Students selected an interest area and made arrangements direcrlv Students selected an interest area. Arrangements made by ar “1 « .. a. assistance of the campus community service coordinator. Arrangements/placement was made with the help of a Student-run volunteer program/network. Students selected an interest area and arrangements were made by and/or with the assisrance of the instructor. Students were assigned to aetivities by Staff or the campus community service coordinator/office. Students were assigned to aetivities by the instructor. Other. Please explain: 00000 CO 15. Which of the following best describes the setting in which service activities which occurred? On-site at a community based agency or organization On campus At various locations in the community and/or on the campus Other. Please explain: 0000 16. Did students receive any paid compensation for the service? 0 No 0 Some students did 0 Most students did 0 All students did 0 Other. Please explain: )7. How were students oriented to/trained for their service responsibilities? (Please check all that apply) 0 Written materials 0 Video 0 Instructor's class presentations 0 Worldng with a current volunteer 0 Presentations by community agency/service-provider O No formal orientation provided. 0 Other. Please explain : 18. How were students monitored or supervised as they performed their service responsibilities? (Please check all that apply): 0 By instructor through direct observation 0 By instructor through reports, logs, journals, etc. 0 By campus community services coordinator 0 By staff and/or the community agency coordinator 0 By ether volunteers 0 Other. Please explain: 19. Which of the following strategies were used to help students reflect/synthesize their service experience? (Please check all that apply): 0 Course readings 0 Class discussions 0 Small group discussions 0 Journals or acuvity logs O Written assignments O Videos/movies with discussion 0 Meetings with the instructor 0 Meetings with community agency and/or the campus community service coordinator 0 Other. Please explain: 20. How did you receive feedback about the course? (Please check all that apply): 0 Written evaluations by students 0 Written evaluations by community agency representative(s) O Interviews/discussions with students 0 Interviews/discussions with community agency reps. 0 Written evaluation from campus service coordinator 0 Interviews/discussions with campus service coordinator 0 Informal conversations and contacts 0 Other. Please explain: 2]. Based on these evaluations, how satisfied are you with the over-all effectiveness of this course? 0 Very Satisfied O Satisfied 0 Uncertain O Dissatisfied 0 Very Dissatisfied Additional Comments: 22. Please use the space below to elaborate on any aspeCts of course design and/or implementation n0t covered by the questions in this section (Additional space is also available on the last page of the survey) 211 Section 2: Support for Service-Learning The next seetion is designed to ascertain what kind(s) of support you have received regarding the integration of service and academic study. I m. . .v 23. Did you receive release time to develop this course? 0 Yes 0 No 24. Did you receive release time to teach this course with a service component? 0 Yes 0 No 25. Was the size of the class adjusted to facilitate service-learning? 0 Yes 0 No 26. Did you receive additional compensation for teaching a course with service-learnin g? 0 Yes 0 No 27. Were graduate assisrant(s) msigned to assist with this course? 0 Yes 0 No 28. Was approval for this course readily give by the necessary curriculum committees and/or administrative authorities? 0 Yes 0 No If no, please explain: 29. Did you receive technical or financial assistance from Michigan Campus Compact in the development and/or implementation of this course? (Please check all that apply) 0 No 0 Yes 0 Technical (Consultation, resource materials. conferences, etc.) 0 Financial (Venture Grants. Generation Grants.etc.) 1 Warren Please consider the personal support you feel you have received regarding your work in service-learning. (Examples of such support may include canal conversations, recognition, consultation, a willingness by Others to assist with the course, etc.) Using the scale below, please check the response which best represents your feeling: SA Strongly Agree MA Moderately Agree N Neutral/Uncertain MD Moderately Disagree SD Strongly Disagree NA Not Applicable SA MAN MDSD NA 30. My faculty colleagues support my efforts in service-learning O 0 O O O 31. My deparunent chair supports my efforts in