4.4 gait“? :1

3.9." up I

 

“3am _ n
. . . .. ”32.9%"...

“Mg ..., .w my...
.y. I. .wmnh
Emu.” .,
z .. .

9r}... .

...}...P.‘

u!- hon.

hum“; #3.. 9

.. .

.. ....
.Jﬁw .... . .
. .u' in. . .p‘a‘ ’4 r (G r"!
. x
5mg?!

Wﬁﬂwﬁﬁ. than
mam, swam;

.g.twt

 

 

T

n.lu:.-..lw\).f.tonh..h. . . f.
:1 . . f .«vo. I}.

A u .. .uévu:

 

I

 

.5.-. .. a .

_. «3%.

 

Sun. ......ramwwh.» . -..:

 

. 3... .. .... ..-..c
.. .... aﬁeaﬁié. ....er .3 5.

Oil

,- A" 7

5,4591 w it

 

 

. LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

FACULTY USE OF SERVICE - LEARNING WITHIN THE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND.NATURAL RESOURCES
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

presented by

Julianne Price

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Agricultural & Extension
degree 1

 

 

Education

 

Major professor

DMEY 9 , 2003

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

bttdttxc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRCJDatoDuopss-sz

FACULTY USE OF SERVICE - LEARNING WITHIN THE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

By

Julianne Price

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education
and
Communication Systems

2003

ABSTRACT
FACULTY USE OF SERVICE — LEARNING WITHIN THE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
By

Julianne Price

Service-learning, a form of experiential learning, has been implemented among
many disciplines in higher education; however, little research has been done on the
development of service-learning in colleges of agriculture. Service-learning links
meaningful community service to the course curriculum, combined with guided reﬂection
to enrich the learning of the Students and provide service to the community. It is a method
for providing community outreach that can fulﬁll the outreach mission of higher
education. Experiential learning has long been the foundation for the curriculum in
agriculture education, and it would seem that service-leaming would be a natural
extension of the curriculum. However, there have not been any studies to assess the level

at which service-learning is used in colleges of agriculture.

This study was a census survey to ascertain the status of service-leaming in the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University. It was a
descriptive study of the responses from the teaching faculty to determine their knowledge
and use of service-learning. A total of 107 questionnaires were returned out of 272
possible for a response rate of 39.3 percent.

The study examined 1) The factors that motivated faculty to use service-leaming.
2) Factors that were important for integrating service-leaming into their courses. 3) The

knowledge of service—learning prior to the study by non-service-Iearning faculty, and

4) The factors important to non-service-learning faculty for integrating service-learning
into their courses.

This study contributes to the literature on service-learning and faculty
development and motivation in higher education, speciﬁcally, it provides descriptive data
on the faculty motivation, knowledge and use of service-learning in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University.

The ﬁndings from this study indicated that a majority of faculty in the college
used experiential learning methods (m=3.36) and had heard of service-learning (52.5%);
however, they were not using service-learning in their courses. The most important
factors for use of service-learning by faculty were their personal interest (m=4.32) and
the needs of their students (m=3.83) and community interest (m=3.65). The non-service-
leaming faculty indicated that they needed more information on service-learning
(m=3.42), they lacked the time to prepare (m=3.64) and implement service-learning
(m=3.49), and funding (m=3.55) of service-learning projects was important. Non-
service-learning faculty indicated that they would consider using service-leaming if there
was adequate student interest (m=3.77‘), service projects could be relevant to Agriculture
and Natural Resources course content (m=3.60) and if there was community interest
(3.55).

As an outcome of the study, key recommendations for the implementation
of service-learning were brought forward for consideration in the College of Agriculture

and Natural Resources.

Copyright by
JULIANNE PRICE
2003

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my cousin, Craig Duane
Galloway, who will always live in my heart, to my family who have encouraged me,
provided inspiration, and kept me on this path, and to God who has not given me a spirit

of fear, but of power and of love and a sound mind.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to my guidance committee chairperson,
Dr. David Krueger, and my committee members, Dr. Arden Moon, Dr. Esther Onaga,

Dr. Kirk Heinze, and Dr. Michael Woods, for their expertise, support, and encouragement
during the process of conceptualizing and writing this dissertation.

My appreciation to my former chairperson Dr. Carroll (Jake) Wamhoff for his
encouragement and support over the years, to former committee members Dr. Eddie
Moore and Dr. Luke Reese who have continued to be supportive of my work and to
departmental support staff persons Mary Pierce, Gloria Bateman, and Diane Davis. I
thank the Michigan State University Service-learning Center and Director Karen
McKnight Casey for supporting this research. My appreciation to Talitha Magee,
Tasheka Edwards, Deborah Conner, and Cathy Carson for their assistance with the initial
word processing and to Blake Magee for preliminary library research. Thanks to Rev.
and Mrs. Kirklin D. Hall and the members of Galilee Baptist Church. I am grateful to my
friends Patricia Patrick, Darryl Johnson, Sylvia Freeman, and Mary Telesford who kept
me in touch with life outside of the academy. My friends Dr. Linda D. Meeks,

Dr. Carolyn Randall, Dr. Maureen Eke, Dr. Karen Patricia Williams, Dr. Diana Smith,
Dr. Lisa Jordan, Dr. Clifford Okujobi, James Frazier, Libby Bogdan-Lovis, and Marian
Reiter have been my guiding stars. My piano students and their families lifted my soul
through music and provided an outlet for my creative needs. I am so proud of the man

that my son, Gregory Antoine Price, has become. Gregory, your expertise in

vi

programming recovered my data from computer oblivion! Thanks to Albert S. Clark, Jr.
who assisted with data coding, and who has been a source of joy and creative renewal.
Heartfelt thanks to my Uncle Layton and Aunt Betty Galloway, and my Great-Aunt
Beulah Roman who have watched over me after the loss of my mother and helped ease
the pain of that loss during the completion of my degree, along with my sister, Bemetta
Allen, and my brother Michael Miller, and all of my nieces and nephews. My cousin
Kathy Galloway Gordon stepped in when I needed her most, and she now knows more
about the APA Publication Manual than she ever thought possible. Thanks to my cousin
Ona Kay Williams Goza for her editing expertise and Lynn Anderson for ﬁnal editing of
the copy, and to those unnamed here who thought of me and remembered me in their

prayers. May God bless you.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Research .......................................................................................... 7
Research Questions ................................................................................................. 7
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 8
Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................... 9
Assumptions ............................................................................................................ 9
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................... 9
Deﬁnition of Terms ................................................................................................. 9
Summary ............................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH
Overview of Concepts ........................................................................................... 11
Community Service in Higher Education ............................................................. 11
Experiential Learning in Higher Education .......................................................... 11
Brief History of Service-Learning ........................................................................ 12
Service-Leaming Research in Higher Education .................................................. 15
Students ..................................................................................................... 15
Institutional ................................................................................................ 19
Community ................................................................................................ 28
Faculty Motivation .................................................................................... 29
Faculty Development ................................................................................ 3O
Service-Learning at Michigan State University .................................................... 32
The Service-Learning Center ................................................................... 32
Theoretical Framework .................................................................. .33
John Dewey and Service-Learning ........................................................... 33
Blackburn & Lawrence Faculty Work Theoretical Framework ................ 35
Summary ............................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Research Design .................................................................................................... 39
Population .............................................................................................................. 4O
Instrument Development ....................................................................................... 41
Design ........................................................................................................ 41

viii

Content ...................................................................................................... 4 1

Validity and Reliability ............................................................................. 43
Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................... 43
Introductory Letter .................................................................................... 44
Initial Questionnaire .................................................................................. 44
First Follow-Up Post Card ........................................................................ 45
Second Follow-Up Letter and Questionnaire ............................................ 45
Final Follow Up-Letter and Questionnaire ............................................... 47
Processing and Procedures ........................................................................ 47
Nonresponse .......................................................................................................... 48
Data Analysis Procedures ...................................................................................... 48
Summary ............................................................................................................... 49
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS ,
Demographics ........................................................................................................ SO
Characteristics of CANR Respondents ................................................................. 50
Teaching Methods used by CANR Faculty ........................................................... 54
Motivational Factors for CANR Service-Leaming Faculty .................................. 55
Important Factors for CANR Service-Leaming Faculty ....................................... 58
CANR Non-Service-Learning Faculty Knowledge of Service-Leaming ............. 62
Important Factors for CANR Non-Service-Leaming Faculty ............................... 63
Summary ............................................................................................................... 71
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMODATIONS
Study Overview ..................................................................................................... 72
Characteristics of Service-Learning Faculty Conclusions .................................... 73
Characteristics of Service-Learning Facultylmplications ..................................... 74
Characteristics of Service-Learning Faculty Recommendations .......................... 74
Characteristics of Non-Service-Leaming Faculty Conclusions ............................ 75
Characteristics of Non-Service-Leaming Faculty Implications ............................ 76
Characteristics of Non—Service-Learning Faculty Recommendations .................. 76
Teaching Methods Used by CANR Faculty Conclusions ..................................... 77
Teaching Methods Used by CAN R Faculty Implications ..................................... 77
Teaching Methods Used by CANR Faculty Recommendations ........................... 78
Motivational Factors for Service-Leaming Faculty Conclusions ......................... 79
Motivational Factors for Service-Learning Faculty Implications ......................... 80
Motivational Factors for Service-Leaming Faculty Recommendations ............... 81
Important Factors for Service-Learnin g Faculty Conclusions .............................. 82
Important Factors for Service-Learning Faculty Implications .............................. 84
Important Factors for Service-Learning Faculty Recommendations .................... 84
Non-Service-Leaming Faculty Knowledge Conclusions ...................................... 85
Non—Service-Learning Faculty Knowledge Implications ..................................... 87
Non-Service-Learning Faculty Knowledge Recommendations ............................ 87
Important Factors for Non-Service-Leaming Faculty Conclusions ...................... 87

Important Factors for Non-Service-Learning Faculty Implications ...................... 88

Important Factors for Non-Service-Learning Faculty Recommendations ............ 89
SUMMARY

Importance of the Study to The College Of Agriculture and Natural Resources.. 91

Opportunities for Further Research ....................................................................... 91

Key Recommendations for The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources .. 92

APPENDICIES
Appendix A
University Committee On Research Involving Human Subjects Letter of
Approval .................................................................................................... 94
Appendix B
Survey Instrument ..................................................................................... 95
Appendix C
Initial Questionnaire Cover Letter ........................................................... 104
Appendix D
First Follow-Up Post Card ...................................................................... 105
Appendix E
Second Follow-Up Letter ........................................................................ 106
Appendix F
Third and Final Follow-Up Letter ........................................................... 107
BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF TABLES

Service-Learning Faculty and Non-Service-Learning Faculty

Demographics..................... .................................................................................. 52
Department Totals. ...................................................................................................... 53
Faculty Appointment Percentages ............................................................................... 54
CANR Faculty Teaching Methods .............................................................................. 55
Motivators for Service-Learning Faculty .................................................................... 56
Important Factors for Service-Leaming Faculty ......................................................... 59
Non-Service-Learning Faculty Knowledge of Service-Leaming Prior to Survey ..... 63
Important Factors for Non-Service-Leaming Faculty ................................................. 64
Important Factors for Service-Leamin g and Non-Service-Learning Faculty ............. 68

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I Data Collection Procedures

xii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem

Higher education is being challenged to connect learning to society and rekindle
the service ethic while continuing to improve teaching and research methods (Boyer,
1994; Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Simon, 1999; Jacoby, 1996). Boyer (1994) describes the
“New American College” as:

An institution that celebrates teaching and selectively supports research, while

also taking special pride in its capacity to connect thought to action, theory to

practice. This “New American College” would organize cross-disciplinary
institutes around pressing social issues. Undergraduates at the college would
participate in ﬁeld projects, relating ideas to real life. Classrooms and
laboratories would be extended to include health clinics, youth centers, schools,
and government ofﬁces. Faculty members would build partnerships with
practitioners who would, in turn, come to campus as lecturers and student
advisors. (p. A48)

Leder and McGuinness (1996) suggest that institutions need to make a paradigm
shift in order make these impacts in the community. They state that “This requires
designing a curriculum that moves both faculty and students out into the community for
purposes of study, research, and practical experience” (p. 48). One method for
accomplishing this Shift is through the integration of service-leaming into the curriculum
in higher education.

Service-leaming is a pedagogy that uses meaningful community service based on

authentic needs identiﬁed by the community, combined with guided reflection, to enrich

student learning of course material (Conrad & Hedin, 1991; J acoby, 1996; Kendall, 1990;
Shumer & Belbas, 1996; Sigmon, 1979). The service is integrated into the student’s
academic curriculum and provides structured time for students to reﬂect on the service by
thinking, talking, and writing about their service experience (Kraft, 1996). Service-
learning provides opportunities for students to use newly acquired skills and knowledge
in real-life situations in the community (Campus Compact, 2000). Service-learning
provides a way for students to become engaged in the community beyond the classroom
learning experience (Stanton, 1991; Eyler & Giles, 1999). Service-learning programs
exist in community organizations, the K-12 school district, and in higher education.
Service-leaming in higher education is most effective when implemented by
faculty members who promote it in their institutions by integrating the community
service into their curriculum (Hammond, 1994; Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Jacoby, 1996).
As faculty develop their course curriculum, service-leaming, properly integrated, will
provide a meaningful learning experience for students (Campus Compact, 2002).
Service-learning has been implemented among many disciplines in higher
education (Kraft & Swadener, 1994; Zlotkowski, 1996); however, there has been little
research on the development of service-leaming in colleges of agriculture (Woods,
2002). Therefore, baseline studies of faculty use of service-learning in colleges of
agriculture are important. Morris (2002) stated the following:
Most land-grant institutions will already have a number of non-extension faculty
members involved in service-leaming courses, and some will have a full-ﬂedged
service-learning ofﬁce and full-time service-leaming coordinator. Some

institutions have Community Outreach Partnership Centers, funded by HUD.

These faculty members and support staff would be delighted to discuss

opportunities for collaboration.

The integration of service-learning will require institutions to build in the
appropriate supports to encourage the use of innovative teaching methods by faculty.
According to Leder & McGuinness (1996):

Most faculty members received graduate training in traditional disciplinary

methods and texts. They may cause them to be uncertain about how to

incorporate experiential components into the classroom. They have neither been
told how to do so, nor witnessed it in practice.

Land grant institutions have a history of service to the community and need to
continue to provide innovative methods for providing service to the community (Simon,
1999). Michigan State University, one of the oldest land grant institutions in the nation,
continues to improve teaching and research methods. However, there is a need to expand
methods for providing community service. The integration of service-leaming into the
curriculum of land-grant institutions is one method of bringing teaching, research, and
community service together to support the mission of land grant universities.

A portion of the 2002 mission statement of Michigan State University in the
2001-2002 faculty handbook reads:

The university’s land-grant and service mission ﬁrst originated in the areas of

agriculture and the mechanic arts. While these emphases remain essential to the

purpose of Michigan State, the land-grant commitment now encompasses ﬁelds
such as health, human relations, business, communication, education, and

government and extends to urban and international settings. The evolution of this

mission reﬂects the increasing complexity and culture diversity of society, the
world’s greater interdependence, changes in both state and national economies,
and the explosive growth of knowledge, technology, and communications.
Research and public service are mutually enriching activities for both
faculty and students and contribute signiﬁcantly to the high quality of both
undergraduate and graduate instructional programs. Through research, faculty
members enhance the scope and effectiveness of their teaching. Through public
service, faculty validate past research ﬁndings and identify the need for new
research and for modiﬁcations of curricula. Participating with faculty in research
and service projects provides students with unique learning opportunities and
consequently improves the quality of both graduate and undergraduate education.
Within land grant universities reside colleges of agriculture, and the curriculum in
agriculture has traditionally used experiential learning as a method for providing hands-
on instruction to students and to provide internship opportunities. The foundation of
experiential learning can provide a foundation for the introduction of service-leaming, a
form of experiential learning, into the curriculum. Like other forms of experiential
education, service—learning allows students to test skills and facts learned in their
academic programs, develop critical thinking skills, and develop partnerships with people
in the surrounding community as they learn and serve (Eyler & Giles, 1999). The
integration of service-learning into college of agriculture curricula would provide a
method for students to do concrete problem solving around community needs rather than

just develop Skills related to future employment (Woods, 2002).

To substantiate the use of service-leaming in the College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources (CANR) at Michigan State University, it is necessary to review the
mission statement. The 2002 mission of the Michigan State University College of
Agriculture reads:

The mission of the MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources is to

enhance the quality of life for the people of Michigan and the world by advancing

knowledge for the management of communities and agricultural, natural resources

and food systems to meet diverse human needs in a sustainable manner (p. l).
The mission includes a values statement that supports service:

Service to others. We are here to serve the people of Michigan, the nation and the

world. To that end, we aim to provide relevant and accessible programs in higher

education, extension and lifelong learning (p. 1).

The mission statement further supports the land-grant mission of the university:
Land-grant mission. We value the tradition of the land-grant mission, upon which
Michigan State University was founded. Our unique role in higher education and
our distinctive contribution to Michigan remain rooted in the land-grant tradition
as we strive to fulﬁll its potential (p. 1).

The researcher thought it would be relevant to determine the extent to which
CANR faculty were incorporating service into their courses through the use of service—
learning, experiential learning, and community service. There has been only one study of
faculty use of service-learning in Michigan, conducted by Hammond (1994). In her
study of 163 respondents to a Michigan Campus Compact Survey, she identiﬁed 17

faculty who were using service-leaming; only 10 of the 163 respondents were from

Michigan State University. Of the disciplines and departments annotated in her study,
there were no respondents from the MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
(Hammond, 1994).

Woods (2002) indicates that there have been few studies that look at the
implementation of service—leaming by faculty within colleges of agriculture. While much
of the service-learning literature has focused on disciplines within the social sciences and
teacher education, it is important that service-leaming be represented in all of the
disciplines (Kraft & Swadener, 1994; Hammond, 1994; Stanton, 1994; Zlotkowski,
1996). As universities become more involved in civic engagement, it will be necessary to
gather baseline information on the implementation of service-learning by faculty from all
academic disciplines.

A review of the list of courses at Michigan State University that included service-
learning (through documentation provided by The Michigan State University Service
Learning Center) showed that relatively few courses were listed for the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources (K. McKnight-Casey, personal communication,
March 21, 2002). In discussions with faculty members it was suggested that faculty in
the college may indeed be implementing service-leaming without formally deﬁning their
curriculum as service-learning (D. Krueger & M. Woods, personal communication,
March 5, 2001). Therefore, a study of the faculty understanding of and use of service-
1earning in the CANR would contribute to the literature on service-leaming in the
academic disciplines.

The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University

has the historical foundation to provide leadership in the expansion of service-leaming

into the university curricula at Michigan State University (Simon, 1999). The tradition of
service to community is the hallmark of colleges of agriculture and natural resources, the
extension service, and land-grant universities in general. The College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources at Michigan State University has an opportunity to extend the land
grant service ethic by the integration of service-leaming into curriculum (Woods, 2002).
Purpose of the Research

The purpose of the research will is to provide descriptive data on the use of
experiential learning, community service, and service-learning by the faculty in the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The study will seek to determine the
factors that motivated faculty to implement service-leaming into their course curriculum.

The study will provide descriptive data on service-leaming and non-service-
leaming faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State
University and their knowledge and use of service-leaming as a teaching method, the
factors that motivated them and were considered important in order to include service-
learning in their courses, and the factors that would be important to motivate non-service—
1eaming faculty to consider using service-learning in their courses.

Research Questions

This study will describe the status of service-learning within the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University. Following are the
research questions to be addressed:
1. What are the characteristics of service-learning faculty in the College of Agriculture

and Natural Resources in terms of the following: gender, academic rank, tenure

status, educational level, appointment percentages, years of teaching experience, and
completion of a teaching methods course?

2. What are the characteristics of non-service—learning faculty in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources in terms of the following: gender, academic rank,
tenure status, educational level, appointment percentages, years of teaching
experience, and completion of a teaching methods course?

3. To what degree are teaching faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources using experiential learning, community service, and service-learning in
their courses?

4. What factors motivated CANR faculty to integrate service-leamin g into their course
curriculum?

5. What factors are important to CANR faculty who are integrating service-learning into
their courses?

6. To what degree are teaching faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources familiar with service—learning?

7. What factors would be important to CANR faculty who are not integrating service-
learning to motivate them to consider its use in their courses?

Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study was based upon the educational theories
of John Dewey on experiential education as a foundation for the curriculum of agriculture
education. Additionally, the research of Blackburn & Lawrence (1995) on faculty work

provided a theoretical framework for understanding the interactions both intrinsic and

extrinsic that determine teaching methods used by faculty. A discussion of the theories
of Dewey, and Blackburn and Lawrence that guided this research appears in Chapter 11.
Limitations of the Study
The study will be relevant only to faculty and administrators at Michigan State
University in the College of Agriculture and Nature Resources. The ﬁndings cannot be
generalized to other institutions. However, the ﬁndings may provide service-learning
data useful for the design of studies at other institutions.
Assumptions
This study is subject to the following assumptions:
1. Faculty members are responsible for their course design.
2. Faculty members are interested in sustaining their service-learning programs in the
university and community.
3. Faculty members are interested in improving their teaching methods.
4. Faculty members will respond truthfully to the survey.
Importance of the Study
The ﬁndings from this study will be relevant to The College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources and Michigan State University administrators and faculty who are
interested in the integration of service-learning into the university curriculum and will
provide support for faculty development within the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
Definition of Terms
Experiential Learning: Concerns an individual changing his or her behavior and

previous conceptions as a result of knowledge gained from an experience.

Community Service: Deﬁned as any voluntary student activities that meet
important community needs.

Service-Learning: A teaching strategy that uses meaningful community service
combined with guided reﬂection to enrich and enhance student learning of course
material.

Community: A group of people that may be deﬁned by geography, language,
culture, and shared values and norms.

Community Voice: The articulation of community needs and expectations by
community partners or their representatives.

Engaged Campus: Arr engaged campus is one that is consciously committed to
reinvigorating the democratic spirit and community engagement in all aspects of its
campus life, including students, faculty, staff and the institution itself.

Summary

This study will use the educational theories of John Dewey as a framework for
understanding the use of the pedagogy of service-learning within the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources and the research by Blackburn and Lawrence to
provide a conceptual framework for understanding the impact of faculty understanding of
the institutional mission on teaching methods.

The research questions for this study can be understood through the exploration of
the mission of the Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources and land-grant universities and through the literature on the service-learning,

service-learning curriculum design, faculty motivation, and faculty teaching.

10

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Overview of Concepts

This chapter will provide an overview of the history of service-learning in higher

education and an overview of relevant service-leaming research.
Community Service in Higher Education

Community Service for the purposes of this study is deﬁned as any voluntary
student activities that meet important community needs. Zawacki (1997) has a broader
deﬁnition that references the work of Serow, Ciechalski, & Day and Youniss (as cited in
Zawacki, 1997) and deﬁnes it as volunteer work that helps others in the community.

A major study of 33,986 undergraduate teaching institutions by Antonio, Astin, &
Cress (2000) reported that 80 percent of the faculty were engaged in some form of
community service and 40 percent of the respondents advised students involved in
community service. Their findings indicated that faculty at four year colleges performed
more community service than their university counterparts and had a tendency to value it
more, and faculty of higher rank across institutions were least likely to be involved in
community service.

In the national study by Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon & Kerrigan (1996) faculty
members felt that community service experiences could be fertile ground for research and
other scholarly works.

Experiential Learning in Higher Education

Experiential leaning has had a long history in higher education. The educational

theories of John Dewey provided the foundation for experiential education in higher

education and were inﬂuential in the development of Kolb’s most-often-cited experiential

learning theory (Saltmarsh, 1996; Knoblock, 2001; Cantor, 1995; Hammond, 1994). The
use of hands-on methods has been a component in the early training and education of
students for over 100 years. There are myriad deﬁnitions for experiential learning,
however, the key connection is that the learning is used to provide a practical application
for understanding the subject matter. According to Knoblock (2001):

Available data suggests that by 1990 more than 1,000 postsecondary institutions

(community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities) have offered some

form of experiential education, serving more than 250,000 students. Heinemann

and Wilson surveyed 20 institutions of higher education (18 senior colleges and

two community colleges) to determine levels of participation in experiential

learning (1995). They found that internships, practicums, and cooperative

education programs were in place in 75 percent of the 205 programs reported.

However, this study did not seek speciﬁc information about classroom-based

experiential learning activities (p. 15).

Although students often value experiential learning, faculty do not value it above
more traditional modes of instruction in higher education (Cantor, 1995).

Brief History of Service-Learning

The service ethic in higher education dates back to the founding of land grant
institutions with the Land-Grant College Act or Morrill Act of 1862. In 1914, Congress
passed the Smith-Lever Act, which created the Cooperative Extension System and
directed the nation’s land grant universities to oversee its work. The mission statement
for Michigan State University’s extension service states that “the Michigan State

University Extension (MSUE) helps people improve their lives through an educational

12

process that applies knowledge to critical issues, needs and opportunities.” The
development of the cooperative extension service is an example of higher education
providing a service to the community (Stanton, Giles, and Cruz, 1999).

Service-learning in higher education is distinguished by several milestones.
Wutzdorff and Giles (1997) describe the ﬁrst milestone as being in 1964 when the term
“service-leaming” was used in Tennessee by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities in
connection with community service programs. In 1972, the University Year for Action
was created. This program involved students from campuses across America providing
service to their communities. 'In the early 19703, the National Center for Service-
Leaming Was established within the federal government. This provided the stimulus for
the development of service-leaming and service-related programs across the country. In
1985, the founding of Campus Compact had an impact on the role of service-leaming in
higher education. Campus Compact was founded by university presidents who made a
formalized commitment to engage their institutions in service to the community and to
provide institutional support for service programming (Stanton, Giles, and Cruz, 1999).
In 1989, the Student Literacy Corps was established to provide university campuses with
funding to provide literacy education in their local communities. One of the requirements
was that the literacy program be linked to the academic courses so students would receive
academic credit for tutoring in the program. In 1990 Congress passed, and President
Bush signed, the National and Community Service Act of 1990. The legislation
authorizes grants to schools to support service-learning (Serve America, now known as
Learn and Serve America) and demonstration grants for national service programs to

youth corps, nonproﬁts, and colleges and universities.

13

In 1990, the National and Community Service Act (1990) was signed and stated:

Service-learning provides educational experiences:

under which students learn and deveIOp through active participation in
thoughtfully organized service experiences that meet actual community needs
and are coordinated in collaboration with school and community.

that are integrated into the students' academic curriculum or provide
structured time for a student to think, talk, or write about what the student did
and saw during the actual service activity.

that provide a student with opportunities to use newly—acquired Skills and
knowledge in real life situations in their own communities.

that enhance what is taught in school by extending student learning beyond
the classroom and into the community and help to foster the development of a

sense of caring for others. (p. 10)

President Bill Clinton signed the National and Community Service Trust Act of

1993, creating AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and Community Service to

expand opportunities for Americans to serve their communities. VISTA became part of

AmeriCorps.

In 1994, Congress passed the King Holiday and Service Act of 1994, charging the

Corporation for National and Community Service with taking the lead in organizing

Martin Luther King Day as a day of service.

In 1995, the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) chose the

theme “The Engaged Campus” for its annual conference and, in 1996, the AAHE

included service-leaming as a sub-theme. The American Educational Research

14

Association (AERA) also has a number of its sessions devoted to service-leaming.
Further, service-learning is included on the agenda for the annual meetings of several
disciplinary groups, i.e. the American Sociological Association, the American
Psychological Association, and the American Political Science Association. In 1994, the
Michigan Journal of Community Service published its ﬁrst issue, and Service-Learning in
Higher Education was published in 1996. Various institutions including Michigan State
University have published curriculum materials on service-learning in undergraduate
education.
Service-Learning Research in Higher Education

The progress of service-learning in higher education is as mixed and varied as the
institutions where programs exist. There is a wide range of institutional support. The
support can range from being a prominent focal point for the mission of the institution, to
being a peripheral activity sponsored by faculty members in select departments (Jacoby,
1996).

Students

Exum, Rutter & Newmann’s ﬁndings on service-learning directed toward college
students looked at the role of reﬂection on the growth of self concept and ego
development (as cited in Kraft & Swadener, 1994). Soat found no signiﬁcant
relationship between cognitive style and willingness to help others with students in an
introductory psychology course (as cited in Kraft & Swadener, 1994). Smith found that
service—learning participation was linked to increased self-worth, insight, and an
orientation toward service by Peace Corps volunteers (as cited in Kraft & Swadener,

1994). Wilson found that that students involved in service-leaming were more open-

15

minded and had increased political efﬁcacy (as cited in Kraft & Swadener, 1994).
Corbett found that students who chose their service Opportunities and were provided
structured reﬂection exhibited gains on personality measures and emotional and task
competence (as cited in Kraft & Swadener, 1994). In a study of undergraduate political
science students it was reported that students were more likely to self-report improved
performance and application of principles when engaged in course-based community
service than students who were in the traditional discussion groups (Markus, Howard,
and King, 1993). According to Gray, Ondaatje, Fricker, Geschwind, Goldman,
Koganoff, Robyn, Sundt, Bogelgesang, Klein (1998), the comparison of service-leaming
to non-service-learning students found no differences in their perceptions of course
impact. Students who had 20 or more hours of service plus reﬂection reported the
greatest gains on academic and life skills outcomes.

Service-leaming has long-term effects on citizenship. Studies have shown that
service-learning students are more likely to volunteer after college than those who have
not been involved in a service-learning experience (Astin, Sax, and Avalos, 1999;
Blackwell, 1996). It also has an impact on their career choices (Eyler, Giles, and
Braxton, 1997). In a study conducted by Vogelgesang and Astin (2000), students who
participated in service—leaming were more likely to chose a service-related career than
those in the community service option. Student participants reported that service-
learning enhanced the career development process, along with positively impacting their
motivation to serve others, sense of personal efﬁcacy, and leadership effectiveness (Keen

and Keen, 1998).

16

In comparative studies between courses that provided service-learning and those
that did not, there have been mixed results. According to Berson and Younkin (1998),
students in the service-learning course options earned higher grades than students in the
non-service-learning course options. However, some of the indicators for the control
group were not comparable. Students in service-learning options had better attendance
and understood course concepts better than the control group (Shastri, 1999; Blackwell,
1996; Strage, 2000). However, in the study by Shastri (1999) test scores when used alone
did not Show signiﬁcant differences leading to the conclusion that mixed assessments can
provide a comprehensive view of the impact of service-leaming on learning outcomes.
Given the experiential nature of service-learning, studies have shown that students in
service-learning options are better able to apply course concepts outside of the classroom
(Miller, 1994; Markus et al.; 1993; Kendrick, 1996). Most studies indicated the positive
impact of service-leaming course options, when compared to non-service-Iearning course
options (Cohen and Kinsey, 1994; Eyler, et al., 1997). Additionally, students in service-
leaming course options showed greater improvement in measures of social responsibility
and personal efﬁcacy, and a greater ability to apply course concepts than non-service-
leaming students (Kendrick, 1996; Johnson and Bozeman, 1998). Service-learning leads
to increased civic responsibility (Myers-Lipton, 1998; Mabry, 1998) and has been shown
to have an impact on students’ ability to work with diverse groups (Myers-Lipton, 1996a;
Hones, 1997; Boyle-Baise, 2000; Myers-Lipton, 1996b; Osborne et al., 1998; Rhoads,
1997; Jordan, 1994). Students in service-leaming also have higher rates of moral
development than those who are not involved in service-learning (Gorman, 1994; Boss,

1994).

17

In studies of retention, service—leaming participation was a factor most strongly
correlated with graduation for African-American students (Roose et al., 1997). Studies
have also looked at the design of the service experience and its impact on students. In a
study conducted by Mabry (1998), service-leaming was most effective when students had
at least 15-20 hours of service, experienced frequent contact with beneﬁciaries, wrote on-
going and summative narratives, and had discussions with instructors and site
supervisors.

On cognitive complexity, service-learning students were more aware of the
multiple dimensions and variability involved in social problems. Service-learning
students also signiﬁcantly increased their prosocial reasoning and the processing of
occupational identity. Important factors in mediating outcomes were the quality of
academic instruction and on-site supervision (Batchelder and Root, 1994).

In a three-year funded study, 20 undergraduates mentored and read to second
graders, one-to-one. The college students later indicated a greater commitment to
community service, working with children, and/or education careers. Reading scores for
the children improved. The program was deemed successful although no statistical tests
were run (Tartter, 1996).

In comparative studies of students who were in service-learning and students who
were not, service-leaming students had increased communication skills. Service-leaming
students adjusted to the community environments more easily and were more
comfortable working in schools and community settings (Juhn, Tang, Piessens, Grant,

Johnson & Murray, 1999).

18

Students in service-learning courses earned higher grades than those in a control
traditional course, however course composition was not the same for each course. The
service-leaming students were more satisﬁed with the course, instruction, reading
assignments, and grading systems. Faculty found class discussions more stimulating and
students more involved and challenged academically (Berson and Younkin, 1998).

Not all studies have shown service-leaming to provide positive impacts. In a
study of concern for others and civic commitment, Hudson (1996) found no Signiﬁcant
differences for the service-learning group and the control group. However, the researcher
perceived that service-leaming students were more empowered based on their anecdotal
responses to the survey. Separate studies by Smith (1994) and Kollross (1997) reported
no significant effects on citizenship for students enrolled in service-learning courses.

In research conducted by Wang (2000) on the relationship between elements of
the service-learning pedagogy and student self-development, it was reported that three
self-development student outcomes that emerged were commitment to loving people,
commitment to loving the community, and self—empowerment. Students’ self-
development was facilitated by these components of the service-leaming pedagogy: the
role of the professor, lecture content, discussions, reﬂective journals, and the service
experience.

Institutional

Institutional support for service-learning is continuing at a steady pace. Campus
Compact (2000) reported that in 1999, 32 million hours of student service were logged,
600,000 students performed service, 13,000 faculty were involved in service, and 11,000

service-leamin g courses were offered.

19

Institutions that have strong deﬁnitions of service-learning tend to have a better
chance of sustaining their programs over time (Gelmon, Holland, Shinnamon, 1998).
Berman (1999) and Battaglia ( 1995) reported that the institutions with the most
successful programs: have coordinated service-learning with their organizational goals:
service-learning is a part of the mission statement: faculty members provide primary
leadership for the promotion of the programs and integrate service into the curriculum.
Service-learning is a part of the long-term plan for the institution, and there is open
communication both on campus and with community partners. ,

The development of community partnerships provides another anchor for service-
learning in institutions. The role of community partners must be clearly articulated, and
participation must be authentic and speciﬁc with regard to student learning and the value
of their participation to the institution (Gelmon et al., 1998).

The integration of service into the mission statement of institutions has been
reported to increase the likelihood of successful service-learning outcomes (Gelmon et
al., 1998; Bergkamp, 1996). Institutions are challenged to provide faculty reward
systems that incorporate the development of service-learning into the tenure system.