service-leaming 0 O O O O O 32. My dean/provost supports my efforts in serviceolearning O O 0 O O O 33. The President of the institution supports my efforts in service-learning O O O O O 0 34. Students support my efforts in service-learning O O O O O 0 35. Community members support my efforts in service-learning O O O O O O 36. You may have received awards or recognition as a result of your work in service-learning. If so, please indicate the source of this recognition: Recognized by state. regional or national organization Other. Please explain: 0 i do not feel I have received such recognition 0 Recognized by Students 0 Recognized by adminisuators O Recognized by faculty 0 Recognized by community agency/group O O 212 37. Your Opinions on the factors below would be useful in trying to understand some Of the surrounding dynamics of integrating senice and academic study. These items have been selected from Other studies on related topics. Using the scale below. please indicate your level of agreement with the following Statements: SA Strongly Agree MA ModeratelyAgree N Neutral MD ModeratelyDisagree SD Strongly Disagree NA NOt Applicable SA MAN MDSD E A. This inscitution places a high priority on student involvement in service B. This insritution places a high priority on faculty research C. This institution places a high priority on faculty/Student involvement D. My work in service-learning contributes to my academic discipline/field E. Work in service-learning is valued by the institution F. I am aware of Other faculty on campus who utilize service-learning G. I was free to develop this course as I felt appropriate H. I was able to establish a good working relationship w/the community agency I. Service-learning requires more time/effort by faculty J. My faculty colleagues are interested in service-learning K. Service-learning contributes to my scholarly research 1.. Teaching is my most important professional responsibility M. The acuvities of this course met (or partially met) a community need N. Surdents gained professional skills through their work in this course 0. The institution gains support from service-learning efforts ‘ P. My goals for this course were achieved Q. Service-Leaming is considered positively in promotion/tenure decisions R. Service-Learning should be required for graduation OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Other Comments: 38. Which of the following resources. if any. did you use in designing and/or teaching this course: The Wingspread Principles of Good Practice Resources from the National Society for Experiential Education gimwing Hope. (National Youth Leadership Council) Resources from the Campus Partners in Learning Resources from the National Campus Compact Resources from the Michigan Campus Compact Resources from Holisric Education None of the Above Other. Please liSt: 00 0000000 39. I would be interested in receiving information and/or attending workshops on the following: Strategies for identifying local service sites Orienting volunteers to their responsibilities Monitoring volunteer activities Evaluating volunteer activities - Designing effecuve pedagogical components for volunteer activities Other. Please explain: OOOOOO 213 Section 3: Developing a Faculty Profile This secuon is designed to gather information about faculty who teach courses with a service-learning component. Questions 41 through 66 ask you to assess the influence/motivation of each factor on your decision to incorporate service in your course QueStion #66 asks you to identify the top three factors which influenced/motivated you. (Please nOte: although you may agree or disagree with various statements. we would like to know if these faCtors influenced/motivated your decision to incorporate service and Study.) Utilizing the scale below, please indicate the factors that motivated/influenced you to incorporate service- leaming in your course(s). SI Strongly influenced my decision Ml Moderate influence in my decision Ll Little influence in my decision NI NO influence NA Not applicable to my experience SIMUNINA l'i Viv 40. I am currently involve in community organization(s) and/tr in community service 41. In my youth, service was an important aspect of my family life 42. Today, service is an important aSpect of my family life 43. I was involved in service during high school 44. I was involved in service during college 45 . I en joy working with students in co-curricular settings 46. Service is an important component of my personal faith life 47. Service-learning enables me to affect social change 48. Service-learning