In the 1995 report by the National Association of State Universities and Land
Grant Colleges, faculty reported that one of the primary barriers to the development of
service-learning programs is the lack of institutional support and the lack of recognition
of community service as a scholarly activity. Administrators often afﬁrm the value of
student service (Waring, 1995; Lelle, 1996), but without strong commitments by faculty,
service-leamin g programs will not be implemented successfully. The institutional culture

may be a key factor in encouraging faculty to view community service as vital to their

20

roles as professors (Antonio et al., 2000). The most frequent concern of faculty is the
lack of institutional support to develop a service-leaming curriculum where a lecture had
been in place (Burr, 1997).

Through participant observation and interviews with faculty and staff, Bergkarnp
(1996), examined the meanings of the service-leaming experience in Catholic colleges.
The ﬁrst was that service was vital to the mission and culture of Catholic institutions.
Second, the liberal arts tradition within Catholic universities wielded a strong inﬂuence
toward service, and service-learning in turn supported the skills of reﬂection and critical
thinking vital to the liberal arts education. Third, service projects were typically built
upon individual efforts of faculty and staff within their communities. Often site selection
was an informal process. Fourth, faculty and staff chose to be involved for personal
reasons. A ﬁnal theme that emerged was that service learning supported the common
good in its educational value to students.

In addition to these themes, several tensions surfaced in the interviews. While
service-learning seemed to be valuable for students in Catholic institutions, resources are
limited for program administration. Also, community service was typically not reﬂected
in the faculty rewards system of tenure. A third tension revolved around where the
service-learning program was housed: within student life or within academics.
Pedagogical tensions also existed regarding how to implement service-learning.

Berrnan (1999) examined the antecedents necessary to effectively implement
service-learning programs in colleges and universities. The precursors to successful
programs included solid stafﬁng, a tendency toward a collaborative approach to problem

solving, and rational and/or collegial modes of problem solving. Factors that were

21

challenges or impediments to successful implementation included institutional
organization, poor staff and faculty training in service-leaming theory and pedagogy, and
lack of faculty incentives to engage in service-learning. Key players involved in
successful service-leaming programs tended to be organized into teams and/or have
relationships throughout the university with all interested parties. Factors common to all
successful service-learning programs were congruence with organizational goals, a clear
articulation of mission, faculty driven plans for program implementation, creative means
to integrate service with study, long-term goals and plans, and open communication
systems.

Gray et al., (1998) gathered data from multiple sources, namely: 930 Learn and
Serve America, Higher Education (LSAHE) institutions over three years (1995-97); 847
community organizations (1995-96); and 3,492 students. Data from the Annual
Accomplishments Survey, which was administered to institutions receiving funding,
showed that the most common capacity-building activity undertaken was course
development. Between 1995 and 1997, there was an increase of 3,000 service-leaming
courses offered. In an examination of academic integration of service-leaming into
higher education in Connecticut, Mandell (1995) gathered survey data from 682 courses
at 30 institutions; 88 percent of the respondents were four-year institutions and 69.2
percent of those were public. The academic department that offered the greatest
percentage of service-learning courses was education at 34.4 percent; social and
behavioral sciences had 15.4 percent of its courses linked with service. The mean
number of hours of community service that a student performed was 119. Business

administration students demonstrated the highest mean at 174.3 hours, followed by social

22

work students with 161 mean hours. Most of the service performed was either in
government or non-proﬁt organizations with youth or the general community. Sixty-four
percent of students performed service in education; heath care services were the next
highest receivers of student time. More than 82 percent of all community service courses
were internships, ﬁeld experiences, or practica. Most of the students were not paid for
their service (90.9%); their service was required by their courses (87.6%), or was
required for their major (61.7%).

The survey of 290 institutional members of the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and the National Association of State Universities
and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC, 1995) focused on institutional service areas,
commitment to community service, barriers to service, approaches for gaining
community and institutional cooperation, and needs for professional association support.
More than half of the members responded (n=186) and indicated ﬁve concerns:
education, economic development, community development, health and human services,
and cultural enrichment. These institutions of higher education placed a greater emphasis
on health and human services and cultural enrichment than did their communities.
Twelve percent of institutions had formal criteria regarding community service. Nearly
87 percent of the respondents indicated that their institution had ofﬁces or centers that
directed community service. The remaining respondents indicated little coordination of
service activities. Twenty—seven respondents noted lack of adequate resources for faculty
to respond to community needs, as well as a lack of recognition of community service as

a scholarly activity.

23

Service-learning has also made institutional impact at Community Colleges. A
survey was conducted by Robinson & Barnett (1996) on 1,100 member institutions of the
American Association of Community Colleges regarding their use of service-learning,
and 773 responded. The survey items centered on institutional proﬁles, volunteer
community service activities, service-learning activities, student and faculty/staff
participation in such activities, community service and service—learning program
administration, the involvement of non-school organizations, and program development.

While 71 percent of the community colleges indicated that service was a part of
institutional mission and nearly half had an ofﬁce or group that placed students in
community service opportunities, only one in ﬁve promoted college-wide service
projects. Thirty-one percent of community colleges surveyed offered service-learning,
and 71 percent of those institutions reported that ﬁve or fewer faculty incorporated
service-leamin g into the curriculum. In the study, thirty-seven percent of institutions
with service-learning offered speciﬁc courses in community service. Students performed
up to 10 hours of service monthly through service-learning courses, primarily at health
and social service agencies and K-12 schools. Community colleges reported that faculty
support was the most important factor in making a service-leaming program successful,
while insufﬁcient funding was the primary challenge to program sustainability.

Chief academic ofﬁcers at 45 accredited colleges and universities in urban areas
of Ohio (Sagaria and Burrows, 1995) were surveyed to examine three issues: 1) how
much attention policy-making bodies within the institution pay to community service;

2) the place of community service in the curriculum and the faculty workload; and

24

3) how the external environment inﬂuences community service at the institution. Using
Likert scales, respondents rated the signiﬁcance of community service to ten functional
areas of universities and colleges: 1) community relations, 2) institutional mission,
3) institutional goals, 4) academic programs, 5) campus culture, 6) student services,
7) fundraising and grants, 8) student recruitment and retention, 9) state government
relations, and 10) alumni relations. Chief academic ofﬁcers rated community service as
having “very high importance” to community relations, institutional mission, and
institutional goals. However, community service was not discussed very often by
institutional policymaking groups such as student life committees, the governing board of
the school, or the president’s cabinet. Community service was “rarely” or “occasionally”
(2.8 out of 5 points) part of course assignments, “rarely” a primary focus of assignments
(1.9), and “never” to “rarely” a graduation requirement (1.7).

The Commission on National Service for North Carolina sponsored a study in
1996 to identify factors associated with support for service-leaming among institutions of
higher education. The variables that were expected to impact institutional support
included enrollment numbers, public/private control, highest degree awarded, number of
service-learning faculty, and the integration of service-leaming into the academic core.
The variables that predicted institutional support for service-leaming at a signiﬁcant level
included the number of faculty involved in using service learning in their courses and an
emphasis on academic goals in service-leaming courses.

Siscoe (1997) investigated involvement levels in service-learning programs and
activities in four-year public colleges and universities that were members of the Southern

Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). The study found that 55 (47.4%) of the

25

institutions had service-leaming programs on campus during 1996. Roughly 36.3 percent
of institutions with a master’s program had service—leaming programs. Eighty-nine
percent of the institutions with service-learning programs mentioned service in their
mission statements and nearly half had service-leaming ofﬁces. Of all success factors
impacting service-learning programs, the factors identiﬁed most often were
administrative support (41.8%) and faculty commitment (27.3%). The survey also
revealed that 78 percent of these institutions employed discussion and reﬂection in their
service-leamin g classes, and 74 percent of the service-leaming courses required students
to keep journals. The predominant types of service were in K-12 schools (87%) or social
service agencies (92%). Respondents indicated that faculty were most motivated by
praise (40%) or peer inﬂuence (36%). Forty-ﬁve percent of institutions required faculty
service for tenure. Institutional leaders also identiﬁed insufﬁcient funding (43%), lack of
administrative support (16.4%), and faculty resistance (14.5%) as barriers to promoting
service-leamin g. Finally, the author noted that 28 institutions without a current service-
learning program (45.9%) indicated that they are interested in creating one.

Smith (1994) examined how service—leaming is incorporated into higher
education settings and its relationship to the development of citizenship. A pilot study
was conducted by interviewing and holding focus groups with seven students from a mid-
sized public university. Each student had completed a service-leaming course. Then, a
case study of an institution’s community service-leaming program was conducted to
identify intended student outcomes from service-learning participation among
administrators (1), faculty members (4), community service administrators (1), and

service-learning students (11). The following facts emerged from the individual and

26

group interviews: the institutional administrator framed citizenship in moral context,
while two of the four faculty linked their intentions for service-learning participation to
their religious backgrounds. One faculty member had not even considered service-
learning as a way of promoting citizenship. Eleven students articulated deeply felt
experiences when confronting social issues. However, they did not link their service-
leaming experience with citizenship. These two studies indicate that if civic
responsibility and participation were to be priorities in higher education, institutions
should not assume that students connect their service participation with these goals.

In a study of three of the founding Campus Compact institutions, Brown
University, Stanford University and Georgetown University (Waring, 1995) investigated
the dynamics of organizational change at the three universities as they were exerting
efforts to support student involvement in community service. Cross-case analyses
revealed both similarities and differences between these universities’ public service
efforts. However, three efforts were common to the institutions to varying degrees: the
universities sponsored public service programs such as direct service or international
opportunities, academic programs with public service components were in place, and
student-initiated public service programs were encouraged. As far as resources were
concerned, all three public service centers relied upon a line item budget from the
university. The public service centers at Brown and Stanford were also supported by
endowments and were closely associated with their respective presidents. It was also
evident that administrators afﬁrmed the value of student service more than faculty did.
At each institution there was a push to centralize efforts at organizing public service.

Organizational analyses indicated that the institutional culture shaped the direction of the

27

public service centers. Georgetown’s center was inﬂuenced by its Jesuit heritage,
Brown’s version for innovative education was visible in its service center, and Stanford’s
center embodied a cultural expectation that all students be involved in service during
college. It was also evident that each school president was acting as a change agent for
his or her institution, providing support for the concept that planning is a key driver of
Change.

In research on the nature and level of institutional support for service-learning, the
findings suggest that administrators, faculty, and students should be involved in planning
for service-learning; integration of service-learning and volunteerism should be clearly
articulated; service should be integrated into institutional structures (Ward, 1996).

Community

Traditionally, service-learning is designed to meet the needs of communities;
however, there have been few studies that look at the impact of students on the
community partners. Service-leaming provides students the opportunity to be involved in
community life outside of the university, and Giles and Eyler (1994) reported that
students developed more positive perceptions of the people in the communities where
they provided service. Payne and Bennett (1999) reported that service-learning students
gain a greater understanding of those served. Gelmon et a1. ( 1998) reported that students
beneﬁted when community partners were involved with orientation and preparation prior
to service.

Cohen and Kinsey (1994) found interaction with community members is

important to student motivation and learning, other studies have noted that in even rather

28

brief service projects, close involvement with people who need service can have an
impact on how students view the clients of social services.

A study by Greene and Diehm (1995) found that 70.8 percent of the student
participants broadened their perspectives on aging. Fifty percent held less stereotypical
views of the elderly after their service-leaming experience. Elderly residents agreed that
the experience was a great educational opportunity.

In a study by Bacon (1997) students’ performances on community writing tasks
were correlated to their academic writing capacity. Student writing was impacted the
most when their writing was used to meet authentic community needs, such as designing
an agency brochure.

In studies on the involvement of the community in service-learning student
orientations N nakwe (1996) found that when community outreach professionals trained
students, the students showed signiﬁcant increases in concern, activism, and attitudes
related to world hunger and homelessness.

Faculty Motivation

Hammond (1994) conducted a statewide study of Michigan Colleges and
Universities on service-leaming and faculty motivation. The study looked at 163 faculty
members from Campus Compact Institutions that were identiﬁed as utilizing “service as a
component of an academic course.” The study included faculty from Michigan State
University, however there were no disciplines or departments from the College of
Agriculture (Hammond, 1994). The mission of land grant universities, with its emphasis
on service to community, may have an impact upon the level at which faculty view

themselves as service-leaming advocates through their course curriculum.

29

Stanton (1994) conducted a case study of a Campus Compact service-learning
faculty development seminar, which looked at factors relative to the faculty participants,
the content of the faculty development seminar, and the participants’ perceptions of
institutional context. His study was useful in understanding the best practice for
providing faculty the tools to implement service-leaming into their curriculum. Although
his study is small it provides a good start to understanding the methods for meeting the
needs and concerns of faculty who are interested in implementing service-learning.

Abes, Jackson, and Jones (2002) conducted a national study of 29 diverse
institutions and the factors that motivate and deter faculty from using service-leaming.
The study examined the faculty responses by educational institution, academic discipline,
faculty rank, tenure status, and gender. The major ﬁndings from the study were that there
was considerable consistency in motivators and deterrents in service-learning use. In
their study, faculty in agriculture were more likely to use service-leaming in their courses
(m=3.42).

Faculty Development

The ﬁndings of Siebold (1998) reported that faculty were in consensus in deﬁning
academic goals for the program and were professionally and personally committed to
community as a basic construction in education for health professionals (Siebold, 1998).
Ward (1996) reported that administrators, faculty, and students Should be involved in
planning for service-learning; integration of service-learning and volunteerism should be
clearly articulated; and service should be integrated into institutional structures.

In service-leaming in teacher education, Wade et al., (1999) found that the best

factors for predicting future service-learnin g activity included whether or not service-

30

learning experiences in the teacher preparation program included responsibility for
planning and implementation of service projects and a general positive evaluation of
service-leaming experiences. In a case study at a community college, Burr (1997)
reported a lack of institutional support for implementing a service-leaming curriculum
where a lecture had been in place.

In a study of student teachers, Wade and Yarbrough (1997) found that when
student teachers initiated the projects, service-learning was perceived as more positive. It
was also reported that when student teachers took a strong leadership stance, the less
experienced cooperating teachers were more likely to follow their lead.

Wade et a1. (1999) investigated beginning teachers’ experiences with community
service-leamin g. The factors that were best predictors of future service-learning activity
included whether or not service-leaming experiences in the teacher preparation program
included responsibility for planning and implementation of service projects and a general
positive evaluation of service-leaming experiences.

Classroom teachers were concerned with time and sometimes felt that service-
learning affected classroom management negatively. Service-learning was positive if:
student teachers were the project initiators and they showed strong leadership when the
classroom teachers were willing to take a back seat (Wade & Yarbrough, 1997).

The structure of the course is important for the integration of the course
knowledge with the service. Faculty who develop structured reﬂection will increase
students’ ability to integrate the course material with the service experience (Ikeda, 2000;

Berson & Younkin, 1998).

31

Service-Learning at Michigan State University

As an institution, Michigan State University has been at the forefront of student
volunteerism, community service, and service-leaming (Stanton et al., 1999). In keeping
with its historical Signiﬁcance as the premier land grant institution, Michigan State
University has a signiﬁcant history relative to university community outreach through
volunteer programs, community service and service-leaming.

The Service-Leaming Center

According to Stanton, Giles, and Cruz (1999), the Ofﬁce of Volunteer Programs
at Michigan State University, later named the Service-Leaming Center was possibly the
first university-administered volunteer program in the United States. The Service
Learning Center provides a myriad of service and training for students, faculty,
community members, and institutions. The Service-Learning Center website provides an
overview of the service offered to students, faculty, and community, as follows:

The mission of the Service-Learning Center and civic engagement at Michigan

State University is to provide active, service-focused, community-based, mutually

beneﬁcial, integrated learning opportunities for students, building and enhancing

their commitment to academics, personal and professional development, and civic

responsibility.

The Service-Learning Center offers a range of opportunities for MSU
students, faculty, and staff to integrate community involvement with classroom
experiences, and to serve in the local community. The SLC motto "Linking
Education with Service and Experience," embraces MSU'S mission of combining

research, teaching and service.

32

Through placement with a local community partner, students contribute to
the improvement of the community while applying critical thinking and problem-
solving skills learned in the classroom. Faculty and staff members can participate
by structuring courses and programs to include meaningful service, as well as
reﬂection and evaluation of the experience. This element of intentional,
purposeful service, co-designed with the community partner, is one of the key
components of service-leaming.

The existence of a centralized ofﬁce to coordinate service-leaming programming
on campus is one source of support for faculty development in service-learning (Morris,
2002). The service-learning center has offered many seminars to faculty during the 2001-
2002 academic years that are focused on the individual needs of faculty and departments.
Presentations are made each semester in courses across campus to inform students and
faculty of the services of the center. There have also been seminars that relate to the
integration of course content and service, such as a workshop on Service-Leaming and
the Sciences for faculty.

The Service-Learning Center also conducts programs jointly with Michigan
Campus Compact to meet the needs of faculty and MCC member institutions.

Theoretical Framework
John Dewey and Service-Learning

John Dewey has had a major inﬂuence on educational theory, and researchers are
beginning to position a theoretical base for service-learning in his writings. Giles and
Eyler (1994) state that “service-leaming reﬂects, either consciously or unconsciously, a

Deweyian inﬂuence.” Saltmarsh (1996) stated that:

33

While Dewey never speciﬁcally addresses “community service-learning” as a
term signifying a particular framework of education, his writings do analyze ﬁve
speciﬁc areas of relevance to service-learning: 1) linking education to experience,

2) democratic community, 3) social service, 4) reﬂective inquiry, and 5) education

for social transformation (p.13).

Dewey’s theories of education are posited in his belief that education is
experientially driven, the essence of education lies in experience. Giles and Eyler (1994)
examine two of Dewey’s primary works, How We Think (1933) and Experience and
Education (1938) to frame a theoretical basis for service-learning as a viable pedagogy.

Bernstein (1967) describes Dewey’s perspective on the role of the school in
society:

Dewey never advocated passive adjustment to the status quo. On the contrary,

the social character of the school becomes the most effective means for educating

individuals who can correct abuses and injustices of the larger society in which
they will grow up. The school becomes the most effective means for improving

the reforming society (p.41).

The similarity between Dewey and contemporary service-learning thought is seen
in the following deﬁnition of service-leaming from Charity to Change, by Minnesota
Campus Compact:

Service-leaming is a process through which students are involved in community

work that contributes signiﬁcantly: 1) to positive change in individuals,

organizations, neighborhoods, and/or larger systems in a community; and 2) to

students’ academic understanding, civic development, personal or career growth,

34

and/or understanding of larger social issues. This process always includes an

intentional and structured educational/developmental component for students, and

may be employed in curricular or co—curricular settings.

In colleges of agriculture Dewey is used as the guide for the experiential
pedagogy most frequently used by Ag educators (Knobloch, 2001). Therefore, the
theories of Dewey as they relate to service-leaming will provide a foundation for
validating its use by faculty in the college of agriculture and natural resources.

Blackburn & Lawrence ’3 Faculty Work Theoretical Framework

Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) developed a framework that combines individual
faculty characteristics with those of their employing institutions to understand faculty
motivation, behavior, and productivity. The theoretical framework takes into account the
tripartite nature of faculty work and provides three branches of the model to understand
how faculty conduct research, teach, and serve within their institutions.

The theoretical framework integrates the research on faculty role performance and
productivity with motivation theories. The framework models both immediate and future
productivity as affected by ongoing interactions between individual faculty members and
their work environments. The key constructs for the framework are: socio-demographic
characteristics, career, self-knowledge, and social knowledge. The socio-demographics
most frequently used in faculty research are age, race, ethnicity, and gender. The career
constructs include the graduate experiences of faculty, in particular the type of
preparation faculty received in research and teaching, as well as the way in which they
deﬁne their role as faculty. Career constructs also include academic discipline and the

institutional type, and include career age, which is deﬁned as the number years of a full-

35

time faculty appointment to indicate faculty experience. The self-knowledge pertains to
faculty’s understanding of self. The construct describes self-assessed competence in
selected professional activities, as well as one’s sense of efﬁcacy in situations. Faculty
ambition, persistence, and supportiveness are a part of the construct. The social
knowledge construct describes how faculty perceive their environment and includes their
interpretation of how others expect them to behave. It also looks at the interdependency
among faculty members as measured by collegiality. The environmental conditions
represent the characteristics of the institutions where faculty work. This construct can
include the ﬁscal stability, location, composition of faculty, and the faculty governance
system. It can also include the quality of available resources for faculty work such as the
libraries, laboratories, and student body. The environmental response construct includes
the type of formal communication that faculty receive regarding their work. The ﬁnal
component of the framework is social contingencies, which describe the events that
happen in the personal lives of the faculty members. These theoretical constructs
combine to impact the ways in which faculty conduct research, serve their institutions,
and teach.

This study will focus on the portion of theoretical framework that describes
faculty teaching. The framework for understanding teaching has challenges because
there are not deﬁnitive products for teaching such as paper published for research or
committee appointments for service. This lack of speciﬁc tangibles and the fact that
there is no consensus on what constitutes excellence in teaching make this portion of the
framework tenuous. Blackburn and Lawrence cite the work of Peterson et al., (1989) and

Dunkin (1986) on institutional context and its impact on teaching. Blackburn and

36

Lawrence describe one of the impacts on teaching as being the college’s and/or
university’s mission. Along with other factors such as research facilities, libraries,
students and faculty members recruited, these make up the institutional context. It is the
faculty members’ understanding of the institutional context that can have an impact on
the way that they teach. In the framework institutional variables interact with individual
characteristics and determine teaching styles. Their research indicated that institutional
context and institutional rewards (e. g., promotion) may not shape teaching behavior
through reinforcement, but instead inﬂuence a faculty member’s understanding of the
institution. It is this understanding that ultimately affects how one teaches.

Faculty within the college of agriculture and natural resources who understand the
mission of the college and the university at large and its relationship to community
outreach, engagement, and service-leaming, according to this theoretical framework, will
exhibit teaching behaviors that are consistent with the fulﬁllment of the mission. The use
of service-learning by faculty in the college of agriculture and natural resources can be
supported through faculty development programs that emphasize the mission of the
college and the university as it relates to service-leaming. Faculty members in the
college may be more likely to adopt service-learning as an additional method for
achieving experiential learning in the college.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the literature and research on community service,
experiential learning, and service-leaming in higher education. This chapter also
provided the history of service-learning at Michigan State University, the history of

service-leaming center, and the related literature on the engaged campus. Additionally,

37

the educational theories of John Dewey and the research of Blackburn and Lawrence on
faculty work are examined as a conceptual framework for the study. The methodology

for the study will be discussed in chapter H1.

38

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY

In order to accurately describe the status of service-leaming in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) at Michigan State University, it was essential
that proper research protocol be followed throughout the study. A copy of the
instrument, methodology section of the proposal, cover letter, and research study
application was submitted to the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS). A copy of the letter granting approval of the research project is
included in Appendix A. The committee approved the instrument and cover letter as
submitted.

Relative to methodology, the following topics require discussion: research
design, population, database development, instrument development, data collection
procedures, data analysis procedures, and summary.

Research Design

This study took the form of survey research. According to Ary, Jacobs, &
Razavieh (1996) the survey method is best used to gather information on a population
quickly and inexpensively. There were time and funding constraints for the completion
of the study and the survey method would provide the most salient information within the
allotted timeframe and budgetary constraints. Given that there had not been a prior study
of faculty use of service-learning in the CANR, the researcher decided a survey would be
the best method for an initial exploration of the topic and would provide a description of
the current status of faculty use of service-leaming in the college.

The method of survey questionnaire was selected as it provided the most effective

and efﬁcient method of gathering baseline data for the study. The population for this

39

study was limited to faculty who identiﬁed themselves as teaching courses for academic
credit in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University.
Population

The study population was composed of 272 faculty members from 15 departments
in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. In this study the term faculty
applies to the positions of: Full Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and
Instructor both tenure system and ﬁxed term.

The entire population or universe was selected from the CANR for the study.
Reasons for selecting the population were as follows: the size of the population was not
prohibitive, to insure that faculty who were teaching in the department were self-
identiﬁed, and because community outreach through service to the community is in the
mission statement of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the mission of
Michigan State University.

This study took the form of a census survey. In order to perform a census, March
17, 2002 was selected as the day to use for verifying the list of faculty in the college to be
included in the study population. In other words, faculty employed as of March 17, 2002
were included in the study population assuming they did not remove themselves due to
retirement, resignation, or mortality prior to mailing of the initial survey packet on May
14, 2002 or were on extended leave spanning the duration of the data gathering phase.
The M.S.U. Ofﬁce of Personnel Services veriﬁed the study population.

The college has 15 departments: Agricultural Economics, Agricultural
Engineering (Jointly with College of Engineering), Agriculture and Natural Resources

Education and Communication Systems, Animal Science, Crop and Soil Sciences,

40

Entomology (Jointly with Natural Science), Fisheries and Wildlife, Food Science and
Human Nutrition (Jointly with Human Ecology), Horticulture, Forestry, Packaging, Park,
Recreation and Tourism Resources, Plant Biology (Jointly with Natural Science), Plant
Pathology (Jointly with Natural Science), Resource Development.
Instrument Development

Relative to instrument development, the following topics will be discussed:

design, content, validity, and reliability.
Design

The instrument followed recommendations described by Don A. Dillman (2000)
in Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. The survey instrument is
included in Appendix B. The title selected for the cover page was A Proﬁle Study of
Service-Leaming Usage in the MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The
survey took the form of a booklet 5 1/2" X 8 1/2". The booklet consisted of three 81/2" X
l 1" sheets folded in half and stapled in the middle with two staples. The cover was
designed in black and white with the MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
logo on the front. The back cover was designed so that it could be a self-mailer for
campus mail.

Content

The instrument included a brief description of the survey, directions for
completion, and the major sections on, teaching status, faculty teaching methods, prior
knowledge of service-leaming, factors that motivated and were important to service-
leaming faculty and factors that were important to non—service—learning faculty. The

researcher from literature reviewed, developed items included in the survey in

41

collaboration with dissertation committee member experts, and subsequent input
provided by a panel of service-learning experts relative to the face and content validity of
the survey instrument.

Survey items were identiﬁed and limited to teaching status, faculty knowledge
and use of service-learning. Respondents were asked to indicate if they taught a course
for academic credit in CANR. Respondents who did not teach were asked to return the
survey, and they would be deleted from the study database.

For items on faculty motivation to integrate service-leaming a 5-point Likert scale
was employed based on the following descriptions: 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes,

=very often, 5=always.

For items on the important factors for service-learning and non-service-leamin g
faculty a 5-point Likert scale was employed based on the following descriptions:
1=unimportant, 2=of little importance, 3=moderately important, 4=important, 5=very
important.

In the ﬁnal section of demographic items, respondents were asked to respond to
items concerning gender, academic rank, academic appointment, tenure status, highest
level of education attained, departmental appointment, appointment percentages,
completion of a teaching methods course, and number of teaching years.

The demographic section used both close-ended questions with ordered response
choices and close-ended questions with unordered response choices. On the departmental
appointment question respondents were asked to indicate dual appointment status and
identify both departments. On the percentage of appointment question respondents were

asked to indicate the percentage of appointment in the areas of research, teaching,

42

extension, and administrative. The years of teaching experience questions had ranges
from which respondents selected the corresponding answer. The last item on the
questionnaire was for comments appropriate for the study.
Validity and Reliability

In survey research, it is important to take into consideration validity and
reliability. Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh (1996) deﬁne validity as: “The extent to which a
measure actually taps the underlying concept that it purports to measure.” The
instrument was evaluated for both face and content validity utilizing a panel of experts.
A panel of ﬁve experts specializing in research, evaluation, and service-learning was
assembled by The M.S.U. Service Learning Center to review the instrument. The panel
made recommendations that were incorporated into the ﬁnal survey.

Reliability is the extent to which a measure yields consistent results (Ary, Jacobs,
& Razavieh, 1996). A pilot study was not conducted and post hoc reliability coefﬁcients
were attained using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 11.0). The
Cronbach’s alphas were .61 for the teaching methods used; .68 for the motivation to use
service learning, .87 for important factors for using service-learning, .67 for service-
learning important factors for non-user of service-learning. The ranges for Cronbach’s
Alpha were within an acceptable range for research purposes (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh
1996).

Data Collection Procedures

In conducting a survey, it is important that proper protocol be followed. Data

collection procedures included the following components: introductory letter, sending of

the initial survey, ﬁrst follow-up postcard, sending of the second follow-up survey,

43

sending of the ﬁnal follow-up survey, and database management.

According to Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh (1996, p. 456), “researchers may ﬁnd it
useful to mail an introductory letter to potential respondents in advance of the
questionnaire itself.” The introductory letter was sent with the initial survey due to time
constraints. Otherwise, all remaining data collection procedures as described in this
section for implementing mail surveys follow recommendations outlined by Don A.
Dillman (2000) in Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (pp. 180-
191). Procedures followed are described below.

Introductory Letter

The introductory letter, on sponsoring department letterhead, was mailed to the
study population along with the survey. A sample introductory letter is included in
Appendix E. The survey instrument was designed as a self-mailer for campus mail and
return of the completed survey. The purpose of the letter was to inform the study
population of the purpose of the study, request their cooperation, and prompt them to
complete the survey.

Initial Questionnaire

The initial questionnaires were mailed on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 to the study
population with a cover letter. Code numbers were used on the survey address labels and
stamped on the survey in the lower right comer of the last page. The cover letter
explained the purpose of the study, requested respondent cooperation, assured
conﬁdentiality, requested immediate return, and expressed appreciation for participation
in the study. A cover letter was prepared using sponsoring department letterhead and

signed by the researcher. A sample of the initial questionnaire cover letter is included in

44

Appendix C.
First Follow-Up Post Card

Exactly two weeks after mailing the initial questionnaires, a follow-up postcard
reminder was sent to the sample population on Tuesday, May 28, 2002. The postcard
was a thank you to those who had responded and a reminder to others that their responses
were important to the study. Participants were urged to complete the survey and return it
immediately. A sample of the ﬁrst follow-up postcard is included in Appendix D.

Second F ollow- Up Letter and Questionnaire

On Monday, June 17, 2002, exactly four weeks after the initial questionnaire
packet mailing, a second follow-up questionnaire was sent to those not responding along
with a cover letter (Appendix E). Code numbers were used on the questionnaires as well
as the mailing label and the survey was printed on light green paper to facilitate follow-
up procedures for a high return rate. The cover letter was on sponsoring department
letterhead, Si gned by the researcher, explaining to non-respondents that their
questionnaires have not been received and reiterated the importance of the study. In
addition, respondents were told not to respond a second time if they had already mailed
the questionnaire and to contact the researcher if they wanted to be removed from the
mailing list. A sample of the second follow-up questionnaire packet letter is included in

Appendix E.

45

Mail Survey

 
 
    
  
  

 
  
  

First follow-up
Postcard
(Second mailing)

 
  
   
  
 
 

Initial mailing
Cover letter &
questionnaire
May 14, 2002

 

May 28, 2002

 

Second follow-up
Cover letter &
questionnaire

(Third mailing)

June 17, 2002

      
     
 
 
   
 
  
 

 

 
  
  
  
 

Third & Final
Cover letter &
questionnaire
(Fourth mailing)

August 30, 2002

 

 

Report as nonresponse

October 1, 2002

 

 

 

 

 
  
 

  

ALL
DATA
AN ALYZED

     
   
 

November 15, 2002

Figure l : Data Collection Procedures

46

Final F allow-Up Letter and Questionnaire

On Friday August 30, 2002, exactly 16 weeks after the initial questionnaire
mailing, a ﬁnal follow-up questionnaire was sent to those not responding along with a
cover letter. Code numbers were used on the surveys as well as the mailing label and the
survey was printed on light yellow paper to facilitate follow-up procedures for a high
return rate. The cover letter was on sponsoring department letterhead, signed by the
researcher, explaining to non-respondents that their survey had not been received and
reiterated the importance of the study. In addition, respondents were told not to respond
a second time if they had already mailed the survey and to contact the researcher to
remove their name from the mailing list. A sample of the ﬁnal follow-up questionnaire
letter is included in Appendix F. The survey collection was terminated on October 1,
2002.

Processing Procedures

Surveys were placed in a box convenient for the researcher in ANRECS mailroom
for handling ofﬁcial survey business. An identiﬁcation number (code) was used to check
respondent names off the mailing list once the surveys were received. If respondents
wished to receive summary results, this information was recorded as well. Surveys were
kept in a locking ﬁle drawer for security purposes.

The data set was purged to reﬂect respondents who stated that they taught courses
for academic credit in the CANR. Of the 174 respondents 55 were non— teaching faculty,
8 contacted the researcher by e-mail or phone to state they were not completing the
survey and to remove their name from the list, and 4 were from respondents who returned

the survey uncompleted. The original survey was sent to 437 faculty and was purged to

47

reﬂect the 272 teaching faculty as deﬁned by the Office of the Associate Dean of the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. There were 107 surveys that were usable
for the study. The ﬁnal response rate was 39.3 percent. This response rate was
comparable to 39 percent response rate in the most recent study of faculty motivation to
use service-learning study by (Abes et. al., 2002) and above the 21 percent response rate
for the 1999 National Campus Compact faculty survey (Abes et. al., 2002).
Nonresponse

The failure of respondents to return surveys, nonresponse, is of great importance
in survey research. Early and late respondents were compared to determine differences
between the two groups. Analysis of early to late respondents’ responses showed no
statistically signiﬁcant differences. Therefore, the ﬁndings were generalized to the entire
population (Shavelson, 1996). The t-test for independent samples was used for scaled
data and Pearson Chi-square for nominal data.

Data Analysis Procedures

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.0 was used to
analyze the data. All questionnaires received were entered into SPSS. Code numbers
were assigned to questionnaires prior to the initial questionnaire packet mailing and
subsequent mailings. After data were entered they were immediately checked for
accuracy before moving to the next survey.

Procedures used to statistically analyze data included: frequencies, percentages,

means, group means, cross tabulations, and standard deviations. The statistics used to
analyze the data in the sections on motivation and important factors for service-leaming

and non-service-leaming faculty were means, frequencies, and cross tabulations. The

48

frequencies were used to describe the distribution of the responses and the percentage of
respondents who selected a given response. For the open ended questions a content
analysis was used to determine the themes that related to the research questions. Content
analysis according to Holsti (as cited in Smith, 1988, p. 263) is “any technique for
making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying speciﬁed characteristics
of messages. In theory-to-data researchers develop categories in advance (perhaps based
on contextual information that they believe will adequately characterize a given
narrative” (Smith, 1988, p. 267). The open ended questions’ responses were grouped into
themes that related to the following research questions: Research Question #4: What
factors are important to CANR faculty who are using service-learning in their courses?;
Research Question #5: Are non-service-leaming faculty in the College of Agriculture
and Natural Resources farrriliar with Service-leaming?; and Research Question #6: What
factors would be important for non-service-leaming faculty to consider its use in their
courses?
Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the research methods and procedures used
to present the status of service-leaming within the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. The study population consisted of 272 teaching faculty and 107 surveys were

returned for a return rate of 39.3 percent. The ﬁndings are reported in Chapter IV.