is a way of helping people in need 0 000000 00 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000. crvi in m Advocates of service-learning believe that such involvement IS beneficial to students. colleges and universities, and the nation. To what extent did the following factors influence/motivate your decision to incorporate service-learning into your course(s)? SI Ml Ll NI NA 49. Service-learning is a valuable tool for civic education 0 O O O O 50. Service-learning promOtes civic involvement 0 O O O O 51. Service-learning develops the moral charaCter of students 0 O O O O 52. Service-learning prepares Students for employment 0 O O O O 53. Service-learning fosters a sense of community 0 O O O O 54. Service-learning helps students develop a meaningful philosophy of life 0 O O O O 55. Service-learning promotes multi-cultural understanding O O O O O - in T hin (Again, to what degree did these factors influence/motivate you?) $1 Ml LI NI NA 56. Service-leaming is an effective way to present disciplinary content material? 57. Service-learning teaches critical thinking 58. Service-learning encourages selfidirected learning 59. Servicele brings greater relevance to comse material 60. Service-learning provides professional (or put-professional) training 61. Service-learning is an effective form of experiential education 62. Service-learning improves Student satisfaction with education 63. Service—learning is a departmental requirement for this course 64. I was required to teach this course as a part of my teaching load 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 65. What Other factors infiuenc ed your decision to incorporate service and Study? 66. Of the items in Questions 32 - 54, please circle the three factors which most Strongly influenced your decision to incorporate service into the course. 214 67. Do you plan to continue to use service-leaming in this course? 0 Yes 0 NO 0 Undecided 68. Do you plan to incorporate service into other courses? 0 Yes 0 NO 0 Undecided 69. H3 your work in service-learning led to any publications, exhibits, performances (for you solely or in collaboration with colleagues and/or smdents)? 0 Yes 0 No 0 In Process (Contributions of such items for the Resourse Center would be welcomed!) 70. In comparison to courses taught with traditional methods, which (if any) of the following factors make using serviceolearning more difficult for the inStruCtor? (Plese check all that apply) 0 None/No difference from traditional teaching methods 0 Administrative policies 0 Curricular policies 0 Coordination of many tasks 0 Coordination of many people 0 Uncomfortable work situations 0 Lack of recognition 0 Inadequate compensation O Inadequate funding to cover cause costs 0 Lack of support from superiors 0 Lack of support from colleagues 0 lack of support from Students 0 Lack of support from community 0 Increased time demands 0 AdjuSting for differing levels of surdent readiness 0 Difficulty in evaluating student work 0 Other. Please elaborate or explain: 7]. Please give your academic rank: 0 Specialist 0 Associate Professor - Tenured 0 Academic Staff 0 Associate Professor - Tenure track but not tenured O Instrucror 0 Associate Professor - Non-tenure track 0 Assistant Professor - Tenure track 0 . Full Professor - Tenured 0 Assistant Professor - Non-tenure track 0 Full Professor - Non-tenure track 0 Full Professor - Tenure-track 0 None of the Above 72 Your Gender: 0 Male 0 - Female 73. Your Age: 0 Under 30 O 4] - 50 O 30 - 40 O 50 + 74. Your Race/Ethnicity: 0 Asian/Pacific Islander 0 Black/African American 0 Hispanic 0 Native American 0 White/Caucasian O Otha' 75. Whatisthe highest academic degree you hold? 0 Ph.D. 0 JDD O EDD OMastet's O Other: 76. Your primary academic discipline: 77. Number of Years You Have Been Teaching (At any level) 0 1-5 0 6-10 0 10+ Plem use the reverse Side of this page to provide any additional comments on service-learning. 215 Please provide your comments on service-learning in the Space below. Thank You! Thank you for your time and cOOperation. Please use the enclosed envelopes to return this survey, the resource sheet, and any course materials you would like to share, to: Michigan Campus Compact Attention: Chris Hammond 31 Kellogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824 Survey ReSponse Date: May 7, I993. Appendix A % g: 216 I t em 5 “r-E" . w 9' ma- fir BBMP "" i; 3‘. KELLOGG CENTER MlCHlGAN STATE urli‘JEisw EAST LANSiNG, MlCHIGArl 48624 (517) 3519393 ‘i April. 1993 Dear : On behalf of the Curriculum Development Committee of the Michigan Campus Compact, I write to ask your participation in a study Of service-learning initiatives in Michigan higher education. As you may know, Michigan Campus Compact is an action-oriented coalition of 19 colleges and universities whose mission is to create and support community service opportunities. Research conducted by the Compact contributes to our understanding of Student service and facilitates the exchange of information among faculty who are teaching service-learning courses. You have been idenufied for participation in this study because of your course, - . The Curriculum Development Committee provides guidance, support. and assistance to MCC on how to incorporate the ethic of volunteerism/community service into the academic arena The comrrtittee is conducting this study in the hope that the insights of faculty engaged in experiential education will be beneficial to Others who are attempting similar efforts. In addition to completing the enclosed survey, we would very much appreciate receiving a copy of your course syllabus and any other course materials you would be willing to share. These items, and the survey results, will be available through the Michigan Resource Services Center. A rentm envelope is enclosed for your convenience. We would appreciate receiving yorn' response by Monday, May 3, 1993. Thank you for your time and cooperation in this research effort. Sincerely, Julie Busch IB/ch Executive Director Encl. The rmcan Camus Cor. 2: a runner; m cat 0v 2 gran rm me WK. Kelicgg Foundation at Game Crest. Mayan, 217 Appendix A Item 6 Michigan Resource Servlces Center Faculty Network Your responses to the enclosed survey will be treated confidentially. However, we do lure that you will be willing to serve as a resource person for other taculty who re developing similar courses and encourage you to join the MRSC Faculty Network by returning this card. Please indicate your preferences tor involvement below: Name: Ofiice Address: Office Telephone: Academic Department: I an willing to be listed as a resource person through the MRSC. lam willing to partic'pate in a telephone or personal interview as a follow- tp a: this study. luoind late to receive a copy of the results of this survey. l reeomnerd rm: the following individual also be contacted for inclusion in this research: Name: Office Telephone: __ Office Address: Thank You" tichigan Campus Compact 31 Kellogg Center Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 353-9393 218 // r f. COMMIT" , ' '1' ' 4 31KELLCGG CENTER MiCHlGAN STATE UNi‘JERSiTY EAST WiSihG. MYCHiGA’t' 48524 (517) 353~9393 Appendix A Item 7 Page I of 2 April, 1993 Dear Dr. gamer this term, Michigan Campus Compact solicited referrals for a research project involving faculty who incorporate service-learning into academic courses. lam pleased to inform you that. based on the information we received from Ms. - -- ., Sgwice-Leaming Coordinator, surveys have been sent to seven faculty members at --- ollege. In addition to receiving the survey, each faculty member is also invited to participate in the faculty network, now forming through the Michigan Resource Services Center at Michigan Campus Compact. We appreciate your support in facilitating and encouraging this research. While individual survey responses are confidential, a final summary of the survey results will be sent to you at the conclusion of the project. Once again, many thanks for your continued support of service-learning. Please contact me should you have questions or wish further information. Sincerely, ulie A. Busch Executive Director (1: Survey Respondents . Service-Learning Coordinator JB/ch Tkamnruswmmm mmwnwwngmmei .kauxMMmmd wxmathr 219 _ Appendix A .' Item 7 1 g? Page 2 of 2 , U "' MiCHle-N EHTE u' , EASY LANSING MlCHlfif-l.‘ 4852 3 5 3 9 3 9 ‘ LE‘tTE )1 ~42" Copy for Service-Coordinators April, 1993 Each Faculty Respondent Received the Following Personalized Letter: On behalf of the Curriculum Development Committee of the Michigan Campus Compact, I write to ask your participation in a study of service-learnin g initiatives in Michigan higher education. As you may know, Michigan Campus Compact is an action-oriented coalition of 19 colleges and universities whose mission is to create and support community service opportunities. Research conducted by the Compact contributes to our understanding of student service and facilitates the exchange of information among faculty who are teaching service-learning courses. You have been identified for participation in this study because of your couse, (Course number and title). The Curriculum Development