49

CHAPTER IV - FINDINGS

Findings are presented as follows: demographics, teaching methods, motivation,

implementation factors, knowledge of service-learning, and qualitative themes.
Demographics

Demographics were collected from respondents relative to: gender, academic
rank, academic appointment, tenure, highest level of education attained, academic
department, percentage of appointment, completion of a teaching methods course, and
years taught. An n of 107 was obtained for the survey.

Characteristics of CANR Respondents

Research question #1: What are the characteristics of service-learning
faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources in terms of the
following: gender, academic rank, tenure status, educational level, appointment
percentages, years taught, and completion of a teaching methods course?

Sixteen percent of the respondents were male and 10 percent were female. An n
of 24 was obtained. Respondents’ educational levels were, 20.2 percent had attained a
doctorate and 5.3 percent had attained a master’s degree. The academic rank for faculty
was represented by 8.6 percent with the rank of Professor, 3.2 percent Associate
Professor, 3.2 percent Assistant Professor, 4.3 percent Instructor and 1 percent Specialist.
An n of 24 was obtained. The majority of respondents were tenure track (20.4% ) and
had attained tenure (15.2%) . Table 1 summarizes these results.

Research question #2: What are the characteristics of non-service-learning

faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources in terms of the

50

following: gender, academic rank, tenure status, educational level, appointment
percentages, years taught, and completion of a teaching methods course?

Fifty three percent of the respondents were male and 21.3 percent were female.
An n of 70 was obtained. Respondents’ educational levels were: 69.1 percent had
attained a doctorate and 5.3 percent had attained a master’s degree. The academic rank
for faculty was represented by 29 percent with the rank of Professor, 1 1.8 percent
Associate Professor, 23.7 percent Assistant Professor, 9.7 percent Instructor and 1
percent Specialist. An n of 70 was obtained. The majority of respondents were tenure
track )62.4%) and had attained tenure (43.5%). Table 1 summarizes these results.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had taken a teaching methods
course. Of the service-leaming faculty 13.4 percent had taken a teaching methods course
and 25.8 percent of the non-service-leaming faculty had taken a teaching methods course.
Of the faculty who had not taken a teaching methods course, 10 percent were service-
learning faculty and 7.6 percent were non-service-leaming. An n of 92 was obtained.

Respondents were asked the number of years they taught with 4.3 percent of the
service-learning faculty respondents teaching 1-5 years, 8.6 percent teaching 6-10 years,
2.1 percent teaching 1 1-15 years, 3.2 percent teaching 16-20 years and 5.4 percent
teaching for more that twenty years. The years taught by non-service learning were
represented with 22.7 percent teaching 1-5 years, 16.3 percent teaching 6-10 years, 6.5
percent teaching 1 1-15 years, and 7.6 percent teaching 16—20 years, and 23.9 percent

teaching for more than twenty years. An n of 96 was obtained.

51

Table l

Service-Leaming Faculty and Non-Service-Leaming Faculty Demographics

 

 

. Service- Non-Service-
Varrable n . .
LeamrnL LearnrnL

Gender 94 Frequency % Frequency %

Male 15 16% 50 53.2%

Female 9 10% 20 21.3%
Degree Completed 94

Ph.D. 19 20.2% 65 69.1%

Master 5 5.3% 5 5.3%
Academic Rank 93

Professor 8 8.6% 27 29%

Associate 3 3.2% l 1 1 1.8%

Assistant 8 8.6% 22 23.7%

Instructor 4 4.3% 9 9.7%

Specialist 1 1.1% 0 0%
Academic Appointment 93

Tenure System 19 20.4% 58 62.4%

Fixed Term 4 7.5% 12 12.9%
Tenured 92

No 14 15.2% 28 30.4%

Yes 10 10.7% 40 43.5%
Teaching Methods 88

No 8 10% 45 50.6%

Yes 12 13.4% 23 25.8%
Years of Teaching Experience 92

1 — 5 years 4 4.3% 20 22.7%

6 — 10 years 8 8.6% 15 16.3%

11 - 15 years 2 2.1% 6 6.5%

16 — 20 years 3 3.2% 7 7.6%

20+ years 5 5.4% 22 23.9%

 

Of the 15 departments in the college, responses were received from all
departments. The departments with the most respondents were: Fisheries and Wildlife
(14) Agricultural Economics (10), Animal Science (10), Horticulture (9), Agricultural
Engineering (Jointly with College of Engineering), Forestry (8) (7), Crop and Soil
Sciences (7), Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication Systems

(6). See Table 2 for the total number of respondents. An n of 93 was obtained.

52

Table 2

Department Totals

 

 

 

Variable It Value Label Frequency %

Appointment 93 Agricultural Economics 10 10.8
Agricultural Engineering 7 7.5
Animal Science 10 10.8
ANR Education & Communication 6 6.5
Crop & Soil Science 7 7.5
Entomology 3 3.2
Fisheries & Wildlife 15 15.1
Food Science 3 3.2
Forestry 8 8.6
Horticulture 9 9.7
Parks & Recreation 5 5.4
Plant Biology 1 1.0
Research Development 5 5.4
Packaging 5 5.4

Total 93 100

 

Respondents were asked to indicate the percent of their appointment that was in

Research, Administration, Teaching and Extension. The mean percentage for each

appointment was 48.2 percent for research, 41.0 percent for administration, 40.4 for

teaching and 39.4 percent for extension.

As indicated in Table 3, the highest percentage of appointment was in research,

followed by administrative, teaching and extension.

53

Table 3

Faculty Appointment Percentages

 

 

Variable It Mean %
Research 66 48.2
Administrative 15 41 .0
Teaching 83 40.4
Extension 32 39.4

 

Teaching Methods used by CANR Faculty

Research question #3: To what degree are teaching faculty in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources using experiential learning, community service
and service-learning in their courses?

Respondents used experiential learning more than (mean=3.36) community
service (mean=1.5) or service-leaming (mean=1.5). About 18 percent of the respondents
always used experiential learning and 32 percent used experiential learning very often.
One percent of the respondents always used community service as a teaching method and
was used very often by 4 percent. About 2 percent of respondents always used service-
learning as a teaching method, and 4 percent used it very often. An n of 105 was
obtained for experiential learning. An n of 102 was obtained for community service and

service-learnin g. Table 4 summarizes these results.

54

Table 4
CANR Faculty Teaching Methods

 

 

 

 

 

Question

To what extent do you utilize the following teaching methods?

Variable n M SD.
Experiential Learning 105 3.36 1.19
Community Service 102 1.51 .887
Service Learning 102 1.51 .972

 

.5-l.5 = never, 1.51-2.5 = rarely, 2.51-3.5 = sometimes, 35145 = very often, 4.51-5.0 = always

Motivational Factors for CAN R Service-Learning Faculty

Research question #4: What factors motivated CANR faculty to integrate
service-learning into their course curriculum?

Respondents were asked to select factors that motivated them to use service-
learning. Respondents indicated that student development was the most important

motivators (mean=4.06). An n of 16 was obtained.

55

Table 5

Motivators for Service-Leaming Faculty
Question

What motivated you to integrate service-learning into your curriculum?

 

 

Variable n M SD.
Student development need 16 4.06 1.436
Professional development 16 3.50 l .265
Departmental need 15 3.20 1.612
Community/Stakeholder need 14 3.14 1.406
My scholarly research 16 2.81 1.601
Colleague 14 2.73 1.335
Publication/Article on service-learning 14 2.21 1.188
Conference presentation 15 2.00 1.069
University program 14 1.71 1.204
M.S.U. Service Learning Center 14 1.43 .756

 

.5-1.5 = never, 1.51-2.5 = rarely, 2.51-3.5 = sometimes, 3.51-4.5 = very often, 4.51-5.0 = always

Respondents indicated that professional development (mean=3.50) was an

important motivator. An n of 16 was obtained.

Respondents indicated that departmental need was a motivating factor

(mean=3.20). An n of 15 was obtained.

Respondents indicated that community/stakeholder need (mean=3. 14) was an

important source of motivation. An n of 14 was obtained.

Respondents indicate that scholarly research (mean=2.81) was sometimes a

motivator. An n of 16 was obtained. Fifty percent of the respondents indicated that they

were motivated to use service-leaming by their scholarly research.

56

Respondents indicated that colleagues (mean=2.73) were sometimes a motivator.
Twenty percent of the respondents indicated that colleagues were very often to always a
motivator for using service-leaming. An n of 14 was obtained.

Respondents indicated that publication/ article on service-learning was rarely a
motivator (mean=2.21). However, 14.3 percent of respondents indicated that a
publication/article on service-learning was very often a motivator.

Respondents indicated that a conference presentation (mean=2.00) was rarely a
motivator. However 6.7 percent of the respondents indicated that a conference
presentation was very often a motivator. An n of 15 was obtained. Respondents
indicated that university programs were rarely a motivator (mean=1.71). However, 7.1
percent of the respondents indicated that a university program was a motivator for
integrating service-learning. An n of 14 was obtained. The M.S.U. Service—Learning
Center was never a motivating factor (mean=1.43), although 14.3 percent of the
respondents indicated that the MSU Service-Learning Center was sometimes a motivator
for integrating service-leaming. An n of 14 was obtained. Table 5 summarizes these
results.

Respondents added comments regarding motivators that were not listed. One
respondent commented that the most important factor for inclusion of service-learning
into the curriculum was, “my own view, is that it is one of most valuable tools.” Another
respondent indicated that he had been exposed to service-learning as a student and that
was a motivating factor, “actually this was a method used when I was a student, so it

seemed a natural approach.”

57

Important Factors for CAN R Service-Learning Faculty
Research question #5: What factors are important to CAN R faculty who are
integrating service-learning into their courses?
Respondents were asked to indicate the factors that were important for the
inclusion of service-leaming into their curriculum.
Respondents indicated that personal interest was important (mean: 4.32). For
84.3 percent of the respondents their personal interest in service-leaming was important

to very important for inclusion in their courses. An n of 19 was obtained.

58

Table 6

Important F actors for Service-Leaming Faculty

Question

How important were the following factors in deciding to utilize service learning in your
course(s)?

 

 

Variable n M SD.
Personal interest 19 4.32 1.157
Need for student civic engagement 17 4.24 1.147
Student interest 18 3 .83 1 .150
Community interest 17 3.65 1.455
Desire to engage external stakeholders 18 3.50 1.689
Service projects appropriate for ANR issues 18 3.28 1.447
University mission 17 2.88 1.495
Land-Grant mission 16 2.81 1.559
College mission 17 2.76 1.522
Preparation Time 17 2.76 1.300
Ezggggnity sites interested in ANR service 1 6 2.63 1.586
Administrative support 17 2.29 1.312
Available funding 17 2.18 1.468
Colleagues 17 2.00 1 .522
Promotion and tenure requirement 17 1.65 .996

 

.5-1.5 = unimportant, 1.51-2.5 = of little importance, 2.51-3.5 = moderately important,
351-45 2 important, 4.51-5.0 = very important

59

Respondents indicate that the need for student civic engagement (mean=4.24) was
important. However, 76.4 percent of the respondents indicated that student need for civic
engagement was important to very important for their decision to use service-learning in
their courses. An n of 17 was obtained.

Respondents indicated student interest was important (mean=3.83). Sixty-seven
percent of the respondents indicated that student interest was an important to very
important factor in deciding to use service-learning in their courses. An n of 18 was
obtained.

Respondents indicated that community interest was an important factor
(mean=3.65) and 35.3 percent indicated that community interest was an important factor
in the decision to use service-leaming in their course. An n of 17 was obtained.

Respondents indicated that the desire to engage external stakeholders was
important (mean: 3.50), and 67 percent of the respondents indicated that a desire to
engage external stakeholders was an important to very important factor in their decision
to use service-leaming in their courses. An n of 18 was obtained.

Respondents indicated that service projects appropriate for ANR issues were
moderately important (mean=3.28) and 50 percent of the respondents stated that service
projects that were important for Agricultural and Natural Resources was an important
factor in including service-learning in their course. An n of 18 was obtained.

Respondents indicated that preparation time was moderately important as a factor
for deciding to use service-leaming (mean=3.] l). The importance of preparation time as
a factor for including service-leaming in their course was reported as important to very

important by 35.3 percent of the respondents. An n of 17 was obtained.

60

Respondents were asked to report on the importance of institutional mission for
the inclusion of service-learning into their courses. Respondents indicated that the
university mission (mean=2.88) was moderately important. University mission was
important to very important for 35.2 percent of the respondents. An n of 17 was
obtained.

Respondents indicated that the land grant mission (mean=2.8l) was moderately
important. The land-grant rrrission was indicated as a factor as important to very
important by 37.6 percent of the respondents. An n of 16 was obtained. Respondents
indicated that the college mission (mean=2.76) was also moderately important. The
college mission was an important to very important factor for 35.2 percent of the
respondents. An n of 17 was obtained.

Respondents indicated that community sites interested in ANR service-learning
was moderately important (mean=3.28). Community interest in Agriculture and Natural
Resources service-leaming was important to very important factor to 31.3 percent of the
respondents. An n of 16 was obtained.

Respondents indicated administrative support was of little importance to
respondents as a factor for deciding to use service-leaming (mean=2.29). However,
administrative support was reported as moderately important to very important by 49
percent of the respondents. An n of 17 was obtained.

Respondents indicated that contributions to my research were of little importance
to respondents (mean=2.24), although 5.9 percent indicated that it was very important.

An n of 17 was obtained.

61

Respondents indicated that available funding was of little importance
(mean=2. 18), while 17.6 percent of the respondents indicated that it was very important.

Respondents indicated colleagues were not an important factor in their decision to
use service-leaming (mean=2.00), while 70.4 percent indicated that colleagues were not
important in the decision to use service-leaming. An n of 17 was obtained.

Respondents indicated that promotion and tenure was of little importance to
(mean=1.65), while 1 1.8 percent indicated that it was an important factor. An n of 17
was obtained. Table 6 summarizes these results.

CAN R Non-Service-Learning Faculty Knowledge of Service-Learning

Research question #6: To what degree are teaching faculty in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources familiar with service-learning?

In determining the status of the department it was important to know how many of
the respondents who were non-service-learning faculty had heard about service-leaming
prior to completing the survey. The ﬁndings indicated that 52.5 percent of the
respondents had heard of service-leaming prior to completing the survey, while 47.5
percent had no prior service-leaming knowledge. An n of 99 was obtained. Table 7

summarizes these results.

62

Table 7

Non-Service-Learning Faculty Knowledge of Service Learning Prior to Survey
Question
Prior to this survey, had you heard of service learning?

Variable n

 

Knowledge of Service-Learning 99

 

 

 

Value Label Frequency %
Yes 52 52.5
No 47 47.5
Total 99 1 00

 

Important Factors for CAN R N on-Service Learning Faculty

Research question #7: What factors would be important to CANR faculty
who are not integrating service-leaming to consider its use in their courses?

The non-service-learning faculty were asked to respond to factors that would be
important for them to consider using service-learning in their curriculum. Non-service-
learning respondents indicated that student interest was important (mean=3.77).
Seventy-two percent indicated that student interest would be important to very important

in deciding to use service-leaming in their courses. An n of 79 was obtained.

63

Table 8

Important F actors for Non-Service-Learning Faculty

Question

How important would the following factors be in your decision to use service learning
in your curriculum?

 

 

Variable n M SD.
Student interest 79 3.77 1.198
Personal interest 79 3.72 1.280
Preparation time 78 3 .64 l .279
Service projects appropriate for CANR issues 77 3.60 1.195
Community interest 78 3.55 1.374
Available funding 78 3.55 1.316
Lack of time to implement service learning 75 3.49 1.369
More information on service learning pedagogy 76 3.42 1.369
Community sits interested in CANR service learning 77 3.36 1.287
Other (specify) 12 3.25 2.006
Administrative support 78 3.14 1.346
Contributes to my research 77 2.55 1.262
Colleagues 75 2.53 1.212
Promotion and tenure requirements 76 2.36 1.521

 

.5-1.5 = unimportant, 1.51-2.5 = of little importance, 2.51-3.5 = moderately important,
3.51-4.5 = important, 4.51-5.0 = very important

Non-service-learning respondents indicated personal interest (mean=3.72) was
important, with 64.5 percent of the non-service-leaming respondents indicated personal
interest as an important to very important factor for deciding to use service-learning. An

n of 79 was obtained.

64

Preparation time was an important factor for non-service-learning respondents
(mean=3.64), and 62.8 percent indicated that it was important to very important. An n of
78 was obtained.

Non-service-learning respondents indicated that service projects appropriate for
CANR issues was important (mean=3.60), and 62.4 percent of the respondents indicated
that service projects that were appropriate for CANR would be important to very
important for the decision to use service-learning. An n of 77 was obtained.

Non-service-learnin g respondents indicated that the lack of time to implement
service-learning (mean=3.49) was moderately important. A majority of the respondents,
58.7 percent indicated that the lack of time to implement service-learning would be
important to very important in their decision to use service-leaming. An n of 75 was
obtained.

Non-service-learning respondents indicated that more information on service-
learning pedagogy was moderately important (mean=3.42). However, 55.3 percent of the
respondents indicated that having more information on service-learning pedagogy would
be important to very important for their decision to use service-leaming in their
curriculum. An n of 76 was obtained.

Non-service-leaming respondents indicated that available funding (mean=3.55)
was important, and 60.2 percent indicated funding was important to very important. An n
of 78 was obtained.