Committee provides guidance, support, and assistance to MCC on how to incorporate the ethic of volunteerism/community service into the academic arena. The committee is conducting this study in the hope that the insights of faculty engaged in experiential education will be beneficial to others who are attempting similar efforts. In addition to completing the enclosed survey, we would very much appreciate receiving a copy of your course syllabus and any other course materials you would be willing to share. These items, and the survey results, will be available through the Michigan Resource Services Center. A return envelope is enclosed for your convenience. We w0uld appreciate receiving your response by Friday, May 7, 1993. Thank you for your time and cooperation in this research effort. Sincerely, Julie Busch JB/ch Executive Director Encl. The Mmgan €3.77sz Cooper! :5 W in part by a grant (to: [he WK K5429; Fainds'on a! 83,715 Crag Allergen Appendix A 220 Item 8 Responses of Non-Participants: Integrating Service and Academic Study Community Service in a meal program will be required of second year nursing students enrolled in Nursing 230 beginning fall semester ’93. Survey will reflect projections. (survey completed but not included in tabulation) My apologies for not responding quickly. This survey is inappropriate for the services that I provide at L.C.C. Our Psy 290 really does not fall into the category of a service-learning course. It’s primarily used to enroll students at a Fresh/Soph level for gaining :esearch experience with a prof. The course that does fit: is Psy 496, Internships in Psych. and Dr. Pat Roehling is the current instructor/coordinator of this course. (survey not completed) My course does not fit the service-learning definition. That’s why I did not respond. Letter from Western Michigan College of Education At this particular time none of my courses qualify as a service-learning; I have switched my emphasis toward graduate level education courses and Humanities. We don't have a specific course in our nursing program. community Service is a requirement as part of extra-curricular activities. (survey completed but not tabulated) We have a rather extensive "internship" program at Adrian College, which places students in a large variety of human service and criminal justice related situations. I can not claim this as ;'_a_ gourse" because there is no regularity of content. These are individually arranged situations. The one common thing is students need to spend 40 hours on "the job" for each credit, but they are required to keep journals, read and write in a variety of ways according to the situation, the on site supervisor and the faculty advisor. Ybur survey does not fit our program. Sorry. Appendix A 221 Item 8 Responses of Non-Participants: Integrating Service and Academic Study We do not have courses which fit this categoratization (Integrating Service and Academic Study)(Western Michigan: Speech Pathology/Audiology) (did not complete survey) I do not teach a course that incorporates community service per se. (did not complete survey) Our clinical practicum courses are mt; service componentsa They are academic courses which happen to be offered in conjunction with a clinical (hospital) affiliate site. (did not complete survey) Please note: I don’t know why I was included in this survey as my courses do not contain a community service component, although a student would not be prohibited from proposing such a project. (Completed survey but was not included in tabulation). Our program, fits your purposes poorly, as I understand them. Sorry. (survey not completed) Not a potential subject. Course exists on the books only. I don’t believe my courses in. Reading education apply to the service-learning definition. The definition of service-learning used here does not describe activities in courses at.OU; There is a field component for study but not service. Therefore any data I supply will merely mess up your analysis. I’m returning this because I did not teach the course during the time frame of the survey. For years, I incorporated service-learning in my courses (two in particular) but since taking on administrative roles, I no longer 'teach these courses (survey not completed) 222 Appendix a, Ites 9 W The Service Dimsion of Faculty Involv-ent 1. 10. 00 faculty who utilise service-learning identify prior and/or current involv-ent as a strong mtivator for their efforts? (0. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44) Do faculty who utilise service-learning identify altruistic ideals as a strong motivator for their efforts? (0. 46, 47, 48) Do faculty who utilise service-learning derive support/encourag-snt fro. adeinistrators? (0. 31, 32, 33) 00 faculty who utilise service-leaning believe their efforts contribute to advanc-ent of the institution? (0. 37—l,31-0, 62). 00 faculty who utilise service-learning identify civic education and civic involve-ant as strong notivators for their efforts? (0. 49, 50) Do faculty who utilise service-learning identify social values such as developing moral character, fostering cCunity, and enhancing multi- cultural understanding as strong mtivators for their efforts? (0. 51 , 53, 55) Learning Discussion of Faculty Involv-ent Do faculty who utilise service-learning express a strong “it-ant to the teaching function? (0. 31-1.) Do faculty who utilise service—learning identify pedagogical concerns as strong notivators for their efforts? (0. 56, 57, 58, 59, 61) Do faculty who utilise service-learning believe that it should be incorporated into the curriculu- as a graduation requiruent? (0. 37- R) De faculty who utilise service-learning identify pedagogical difficulties with regard to such efforts? (0. 70-l, '10-?) Service-learning and load-in Culture 11. 12. What is the relationship between acaduic discipline and faculty participation in service-learning? (0. 37-0, 37-!, 76) that is the relationship between institutional culture and faculty participation in service-learning? (O. 1, 2, 29, 31-A, 37-3, 31-c, 37— Service-learning and the faculty Role 13. 14. Is service—leaning perceived as a cmponent of scholarly research? be faculty who utilise service-leaning believe that it is considered positively in pro-etion/tsnure decisions? (0. 31-0) 223 Appendix A, Item 9 The Intrinsic Motivation of Faculty in Service-Learning: Responsibility, Freedo- and Control . 15. Were faculty who utilise service-learning required to ch so? (a. 63, 64) 16. Were faculty who utilise service—learning free to develop the course(s) as they felt was appropriate? (0. 29, 37-G, 70-3) 11 . What is the relationship betwen gender and involv-ent in service- 1earning? (Q. 72) 18. What is the relationship between acad-ic rank and involv-ent in service-learning? (Q. 71) The Intrinsic activation of Faculty in Service—Leaning : Meaningfulness and Purpose in the Work kperience. 19. no faculty who utilise service-learning gain a sense of purpose and achiev-ent frc their efforts? (0. 21, 22, 3741, 31-F) The Intrinsic Motivation of Faculty in Service-Learning: Results , Feedback and Quality Relationships . 2o . Do faculty who utilise service-learning identify student relationships as a strong motivator for their efforts? (a. 45) 21 . Do faculty who utilise service-leaning receive rewards or recognition for their efforts? (0. 36) 22. diet are the perceptions of faculty who utilise service-learning with regard to the support they receive free faculty colleagues , students and the co-unity, for their efforts? (0. 30, 34, 35, 31-3, 374,) Barriers to Faculty Involv-ent : Dissatisfiers in Service-Leaning . 23 . Do faculty who utilise service-learning perceive that adequate tion and support are given to such efforts? (0. 23, 24, 25, 24 . Do faculty who utilise service-learning perceive achinistrative policies as a barrier to their efforts? (0. 70-I) 25 . Do faculty who utilise service-learning perceive a lack of support for their efforts (0. 70-F, '70-!) 26. Do faculty who utilise service-learning identify issues of time and task as barriers to their efforts? (0. 37-I, 7o-c, 70-J, 70-0) 21. no faculty who utlise service-learning identify pedagogical concerns to be barriers to their efforts (0. 706, 70—0) APPENDIX B 1124 Appendix 3 Item 1 Institution Type MCC? 9 Receivedi {Identified Adrian College Private Yes 8 12 Albion College Private Yes 0 1 Alma College Private Yes 5 7 Alpena Community College Public No 0 4 Andrews University, Private Yes 4 8 IgAquinas College Private Yes 12 17 Calvin College Private Yes 10 11 Calvin Theological Seminary Private No 5 5 Detroit College of Law Private No l 2 Eastern Michigan Public No l 1 Glen Oaks Community College Public No 0 1 Grand Valley State Public Yes 3 4 Hope College Private Yes 6 8 Lansing Community College Public Yes 6 16 Madonna College Private No 4 6 Michigan State University Public Yes 10 17 Monroe Community College Public Mo 0 1 Muskegon Community College Public No 0 2 Northern MI Public Yes 3 5 Northwestern Michigan Private Mo 2 3 Oakland Community College Public Yes 1 7 Oakland University Public no 25 67 Thomas M. Cooley Law School Private no 4 5 I University of Michigan/Ann Public Yes 