Non-service-learning respondents indicated that community interest (mean=3.55)

was moderately important, and community interest was indicated as important to very

65

important for their decision to use service-learning 60.2 percent. An n of 78 was
obtained.

Non-service-learning respondents indicated that community sites interested in
CANR service-learning (mean=3.36) was moderately important. Community sites
interested in CANR service-leaming was important to very important to 52 percent of the
respondents. An n of 77 was obtained.

Non-service-learning respondents indicated that administrative support was
moderately important (mean=3. 14). Administrative support was indicated as important to
very important by 43.6 percent of the respondents. An n of 78 was obtained.

Non-service-leaming respondents indicated that the contribution that service-
learning would make to their research was moderately important (mean=2.55). The
contribution of service—learning to their research was reported as important to very
important by 22.1 percent of the respondents. An n of 77 was obtained.

Non-service-learning respondents indicated that colleagues were of little
importance (mean=2.53). Colleagues were an important to very important factor in the
decision to use service-leaming for 22.7 percent of the respondents. An n of 75 was
obtained.

N on-service-learning respondents indicated that promotion and tenure
requirements were of little importance (mean=2.36), while 30.2 percent of the
respondents indicated that promotion and tenure requirements would be important to very
important for their decision to include service-leaming in their courses. An n of 76 was
obtained.

Comments by non-service-leaming faculty were:

66

0 It would have to be relevant to the learning objectives of my course.
0 Ability to use service learning to cover course topics- seems difﬁcult to do in a
science course.
0 Our accredited curriculum is very full. The students succeed without this item.
0 Administrative support very important: only to get funding
0 Again continuation/sustainability is the key.
0 Liability issues
0 Course (TV) does not lend to SL.
0 Must ﬁt educational objectives of class
In comparing the important factors of both service-learning and non-service—
learning faculty, faculty found personal interest, student interest and community interest
to be important (mean=3.51-4.5). For faculty community sites interested in ANR,
preparation time, and service projects appropriate for ANR issues were moderately
important (mean=2.51-3.5). The role of colleagues, contributions to research, promotion
and tenure were of little importance (mean=l.51-2.5). The role of funding was more
important to non-service learning faculty (mean=3.55) than to service-leaming faculty
(mean=2. 18), and administrative support was more important to non-service-leaming
faculty (mean=3. 14) than to service-learning faculty (mean=2.2). These results are

summarized in Table 9.

67

Table 9

Important F actors for Service-Leaming and Non-Service Learning Faculty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n M SD.
, Service-Learning 19 4.32 1.15
Personal Interest , _
Non—Servrce-Leamrn g 79 3.72 1.28
. Service-Leaming 18 3.83 1.15
Student interest _ ,
Non-Servrce-Leamrn g 79 3.77 1.19
, _ Service-Learning 17 3.65 1.45
Community Interest , _
Non-Servrce-Leamrn g 78 3.55 1.37
Service projects appropriate for Service-Leaming 18 3-28 1-44
ANR issues Non-Service Learning 77 3.60 1.19
_ , Service-Learning 17 2.76 1.30
Preparation time , .
Non-Servrce-Leamrng 78 3.64 1.27
Community sites interested in Service-Leaming ‘8 2-63 1-58
ANR SCYVICC learning Non-Service-Leaming 77 3.36 1.28
, , , Service-Leaming 17 2.29 1.31
Administrative Support , ,
Non-Servrce-Leamrn g 78 3.14 l .34
, Service-Leamin g 17 2.24 1.14
Contributes to my research . ,
Non-Servrce-Leamm g 77 2.55 1.26
, , Service-Learnin g 17 2. 18 1.46
Available funding _ ,
Non-Servrce Leamrng 78 3.55 1.31
Service-Learnin g 17 2.00 1.52
Colleagues , ,
Non-Servrce-Leamrng 75 2.53 1.21
Promotion and tenure Service-Leaming ‘7 1'65 ~99
requirements Non-Service-Learning 76 2.36 1.52

 

.5-1.5= unimportant, 1.51-2.5: of little importance, 2.51-3.5=moderately important,

3.51-4.5= important, 4.51-5.0 = very important

Additional comments by faculty are listed in this section and will also be

addressed in Chapter V.

68

Service-learning Faculty:

I couldn’t answer some questions because they were not relevant to my
experience with service learning. I’ve only done service-leaming at my previous jobs not
at MSU.

It’s long, and while I sometimes have students do service-leaming activities, it has
never occurred to me to use the center for it.

I had trouble relating to “experiential learning” as deﬁned in Phase 1. My
definition, as it applied to my teaching over the years would have been something like:
“Experience-based learning where the student gains understanding and motivation
through actual involvement and participation in relevant setting.” Changed behavior is
difﬁcult to measure because it commonly happens long after the actual experience.

In my opinion, SL is extremely valuable & I try to incorporate elements in all.
Non-Service-Learning Faculty:

The course I teach is focused on concepts, models and mathematics _ I don’t see
where service learning would be critical in this course.

This would not ﬁt well in my classes.

Sorry, I don’t think I received this earlier. I’m interested! But I think we have to
work hard to ﬁnd projects that actually serve the community rather than just create work
for the community.

To some extent, we do “service-learning” but not in the sense that you use the
terms. Our students are prepared to serve the community as consulting engineers- for
hire. They deal with clients. They with governmental agencies. Many of our students

will be employees in large companies. In “Senior Design”, the students undertake real-

69

world problems and interact with clients outside academics. Altruism is seldom
accommodated.

Could you provide more information about service-leaming and opportunities.
Thanks.

I have trouble thinking of examples in my field where service learning seems like
a viable option/opportunity.

I plan to implement service learning. I just haven’t found a good time.
Partnerships are important. Student learning is important, meaningful service is
important.

First time to hear service-leaming as a teaching methodology. Would be
interested in learning more about it. Thanks.

I’d rather not continue participating. P.S. we get frequent request to do “work”
off-campus. Logistically mt very feasible, competition w/local businesses, insurance
issues, lack of consistency, etc. are some of the barriers to service learning in this ﬁeld
landscape horticulture.

I’d use service-leaming in a different course structure/charge, especially for FW
majors.

Some of our senior design projects (such as wet land protection) have a
community service component.

At Kellogg Biological Station. Mostly graduate students and interns,
undergraduates at summer school, several colleges represented

My lack of use of these methods is not because I do not value their contribution

to learning. The nature of the course I teach just does not lend itself to these methods.

70

Summary
The ﬁndings for this study were from a mail survey of 107 teaching faculty in the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University. The study
was designed to provide descriptive information on the use of service-leaming by faculty
in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The signiﬁcant ﬁndings from this

study will be presented and discussed in chapter V.

71

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Study Overview
This study was designed to provide descriptive data on the use of experiential
learning, community service, and service-learning by the faculty in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. The mail survey was administered to 107 teaching
faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University.
The research questions which guided the study were: 1) What are the
characteristics of service-leaming faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources in terms of the following: gender, academic rank, tenure status, educational
level, appointment percentages, years taught, and completion of a teaching methods
course? 2). What are the characteristics of non-service-leaming faculty in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources in terms of the following: gender, academic rank,
tenure status, educational level, appointment percentages, years taught, and completion
of a teaching methods course? 3) To what degree are faculty in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources using experiential learning, community service and
service-leaming in their courses? 4) What factors motivated CAN R faculty to integrate
service-leaming into their course curriculum? 5)What factors are important to CAN R
faculty who are integrating service-learning into their courses? 6) To what degree are
teaching faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources familiar with
service-leaming? 7) What factors would be important to motivate CANR faculty who are

not integrating service-leaming to consider its use in their courses? Each of the research

72

questions will be addressed along with the related implications and recommendations for
future research.
Characteristics of Service-Learning Faculty Conclusions

Research Question # 1 What are the characteristics of service-learning faculty in
the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources in terms of the following: gender,
academic rank, tenure status, educational level, years of teaching expereinece, and
completion of a teaching methods course?

The service-learning faculty respondents were primarily male which differed from
the faculty profile in the study by Abes et a1. (2002) and Hammond (1994), where
service-leaming faculty were primarily female. Given that agriculture is a male
dominated discipline, and the respondents were predominantly male, could account for
the higher percentage of male respondents who were using service-learning in their
courses. In this study non- tenured faculty were the predominant users of service-
learning, which was consistent with the ﬁndings of Abes (2002). Service-learning faculty
had attained doctorates( 20.2%), were professors (8.6%) and assistant professors(8.6%)
who had not received tenure (15.2%). This ﬁnding differs from Hammond (1994) who
found that more established and tenured faculty tended to use service-learning. Given the
College of Agriculture has a curriculum that is based on experiential learning the
experienced faculty appear to be using experiential learning methods, rather than
service-leaming which is a relatively new teaching innovation. It would seem that for
faculty in the College of Agriculture the use of service-leaming will be an extension of

existing practices rather than the adoption of an innovation. The challenge will be to get

73

__-.—-

more experienced faculty to change their methods and to re-conﬁgure their courses to
meet the requirements of a service-learning curriculum.

With regard to teaching methods, a higher percentage of service-leaming faculty
had taken a teaching methods course. Among non-service learning faculty a majority
(83%) had not taken a teaching methods course as compared to service-learning faculty
(16.8%). This is consistent with the ﬁndings of Leder and McGuiness (1996) which
stated that faculty are less likely to use experiential methods because they have not
received the training and have not had opportunities to observe experiential methods used
in courses.

Characteristics of Service-Learning Faculty Implications

While the CANR has an experientially based curriculum, with a majority of
faculty using those method, they are not choosing to adopt service-learning as a teaching
methods. The more experienced faculty are continuing to use experiential methods,
while less experienced non-tenured faculty are choosing to use an alternative experiential
teaching method. Given that most of the faculty have not taken a teaching methods
course and that the majority of the faculty are not using service-leaming, it would seem
that teaching methods courses provide teachers with alternative ways of presenting
material.

Characteristics of Service-Learning Faculty Recommendations

A recommendation for this area would be the development of a graduate
curriculum that provides instruction in experiential learning methods or the design of
faculty mentoring opportunities for new faculty to develop the skills needed to design

experientially based courses within the College of Agriculture. This could be

74

accomplished through a collaborative effort with the College of Education to include
teaching methods for all candidates for advanced degrees in the department.

Future study needs to be conducted on the ways in which faculty in the college define
“experiential learning” and “service-learning.” One respondent comments about the use
of the deﬁnition for experiential education in the study and provides an alternative
deﬁnition:

“I had trouble relating to “experiential learning” as deﬁned in Phase 1. My
deﬁnition, as it applied to my teaching over the years would have been something like:
“Experience-based learning where the student gains understanding and motivation
through actual involvement and participation in relevant settings”.

The literature on both service-leaming and experiential learning suggests that
these methods have myriad deﬁnitions and ways in which they are expressed in academic
settings (Hammond, 1994; Knobloch, 2001; Cantor, 1995). The deﬁnitions used for this
study were limited in scope to simplify the questionnaire, and to provide the latitude for
faculty to self-deﬁne and not exclude themselves based on the deﬁnition. Qualitative
studies could be useful in looking at the ways in which CANR faculty describe their use
of experiential teaching methods in the college.

Characteristics of Non-Service-Learning Faculty Conclusions

Research Question # 2 What are the characteristics of non-service-leaming
faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources in terms of the following:
gender, academic rank, tenure status, educational level, years of teaching experience, and

completion of a teaching methods course?

75

The non-service—learning faculty respondents were primarily male which would
be consistent with the ﬁndings of Abes et a1. (2002) and Hammond (1994) that indicated
that the non-service-leaming faculty were primarily male. However, the CANR is a male
dominated college therefore, this ﬁnding does not represent the same impact as a college
that may have a higher representation of female faculty. This would require further
study, which was not the intent of this descriptive research.

The non-service-learning faculty had doctorates (69.1%), were professors (29%)
and assistant professors (23.7%) who were tenured (43.5 %). The non-service-leaming
faculty were split between faculty who had over 20 years of teaching experience (23.9%)
and new faculty with less than 1-5 years of teaching experience (22.7%). This would
indicate that senior faculty and faculty with the least seniority were most often not using
service—leaming. .This ﬁnding differs from Hammond (1994) who found that more
established and tenured faculty tended to use service-learning.

Characteristics of Non-Service-Learning Faculty Implications

In the CANR it appears that the more secure and senior faculty are not using
service-learning, therefore it would seem that faculty either have not been introduced to
service-learning as an option or that faculty are more attached to their traditional method
of teaching. Given that a majority of the non—service-leaming faculty had not taken a
teaching methods course it would seem that staff development seminars might be most
effective for this group.

Characteristics of N on-Service-Learning Faculty Recommendations
A recommendation for this area would be the development of staff development

seminars that address the needs of the tenured, established, traditionally oriented faculty

76

member. It would be instructive to conduct research on the ways in which faculty are
motivated to adopt new teaching methods. It will be important to have established
faculty members using service-leaming as well as the junior faculty. However, further
study needs to be conducted.

Teaching Methods Used by CAN R Faculty Conclusions

Research Questions # 3 To what degree are teaching faculty in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources using experiential learning, community service, and
service-learning in their courses?

Faculty in the college of agriculture tended to use experiential learning more as a
teaching method in CANR (mean=3.36), while community service (mean=1.51) and
service-learning (mean=1.51) were rarely used as teaching methods. Given that the
foundation of much of agricultural education is based in experiential learning (Knoblock,
2001; Cantor, 1995), it would be expected that faculty would use the most familiar
teaching method. Service-learning is a form of experiential learning (Kendall, 1990;
Jacoby, 1996; Wutzdorff & Giles, 1997) and has been a part of university life for over 25
years. The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources has the unique opportunity to
build upon its existing curriculum to encourage greater use of service-leaming by faculty.

Teaching Methods Used by CAN R Faculty Implications

Given that the CANR already has a curriculum that is experientially based
(Knoblock, 2001) it would seem relatively simple to introduce the innovation of service-
learning into the curriculum. This is an advantage over other colleges or disciplines that
do not have the experiential foundation, where faculty have to ﬁrst understand

experiential learning, and then learn to use it. It would seem that the CANR would be the

77

most likely place to find service-learning, and in the study by Abes (2002), agriculture
was represented as one of the disciplines that used service-learning the most. The issue
becomes one of which methods will succeed in getting faculty in the CAN R to adopt
service-learning as another way of extending the experiential curriculum.

Teaching Methods Used by CAN R Faculty Recommendations

The MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources has the opportunity to
build upon its historical use of experiential teaching methods to provide a template for
other colleges of agriculture that share this foundation in hands-on education. The
creation of faculty development seminars that build upon experiential learning may
provide motivation for experienced faculty to attend, because they already have an
understanding of experiential learning. Additional support will be needed for faculty
who do not use experiential methods; they could be accommodated through other
university programs, or through mentoring opportunities with faculty who are using
service-learning and experiential methods.

Further research on service-learning within the context of land-grant institutions
needs to be encouraged. The Kellogg Commission working paper on the engaged
institution, features the role of the land-grant institution, and its mission and service to
communities. This is a pivotal time in the history of the College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources at Michigan State University to highlight its unique history as the
premier land grant institution and to renew its mission as a leader in community outreach

and service through the use of service-learning in the curriculum of the college.

78

Motivational Factors for Service-Leaming Faculty Conclusions
Research Question # 4 What factors motivated CANR faculty to integrate service-
leaming into their course curriculum?

Service-leaming faculty in CANR were most often motivated by student
development needs (mean=4.0). This is consistent with the research by Abes (2002) and
Hammond (1994) on faculty motivation that indicated that service-learning is motivated
primarily by student interest. As faculty design their courses they will look for methods
that will be educative as well as motivational. The service-leaming curriculum when
properly integrated can provide for the needs of both faculty and students.

The faculty indicated that professional development was a motivator
(mean=3.50), however, it is not clear due to the research format of the study whether
faculty attended a service-leaming professional development activity, or if they were
referring to their plan for on-going professional development. Abes (2002) found that
service-leaming faculty were encouraged to use service-leaming through attending
institutional faculty development programs.

Service-learning faculty indicated that departmental need (mean=3.20) provided
motivation for their use of service-leaming. This finding is consistent with Abes (2002)
in that faculty were encouraged to use service-leaming by the departmental chair. The
literature on faculty work in Blackburn & Lawrence (1995) indicated that faculty who
understand their institutional mission or climate may exhibit teaching behaviors that
support the goals or mission of the institution. Therefore, the role of the department in

motivating service-learning faculty is just as important as the role of the college.

79

Service-learning faculty were also motivated by community/stakeholder needs
(mean=3. 14). This is an important aspect of the development of service-leaming. The
curriculum of service-learning is developed in conjunction or partnership with
community members or community representatives. This “voice” provides the focus for
academically enriched service that will meet the authentic needs of the community.
(Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kendall, 1990).

Motivational Factors for Service-Learning Faculty Implications

Although, this study did not list the departmental chairperson as a choice for
motivation, one can infer that the motivation to use service-leaming might be articulated
in some way through the departmental chairperson. The chairperson is representative of
departmental objectives and may have been selected from the teaching faculty in the
college. The chairperson has the background to understand the needs of teaching faculty
and possibly a perspective on the ways in which innovative teaching methods may impact
the faculty. Therefore, if the Chairpersons in the departments became advocates for
service—learning it might increase the likelihood of faculty adopting it as a teaching
method.