6 10 Arbor University of Public No 0 2 Michigan/Dearborn University of Michigan/Flint Public No 3 4 Mayne State University;, Public Yes 1 2 I western Michigan University Public Yes 10 22 Total ——=—=— 225 Appendix 3 Item 2 American Thought 8 Management/ Language Marketing/Compute Communication Occupational Economics/ . Public Resource Education Reading/ Justices Studies Family 8 Child Honors Chi-Square Relationship between Over-all Satisfaction and Items of Support, Recognition and Faculty Opinions . - ChSqui-are Statement Appendix B, Table 3 .001 - .0005 Collegial Support 41.29 16 Presidential Support 34.16 16 .01 - .005 Student Support 20.97 16 .20 - .15 : Community Support 22.03 16 .15 - .10 I No Recognition Received 12.22 4 .02 - .01 Student Recognition Rec. 8.46 4 .10 - .05 Faculty Recognition Rec. 8.96 4 .10 - .05 State/National Recognition 7.483 4 .15 - .10 Received Agency Recognition 9.52 4 .05 - .025 I Good Relationship with Agency 27.39 16 .15 - .10 Contributes to Scholarly Research 33.85 20 .05 - .025 Met Community Need 24.728 16 .10 - .05 I Enhanced Professional Skills 51.007 20 .0005 - 0 I Gained Support for Institution 35.57 20 .02 - .01 Goals Achieved 227 HTB > aovoneway c1-c25 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE FACTOR ERROR TOTAL LEVEL C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 616 C17 C18 019 C20 C21 C22 C23 624 025 POOLED STDEV - DF 24 3090 3114 N 125 125 122 124 124 124 124 125 125 125 124 125 126 121 125 124 125 125 125 125 126 126 125 125 125 $8 727.52 4064.71 4792.23 MEAN .120 .584 .311 .823 .685 .798 .097 .880 .752 .848 .879 .872 .690 .727 .720 .710 .608 .712 .536 .312 .722 .492 .608 .944 .192 U’NDF‘P‘F‘P‘P‘P‘P‘F‘F‘F‘h‘h‘h‘h‘F‘F‘RDFJNDNDBSNDND ...: .147 MS 30.31 r‘r‘F’C7P‘CDC>C>C)h‘h‘h’h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘ 1.32 Appendix B Item 4 F P 23.04 0.000 INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN BASED ON POOLED STDEV ----- +.-..-.---+-----...-+..--..--.+. <--*--) <--*--> <--*--) (--*--) <--*--) (--*--) <--*--) <--*--> <-—*--) (-*--) <--*--) <--*--) (--*--) (--*--) <--*-) (-*--> <--*--) (-*--> <--*--> (--*--) (--*-> <--*--> <--*--) <--*--> <--*-) ..... +---------+---------+---------+- 1.40 2.10 2.80 3.50 228 Appendix 8, Item 5 Paired T-test Results: Significant Differences, Question 40-64. These responses indicate that there was a significantly stronger response for one question as compared to another, based on a comparison of the means. Question 40/Question 41 T=-2.9O CI=(-.O78 to -.15) P=.0041 DF=247 Question 40/Question 43 =-4.26 CI=(-1.03 to -.038) P=0 DF=245 Question 40/Question 44 T=-3.42 CI=(-.89 to -.24) P=.OOO7 DF=244 Question 40/Question 45 T=2.21 CI=(.03 to .609) P=.028 DF=240 Question 40/Question 48 T=2.48 CI=(.08 to .661) P=.014 DF=243 Question 40/Question 52 T=2.96 CI=(.14 to .715) P=.0034 DF=24O Question 40/Question 53 T=2.68 CI=(.10 to .681) P=.OO78 DF=238 Question 40/Question 54 T=2.75 CI=(.11 to .687) P=.OO64 DF=24O Question 40/Question 55 T=2.80 CI=(.12 to .699) P=.0055 DF-24l Question 40/Question 56 T=3.75 CI=(.24 to .781) P=.0002 DF=222 Question 40/Question 57 T=2.88 CI=(.13 to .687) P=.OO43 DF=234 Question 40/Question 58 T=4.34 CI=(.32 to .849) P=O DF=216 Question 40/Question 59 T=6.31 CI=(.56 to 1.061) P=0 DF=195 Question 40/Question 60 T=2.69 CI=(.11 to .690) P=.0077 DF=244 229 Appendix 3, Item 5 Paired T-test Results: Significant Differences, Question 40-64. These responses indicate that there was a significantly stronger response for one question as compared to another, based on a comparison of the means. Question 40/Question 61 T=4.65 CI=(.36 to .894) P=O DF=219 Question 40/Question 62 T=3.64 CI=(.23 to .789) P=.OOO3 DF=232 Question 40/Question 63 =-4.44 CI=(-l.19 to -.46) P=0 DF=23O Question 40/Question 64 T=-5.82 CI=(-1.44 to -.71) P=O DF=231 Question 41/Question 45 T=5.3O CI=(.49 to 1.078) P=O DF=237 Question 41/Question 46 T=2.93 CI=(.16 to .81) P=.0037 DF=246 Question 41/Question 47 T=4.61 CI=(.40 to 1.00) P=0 DF=243 Question 41/Question 48 T=5.51 CI=(.53 to 1.130) P=0 DF=242 Question 41/Question 49 T=4.76 CI=(.43 to 1.04) P=O DF=245 Question 41/Question 50 T=4.59 CI=(.4O to 1.01) P=0 DF=243 Question 41/Question 51 T=4.70 CI=(.41 to 1.011) P=0 DF=242 Question 41/Question 52 T=6.06 CI=(.60 to 1.184) P=O DF=237 Question 41/Question 53 T=5.76 CI=(.56 to 1.150) P=0 DF=236 Question 41/Question 54 T=5.84 CI=(.57 to 1.156) P=O DF=238 230 Appendix 8, Item 5 Paired T-test Results: Significant Differences, Question 40-64. These responses indicate that there was a significantly stronger response for one qmumimnas