Service-learning faculty have indicated that the needs of the students, followed by
the department and community, are all factors that have motivated their use of service-
learning. However, in a broad context I would suggest that faculty have been inﬂuenced
by some aspect of professional development programming and have a basic
understanding of the key components of the service-leaming model, community need,
and student need. In the CANR it will be important to maintain an atmosphere that is

cognizant and supportive of the needs of students and their possible interest in service-

80

learning courses. In a service-learning leadership course that I taught a student wrote a
reﬂection statement:

Service learning is something that many people never take the chance to be a

part in. I took a class at MSU where we volunteered to help an organization in

the E. Lansing or MSU communities. It was truly a good experience and it is
too bad that more people do not take part in classes like ours.

As a college it will be important to ﬁnd out the value of service-learning
through the voices of the students. It would appear those faculties who use
service-leaming in the college are in tuned to the needs of students to connect to
communities through their academic curriculum.

As the college becomes a part of the “engaged institution” there will be
other opportunities to work in partnership with community members to provide
and to understand the ways in which the curriculum of the college can be
supportive of the goals of the communities surrounding the college. The
importance of understanding the mission of land-grant institutions and the College
of Agriculture and Natural Resources will also provide a natural link to the
development of an “engaged” college within the “engaged institution” at
Michigan State University.

Motivational Factors for Service-Learning Faculty Recommendations

However, future research needs to be conducted on faculty understanding of
course material integration of service-learning, student learning, the role of reﬂection,
and the ways in which community voice and partnership development are components of

service-learning curriculum design (Stanton, 1994). Additional research should be

81

conducted in the college to assess the level of service-leaming participation of students in
the college. Given that there are few courses that are listed as service-learning for the
college it would be important to have an understanding of the degree to which students in
the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources are involved in service-leaming
curriculum options.

Important Factors for Service-Learning Faculty Conclusions
Research Question # 5 What factors are important to CANR faculty who are integrating
service-leaming into their courses?

Service-learning faculty indicated that their personal interest (mean=4.32) was an
important factor in integrating service into their courses. This is consistent with the
literature (Bringle & Hatcher, 1997; Hammond, 1994; Stanton, 1994) which indicates
that although student interest is important for sustaining service-learning, it is the faculty
member that is the guiding force for making it happen. The issue then becomes how to
get other faculty members interested in service-leaming.

Service-learning faculty indicated that student interest (mean=3.83) was an
important factor in integrating service-learning into their courses. As stated earlier,
faculty were motivated most often by student interest. As service—leaming faculty seek to
develop their courses the needs of students are of primary concern. This factor is also
consistent with the research conducted by Hammond (1994).

As faculty design courses, they are aware that students also have input into their
evaluation process. This is one of the challenges of assessing teaching outcomes
(Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995) not because students should not be a part of the process,

but because excellence in teaching is subjective. It would stand to reason that faculty

82

would consider the interest level of students in the development of courses. In the CANR
many of the service-leaming faculty (10%)were not tenured, therefore the importance of
student evaluations of their teaching as a factor in getting tenure may impact the course
content.

In service-learning the needs of the community provide the situation for the
academically based service. The understanding of the importance of community was
evidenced by faculty indicating that community interest was an important factor
(mean=3.65) for using service-learning in their courses. This provides support for the
importance of faculty being aware of the community issues that may relate to their
academic discipline. The development of sound service-leaming programs depends upon
the validation of the community voice as an integral part of the design of the curriculum
(Kendall, 1990). The importance of community is a part of the mission of land-grant
institutions and the college rrrission. The importance of community to the development
of service-learning and its relationship to the land-grant mission is important for the
development of service—learning curricula that will reinforce the mission of CANR and
the university at large. College mission (mean=2.76), land-grant mission (mean=2.81),
and university mission (mean=2.88) were within acceptable ranges for importance. This
does not Show the relationship between the mission and service-leaming, but it does
indicate that faculty consider it a part of the process for their service-leaming courses.

Faculty use of service-leaming was also related to the types of service projects
that were relevant for ANR issues (mean=3.28) and community interest in ANR service-
learning (mean=3.28). This is a continuing challenge to assist faculty in providing

service opportunities that are integrated into the course curriculum that is attached to

83

measurable educational outcomes. This study did not look at service-learning curriculum
design, but it is important to understand that faculty want to be involved in service that
can be linked directly to the curriculum in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
Important Factors for Service-Learning Faculty Implications
The promotion of service-leaming in the CANR is contingent upon the interest of
the faculty and its link to students. Students’ interest coupled with faculty interest in the
pedagogy will provide the foundation for the increased use of service-leaming in the
department. In will be important for faculty and administrators to look at ways to
encourage faculty to attend seminars, workshops, and conferences that will provide
exposure to service-leaming and that will provide the motivation to incorporate the
information gained into their courses. This study did not ask faculty to recount when or
where they ﬁrst became interested in service-learning; this information would be useful
to understanding factors that inﬂuenced their personal interest in service-leaming. I
remember the moment that I realized that service-learning was a teaching method that I
would use in my courses. It will continue to be important to understand the factors that
inﬂuence the use service-leaming for individuals.
Important Factors for Service-Learning Faculty Recommendations
It would be informative to present the stories of service-learning faculty about
their entry into service-leaming. In the book Service-Learning: A Movement’s Pioneers
Reﬂect on Its Origins (Stanton et al., 1999) readers get a historical view of the leading
service-leaming educators and advocates in the country and their legacies in service-

learning. I am sure that similar stories exist in CANR departments and the college that

84

would be motivating for faculty who are considering adding a service component to their
courses. Perhaps small informal serrrinars could be held where faculty could discuss with
service-learning faculty the stories of getting started and sustaining service-leaming in
their courses.

Research that is focused on the community perspective is also needed in order to
assist faculty in understanding various communities. There has been renewed interest in
forming community partnerships and with insuring that the “community voice” is heard,
acknowledged, and valued.

Non-Service-Learning Faculty Knowledge Conclusions

Research Question # 6 To what degree are teaching faculty in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources familiar with service-learning?

About 50 percent of the non-service-leaming faculty were aware of service-
leaming prior to taking the survey. The knowledge of service-learning did not translate
into use of service-leaming in their courses as the ﬁndings for teaching methods
indicated. Faculty who are interested in service-learning need sources of support to
engage in new teaching methods (Hammond, 1994; Stanton; 1994). Given that faculty in
the college were using experiential learning it was interesting to read some of the
comments of faculty who were not using service-learning to ascertain the knowledge of
the pedagogy. The most frequent comments related to an inability to see how service—
leaming would ﬁt into their discipline or their course content.

“I have trouble thinking of examples in my ﬁeld where service learning seems
like a viable option/opportunity,” wrote one. Another described the difﬁculty in using

service-learning in a science or mathematics course: “The course I teach is focused on

85

concepts, models and mathematics. I don’t see where service-learning would be critical in
this course.” Another respondent adds, “Ability to use service-learning to course topics
seems difﬁcult to do in a science course.” These comments are important for the creation
of faculty development seminars that will take faculty through the steps of integrating
service into the course content. This ﬁnding is consistent with the factors that Abes
(2002) describes as deterrents to faculty use of service—leaming. Non-service-learning
faculty may not have a way of relating their curriculum to what they perceive service-
leaming would require.

Many of the non-service-learning faculty requested more information on service-
learning. Service-leaming as was mentioned has many models and deﬁnitions, and non-
service-learning faculty may have seen only one model, as evidenced by this comment:
“First time to hear service-leaming as a teaching methodology. Would be interested in
hearing more about it,” and this respondent queried, “Could you provide more
information about service-learning and opportunities?” The faculty who are not using
service-learning may simply need more information and do not know where to locate the
resources to increase their knowledge of service-leaming. Given that most faculty have
multiple assignments it may be a challenge to sort through these resources in an
institution the size of MSU.

Some service-learning faculty were not aware of the support services available on
campus at the Service-Learning Center as evidenced by this comment: “While I
sometimes have students do service-leaming activities, it has never occurred to me to use

the center for it.” Providing informational resources for faculty who may be interested in

86

service-leaming will be key to increasing the use of service-leaming among faculty in the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Non-Service-Learning Faculty Knowledge Implications

The lack of use of service-leaming in the CANR is not indicative of lack of
interest. Many faculty may not know how it ﬁts in their discipline or what resources are
available on campus to help them with the integration of service into their courses. It will
be important for college administrators and service-leaming faculty to provide non-
service-learning faculty with information on the supports available for using experiential
teaching methods.

Non-Service-Learning Faculty Knowledge Recommendations

There needs to be more in-depth study of the knowledge of service-learning
beyond the parameters of this study to determine the informational needs of non-service-
leaming faculty. The Service-Learning Center and Michigan Campus Compact should
continue to promote their services in the college through presenting programs and
providing promotional literature, and service-learning faculty should be encouraged to
share service-leaming information with colleagues.

Important Factors for Non-Service-Learning Faculty Conclusions
Research Question # 7 What factors would be important to CANR faculty who are not
using service-leaming to consider its use in their courses?

In this study non—service-learning faculty were asked to indicate what factors
would be important for them to consider using service-leaming. Non-service-learning
faculty indicated that student interest (mean=3.77) would be an important factor for using

service-learning in their courses. This factor is also consistent with the research

87

conducted by Hammond (1994). As faculty design courses they are aware that students
also have input into their evaluation process. Non-service-learning faculty indicated that
their personal interest (mean=2.55) would be an important factor. The role of community
in the design of service-leaming was recognized by non-service-leaming faculty,
indicating that community interest (mean=3.55) was an important factor. N on-service-
learning faculty indicated that service projects that were relevant for AN R issues
(mean=2.36) and community interest in ANR service-learning (mean=3.36) were
important.

Important Factors for Non-Service-Learning Faculty Implications

Although non-service-leaming faculty indicated that student interest was the most
important factor for including service-learning in their courses I suggest that it would
take more than student interest to encourage non-service-leaming faculty to use service-
leaming. As evidenced by comments such as, “I plan to implement service learning, I
just haven’t found a good time” 58 percent of the respondents felt that lack of time was
an important factor in the decision to use service-learnin g.

It was interesting to see that student interest came ﬁrst for non-service learning
faculty as compared to service-leaming faculty who indicated that their personal interest
was the most important factor.

It is important that community was of importance to faculty who have not
implemented service-learning, but who nevertheless have an understanding that there is a
need to have input from the community. The development of sound service-leaming
programs depends upon the validation of the community voice as an integral part of the

design of the curriculum (Kendall, 1990; Eyler & Giles, 1999).

88

In developing a new program it would be important to start with service projects
that are directly related to the discipline. The integration of the discipline into the service
project can be problematic for faculty without the appropriate faculty development.
Many comments from non-service-leaming faculty centered on the inability to relate the
service to their discipline: “1 have trouble thinking of examples in my ﬁeld where
service-leaming seems like a viable option/opportunity.” Some respondents seemed to
understand the importance of community voice and the way in which it could be
facilitated through an appropriate service project. A non-service-learning respondent
stated, “I think we have to work hard to ﬁnd projects that actually serve the community,
rather than just create work for the community.” Again this study did not include
structured interviews, which would have, provided greater insight into the thoughts of
faculty who were not using service-learning.

Important Factors for Non-Service-Learning Faculty Recommendations

Given that most studies have looked at faculty who are using service-learning, it
would be important to develop a research agenda for the study of the barriers (Giles &
Eyler, 1998). There needs to be greater exploration of the impact of tenure on the use of
service—leaming by faculty. In many instances teaching is not valued as highly as
research and publishing, and faculty are forced to prioritize their research efforts and are
“teaching for tenure” rather than having the opportunity to try innovative teaching
methods that are time intensive. I would also like to see more studies of the knowledge
of service-learning by non-service-leaming faculty and why they do not use it even after
they are aware of it. In this study I was surprised that many of the non-service-leaming

faculty had heard about service-leaming but were not using it.

89

Summary

The service-leaming faculty were primarily male, non-tenured faculty who had
been teaching less than ten years. The faculty in the department used experiential
learning (90.5 %) more than community service (31.3%) or service-leaming (26.5%) as a
teaching method. Service-learning faculty were always motivated by student needs
(56.3%), professional development (25%), departmental need (33.3%), and community
needs (33.3%).

The factors most important to service-leaming faculty were their personal interest
in service—learning, student interest, and community interest. Additionally, faculty
indicated that the college, university, and land-grant missions were also important factors
in using service-learning in their courses (mean=2.8).

In the college, about 52 percent of the non—service-leaming faculty indicated that
they had heard of service-leaming prior to responding to the survey. However, none of
these faculty members were actually using service-leaming in their courses. Therefore, it
becomes increasingly important to understand what will motivate faculty to use service-
leaming after they have heard about it and to investigate the barriers that exist for non—
service-learning faculty.

This study was important to the CANR faculty and administrators who are
interested in the development of programs that will encourage and support the use of
service-learning in the college curriculum. It is hoped that the information gathered from
this study will be useful in designing future studies to further investigate the use of
service-learning in the CANR.

Importance of the Study to the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

90

This study has provided the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources with
greater insight into the level of knowledge that faculty possess regarding service-learning.
It has provided a starting point for understanding the perceived barriers to implementing
service-learning by faculty who have experience in experiential education. Although
most of the faculty used experiential learning as a teaching method, this study indicated
that use of experiential learning does not translate into use of service-leaming.
Additionally, the key to faculty use of service-learning is faculty development seminars
that address the concerns of faculty who are not using service-leaming. Therefore, the
CAN R and ANRECS should institute a series of service-learning faculty development
seminars that address the unique needs of faculty in the college in collaboration with the
MSU Service-Learning Center. In this climate of limited resources, partnerships and
utilizing our own resources will be paramount in continuing to provide educational
enrichment for faculty. Given that faculty indicated that student interest was a major
factor for developing service-leaming, the college should provide a student orientation to
service-learning for incoming students to assess their knowledge of or interest in courses
that would incorporate service—learning.

Opportunities For Further Research

During this study, areas for further research became evident as follows:

1. A quantitative/qualitative study of faculty motivation to use service-leamin g in the
CANR. This would include in-depth analysis of motivational factors for faculty

using service-learning.

91

2. Qualitative study of the ways that faculty describe and use experiential teaching
methods in CANR. This could determine if faculty are using service-leaming and
experiential learning interchangeably.

3. A study of the role of community in the development of service-leaming in the
CANR.

4. A comparative analysis of faculty use of service-learning, experiential learning and
community service in CANR.

Key Recommendations for CANR

l. The creation of a series of service-learning faculty development seminars that
address the curriculum needs of faculty in the college in collaboration with the
MSU Service-Learning Center.

2. The creation of faculty development seminars that provide faculty with an
introduction to teaching methods with emphasis on experiential and service-
learning teaching methods.

3. The development of mentoring relationships between current faculty who are
using service—leaming and those faculty who have expressed an interest in using
service-leaming in their course curriculum.

4. The development of service-leaming courses that are team taught so that the time-
intensive nature of service-learning course development and implementation
would be shared.

5. The institution of funding lines that support the development of innovation in the

course curriculum through the use of service-leaming.

92

10.

The institution of release time for faculty to prepare service-leamin g course
curricula.

The institution of a seminar or elective course for students to introduce them to
service-learning in the Ag curriculum.

The development of an undergraduate and graduate seminar that provides the
history of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Michigan State
University and the relationship of mission to community outreach and service-
learning.

The creation of a collaborative faculty development model for service-learning
implementation that takes into the account the research, teaching, and service
dimensions of faculty work in the College of Agriculture.

The development of a series of seminars in collaboration with community
partners, the CANR, and the MSU Service-Learning Center to encourage college

engagement with the surrounding community.

93

Appendix A

University Committee On Research Involving Human Subjects Letter of Approval

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

May 8. 2003

TO: David KRUEGER
409 Agriculture Hall
MSU

RE: IRB# 02-295 CATEGORY: 1-2 EXEMPT

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: May 8, 2003
EXPIRATION DATE: April 8, 2004

TITLE' A STUDY OF SERVICE LEARNING USAGE BY MSU COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
‘ AND NATURAL RESOURCES FACULTY

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT'S RENEWAL.

This letter notes approval for the change in primary investigator to Dr. David E.
Kruger.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects continuing
beyond this‘date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited
renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit a
5—year renewal application for complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form with the
renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request

referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any
revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

 

or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human
0m“ OF subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
STANDARDS UCRIHS@msu.edu.
Univetsly Committee on ,

Research Involving Sincerely,

lllllllall Subjects ’

Michigm State Univers' . W

202 Olds ml” ﬂ
East Lansing, .
48824 Ashir Kumar, MD.
517/355-2180 UCRIHS Chair
rAx 517/432-4503
BU m.msu.edu/user/ucrihs '
E-Mail: ucrihs@msu.eduAK rt

CC: Julianne Price 94
409 Ag Hall

Appendix B

Survey Instrument

 

 

A Proﬁle Study of Service Learning
Usage in the MSU
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY
C U l. r rift-LI: U "...,
AGRICULTURE
AND NATURAL
RESOURCES

 

 

 

 

May 2002

 

95

 

Dear CANR Faculty:

This study is intended to assess and present the status of experiential learning,
community service and service learning within the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. Your thoughts and experiences will be of great help in gaining a deeper
understanding of the current status and challenges of service learning within the CANR.
We respect your conﬁdentiality by removing any name, university/departmental
information and any other identifying information from your survey. Your participation
in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. You indicate voluntary
participation by completing and returning this survey. Your privacy will be protected

to the maximum extent allowable by law.

The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete.

For this survey, experiential learning, community service and service learning are deﬁned
as follows:

Experiential Learning concerns an individual changing their behavior and previous
conceptions as a result of knowledge gained from an experience.

Community Service is deﬁned as any voluntary student activities that meet important
community needs.

Service Learning is a teaching strategy that uses meaningful community service
combined with guided reﬂection, to enrich and enhance student learning of course

material .

For more information regarding this study, please contact:

Julianne Price Michael Woods, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Assistant Professor
AN RECS ANRECS

409 Agriculture Hall 408 Agriculture Hall
517.355.6580 517.355.6580 x 202
pricejul @msu.edu mwoods@msu.edu

96

Part I

 

1. Do you teach courses for academic credit in the College

of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR)?

Yes No

If yes: Proceed to Part II

If no: Thank you for your time. This survey is directed at
those that teach in the College of Agriculture and Natural

Resources. If you would please return the survey, we will
remove your name from the research database.

 

 

 

Part 11

Directions: Circle the number that best reﬂects your view of the following questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. To what extent do you utilize the following § E g g E ,5, a:
teaching methods? 2 g :2 E g ‘5 5

a. Experiential Learning 1 2 3 4 5

b. Community Service 1 2 3 4 5

c. Service Learning 1 2 3 4 5

 

If you have used service learning in your course(s) go to Part 111.

If you have NOT used service learning in your course(s) go to Part IV.

97

Part III - Answer questions 3 —9 if you have used service learning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Who was responsible for the service content 8 g
of your course(s)? r. _>,a E a? g,
2 2 '5 o a
° “ ‘e’ r 3-
z m e e <3
VJ >
Faculty 1 2 3 4 5
Student 1 2 3 4 5
Community org/recipients 1 2 3 4 5
MSU Service Learning Center 1 2 3 4 5
Advisory committee 1 2 3 4 5
Other (Specify): l 2 3 4 5
4. How often do you utilize the following service g
learning elements in your course(s)? h >. 2 81’: 9.
2 -= c a
z :2 E E“ “a
m >
Class discussion prior to service 1 2 3 4
Class drscussron on servrce prOject throughout 1 2 3 4 5
course
Class drscussron after completion of servrce 1 2 3 4 5
project
Discussion with community recipients 1 2 3 4 5
Student service learning journals 1 2 3 4 5
Discussion with community organization 1 2 3 4 5
5. How do you evaluate student learning of
. 8 r:
course content based on the servrce ,_ >. E g a
experience? 3 E '5 O G
‘3’ «I g >. E.
Z a 9 3'3 ‘13
m >
Exam 1 2 3 4 5
Student Journal 1 2 3 4 5
Final Paper 1 2 3 4 5
Presentation 1 2 3 4 5
Portfolio 1 2 3 4 5
Product (specify) 1 2 3 4 5
Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

98

 

 

 

6. What motivated you to integrate service
learning into your curriculum?

Never

Rarely

Always

 

Publication/Article on service learning

 

Conference presentation

 

University program

 

Colleague

 

Community/Stakeholder need

 

Departmental need

 

Professional development

 

Student development need

 

M.S.U. Service Learning Center

 

 

My scholarly research

 

i—Lp—Aﬂp—tp—Lp—Ap—tp—Lp—tp—a

 

NNNNNNNNNN

 

uuuuuwuuuu Sometimes

 

aaaaauaaaa VeryOften

 

UIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUI

 

 

7. How important were the following factors in
deciding to utilize service learning in your
course(s)?

Unimportant

Of little importance

Moderately Important

Important

Very Important

 

Administrative support

 

Available funding

 

Colleagues

 

College mission

 

Community interest

 

Community sites interested in ANR service
learning

 

Contributes to my research

 

Desire to engage external stakeholders

 

Land-Grant mission

 

Need for student civic engagement

 

Personal interest

 

Preparation time

 

Promotion and tenure requirements

 

Service Jrojects appropriate for AN R issues

 

Student interest

 

 

University mission

 

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

NNNNNNNNNN N NNNNN

 

MWWMMMMMMM 03 0303030303

 

hhhéhhh-BA-h R h-Bkvh‘i

 

UIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUI UI UIUIUIUIUI

 

99

 

 

 

8. How are students prepared for the service
learning activity?

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Always

 

Formal orientation in class

 

Formal orientation at service learning site

 

Faculty presentation

 

Written materials

 

Presentation by community representative

 

Video

 

Students that have participated in service
learning activity

 

MSU Service Learning Center

 

 

Other (specify):

 

HHHF—‘HHHHH

 

NN N NNNNNN

 

U03 U uuumum

 

8A a gang‘s-e- VeryOften

 

UIUI UI UIUIUIUIUIU'I

 

 

9.In your opinion, students exposed to service
learning in your course improved their:

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

 

Problem solving skills

 

Civic mindedness

 

Leadership skills

 

Character development

 

Motivation for learning

 

Interpersonal skills

 

Team building skills

 

Oral communication skills

 

Written communication skills

 

Critical thinking skills

 

Content knowledge

 

Academic achievement

 

Knowledge of career opportunities

 

Awareness of diversity issues

 

 

Other (specify):

 

HHHHHHﬂHHﬂl-‘HHHH

 

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

 

WWWMUMUUUQMMMMM

 

#hhhhhbbhhh-hA-bh

 

UIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUI

 

Go to Part V — page 7

100

 

 

Part IV

 

Yes_ No

 

10. Prior to this survey, had you heard of service learning?

 

 

Answer question 11 if you have NOT used service learning.

 

l 1. How important would the following factors
be in your decision to use service learning in
your curriculum?

Unimportant

Of little importance

Important

Very Important

 

Administrative support

 

Community interest

 

Student interest

 

Personal interest

 

Available funding

 

Promotion and Tenure Requirements

 

Community sites interested in CANR service
learning

 

Service projects appropriate for CANR issues

 

Preparation time

 

Lack of time to implement service learning

 

More information on service learning
pedagogy

 

Contributes to my research

 

Colleagues

 

 

Other (specify)

 

ﬂﬂﬂap‘p‘y—tﬂmp—tp—Ap‘p—ip—i

 

N NN N NNN N NNNNNN

 

u mu m mum u mummuu ModeratelyImportant

 

h 55 & &A& B &&&&&A

 

UI UIUI UI UIUIUI UI UIUIUIUIUIU'I

 

Go to Part V - page 7

101

 

Part V Demographics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__ Animal Sciences
__ ANRECS

__ Crop & Soils Sciences
_ Entomology

__ Fisheries and Wildlife

Food Science & Human Nutrition
Note: (If your appoint resides in two departments please indicate here
(place a check mark and identify both departments)

Gender _ Male
_ Female

Please indicate your academic rank _ Professor
__ Associate
_ Assistant

Instructor

Please identify your academic appointment? _ Tenure system
__ Fixed term

Are you tenured? _ Yes
_ No

Please indicate your highest degree completed. _ Ph.D.

(check one) _ Master
_ Bachelor

Which department is your appointment?

_ Agricultural Economics __ Forestry

_ Agricultural Engineering _ Horticulture

_ Park, Recreation &
_Tourism Resources
__ Plant Pathology

_ Resource Development
_ School of Packaging
__ Other:

 

 

 

 

 

Please indicate your appointment _ Extension

percentages (should equal 100%) _ Teaching
__ Research
__ Administrative

Have you ever completed a _ Yes

teaching methods course? _ No

How many years have you _ 1-5 years

taught? _ 6- 10 years
_ 11-15 years
__ 16- 20 years
_ 20 + years

 

102

 

Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Your assistance in providing this

information is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to share any additional comments you
feel would be appropriate for this study.

Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After completing the survey, please return to us by putting the survey into campus
mail.

Again, thank you for your time and assistance with this study.

103

Appendix C
Initial Survey Cover Letter

May , 2002
Dear CANR Faculty,

This study is intended to assess and present the status of experiential learning, community service
and service learning within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Your thoughts and
experiences will be of great help to gaining a deeper understand of the current status and
challenges with service learning within the CANR.

We respect your conﬁdentiality by removing any name, university/departmental information and
any other identifying information from your survey. Participation in this survey is voluntary; and
you may choose to withdraw at any time, or to answer only certain questions. You may
discontinue the experiment at any time without penalty or loss of beneﬁts to which the subject is
otherwise entitled. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by submitting
completing and returning this survey. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

For more information regarding this study, please contact:

Julianne Price Michael Woods, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Assistant Professor
ANRECS ANRECS

409 Agriculture Hall 408 Agriculture Hall
517.355.6580 517.355.6580 x 202
pricejul@msu.edu mwoods@msu.edu

If you have any questions about your rights as a study participant you may contact:

Michigan State University
Ashir Kumar, MD
Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 355-2180
(517) 432-4503 fax
e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

Thank you for your time and assistance with this survey.

Best regards,

Julianne Price Michael Woods

104

Appendix D
First Follow Up Postcard

May 24, 2002

About two weeks ago, a questionnaire was sent to you regarding your use of experiential
learning, community service, and service-leaming in the courses that you teach .

If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire to us, please accept our
sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. We are especially grateful for your assistance,
because it is only by asking people like you to share your experiences that we can assess
and present the status of these teaching methodologies in the College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. ,

If you did not receive a questionnaire, or it has been misplaced please call Julianne Price
at (S 17) 272-9584 and we will get another one in the mail to you today.

Julianne Price Michael Woods, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Assistant Professor
AN RECS ANRECS

409 Agriculture Hall 408 Agriculture Hall

105

Appendix E
Second Follow Up Letter

June 11, 2002
Dear CANR Faculty,

About three weeks ago we sent a questionnaire to you that asked about your experience and knowledge
of service- learning, experiential learning and community service. To the best of our knowledge, it’s not
yet been returned.

The comments of faculty who have already responded include a wide variety of reasons for using or not
using service-leaming. We think the results are going to provide a useful background for understanding
the usage of this teaching method in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

As stated in the initial letter sent to you, this study is intended to assess and present the status of
experiential learning, community service and service- learning within the College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. Your thoughts and experiences will be of great help in gaining a deeper
understanding of the current status and challenges of implementing service- learning within the CANR.

This questionnaire is directed at those who teach in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. If
you are not teaching in the college, please complete Part I of the questionnaire or phone Julianne Price at
(517) 272-9584 so that we can delete your name from the mailing list.

We respect your confidentiality by removing any name, university/departmental information and any
other identifying information from your survey. Participation in this survey is voluntary; and you may
choose to withdraw at any time, or to answer only certain questions. You may discontinue the
experiment at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled. You
indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by submitting completing and returning this survey.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

We hope that you will ﬁll out and return the questionnaire soon, but if for any reason you prefer not to
answer it, please let us know by returning the questionnaire with Part I completed or phoning Julianne

Price at (517) 272-9584 and your name will be removed from the mailing list.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,
Julianne Price Michael Woods, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Assistant Professor
ANRECS ANRECS
409 Agriculture Hall 9 408 Agriculture Hall
517.355.6580 517.355.6580 x 202
pricejul@msu.edu mwoods@msu.edu

106

Appendix F
Third and Final Follow Up Letter

August 28, 2002
Dear CANR Faculty,

During the summer we sent a questionnaire to you that asked about your experience and
knowledge of service- learning, experiential learning and community service. We hope
that you will take the time to respond to the questionnaire. You possibly were not on
campus during the summer months to receive the mailing, and to the best of our
knowledge, it has not been returned.

The comments of faculty who have already responded include a wide variety of reasons
for using or not using service-learning. We think the results are going to provide a useful
background for understanding the usage of this teaching method in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.

As stated in the initial letter sent to you, this study is intended to assess and present the
status of experiential learning, community service and service- learning within the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Your thoughts and experiences will be of
great help in gaining a deeper understanding of the current status and challenges of
implementing service- learning within the CANR.

This questionnaire is directed at those who teach in the College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. If you are not teaching in the college, please complete Part I of the
questionnaire or phone Julianne Price at (517) 272-9584 so that we can delete your name
from the mailing list.

We respect your conﬁdentiality by removing any name, university/departmental
information and any other identifying information from your survey. Participation in this
survey is voluntary; and you may choose to withdraw at any time, or to answer only
certain questions. You may discontinue the experiment at any time without penalty or
loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by submitting completing and returning this survey. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

107

We hope that you will ﬁll out and return the questionnaire soon, but if for any reason
you prefer not to answer it, please let us know by returning the questionnaire with
Part I completed or phoning Julianne Price at (517) 272—9584 and your name will be
removed from the mailing list.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,
Julianne Price Michael Woods, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Assistant Professor
ANRECS ANRECS
409 Agriculture Hall 408 Agriculture Hall
517.355.6580 ' 517.355.6580 x 202
pricejul@msu.edu mwoods@msu.edu

108

Bibliography

Abes, E. S., Jackson, G. & Jones, S. R. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty
use of service—learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9, 5-
17.

Antonio, A. L., Astin, H. S., & Cress, C. H. (2000). Community service in higher
education: A look at the nation’s faculty. Review of Higher Education, 23(4),
373-397.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. & Razavieh, A.(1996). Introduction to research in education.(5‘h
ed.) Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.

Astin, A.W., Sax, L.J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long term effects of volunteerism during the
undergraduate years. Review of Higher Education, 22920,187-202.

Bacon, N. A. (1997). The transition from classroom to community contexts for writing.
Unpublished Dissertation, University of California, Berkley.

Batchelder, T. H., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate
academic learning and service: Cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identify
outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 341-355.

Bergkamp, V. (1996). Fanning the embers: Service learning in catholic colleges and
universities. Unpublished Dissertation, University of St. Thomas.
I
Berman, G. L. (1999). Antecedents and strategies for the successful implementation of
service learning programs in higher education. Unpublished Dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Bernstein, R. J. ( 1967). John Dewey. New York: Washington Square Press.

Berson, J. S., & Younkin, W. F. (1998). Doing well by doing good: A study of the eﬁ’ects
of a service-learning experience on student success. Paper presented at the
American Society of Higher Education, Miami, FL.

Blackburn, R. T. & Lawrence J. H. (1995). Faculty at Work : Motivation, Expectation,
Satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Blackwell, A. P. (1996). Students’ perceptions of service learning participation in the

college of health and human sciences at the university of southern Mississippi.
Unpublished Dissertation. The University of Mississippi.

109

Boss, J. A. (1994). The effect of community service on the moral development of college
ethics students. Journal of Moral Development, 23(2), 183-198.

Boyer, E. L. (1994). Creating a new American college. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, A48, March.

Boyle-Baise, M. (1998). Community service learning for multicultural education: An
exploratory study with preservice teachers. Equity and Excellence in Education,
31(2), 52-60.

Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of service-leaming in higher
education. Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 273-290.

Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (1997). Engaging and supporting faculty in service
learning. Journal of Public Service and 0utreach,2,43-51.

Burr, K. L. (1997). Problems, politics and possibilities of a progressive approach to
service learning in a community college: A case study. Unpublished Dissertation.
Oklahoma State University.

Cantor, Jeffrey A. (1995). Experiential learning in higher education: Linking classroom
and community. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports n07 p. 1-102

Campus Compact. (2000). Highlights and trends in student service and service learning:
Statistics from the 1999 member and faculty survey. Campus Compact,
Providence, RI.

Campus Compact (2002). Essential service-leaming resources: Deﬁnitions of service-
leamin g. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://
www.compact.org/resource/Slres-deﬁnitions.html.

Cohen, J. (1994). Matching university mission with service motivation: Do the
accomplishments of community service match the claims? Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 1(1), 105-109.

Cohen, J. & Kinsey, D. F. (1994). Doing good and scholarship: A service-learning
study. Journalism Educator, 48(4), 4-14.

Conrad, D. & Hedin, D. (June, 1991). School-based community service: What we know
from research and theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 743-749.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for
service-learning: comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students,

110

community, and institutions. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
3, 66-71.

Dunkin, M. J. (1986). Research on teaching in higher education. In the Handbook on
research on teaching (3rd ed) (p.754-777). New York: Macmillan.

Eyler, J ., Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where ’s the Learning in Service-Learning? San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Eyler, J ., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Braxton, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning on
college students. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 5-15.

Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., & Shinnamon, A. F. (1998). Health Professions Schools
in Service to the Nation: Final Evaluation Report. San Francisco, CA:
Community Campus Partnerships for Health.

Giles, D. E. & Eyler, J. S. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory
on students’ personal, social and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17,
327-339.

Giles, D. E. & Eyler, J. S. (1994). The theoretical roots of service-leaming in John
Dewey: Toward a theory of service-leaming. 1(1), 77-85.

Giles, D. E. & Eyler, J. S. (1998). A service learning research agenda for the next ﬁve
years. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 65-71.

Gorman, M. (1994). Service experience and the moral development of college students.
Religious Education, 89(3), 422-431.

Gray, M. J ., Ondaatje, E. H., Fricker, R., Geschwind, S., Goldman, C. A., Kaganoff, T.,
Robyn, A., Sundt, M., Vogelgesang, L., & Klein, S. P. (1998). Coupling Service
and Learning in Higher Education: The Final Report of the Evaluation of the
Learn and Serve America, Higher Education Program. Washington, DC: The
RAND Corporation.

Greene, D. & Diehm, G. (1995). Educational and service outcomes of a service
integration effort. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 54-62.

Hammond, C. (1994). Integrating service and academic study: Faculty motivation and
satisfaction in Michigan higher education. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 1, 21-28.

Hammond C. (1994) Integrating service and academic study: Faculty motivation and

satisfaction in Michigan higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

111

Hones, D. F. (1997). Preparing teachers for diversity: A service-leaming approach.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.

Hudson, W. (1996). Combining community service and the study of American public
policy. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 33-42.

Ikeda, E. K. (2000). How reﬂection enhances learning in service-leaming courses.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.

J acoby, B., & Associates. (1996). Service-leaming in Higher Education: Concepts and
Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, S. D., & Bozeman, M. (1998). Service learning and the development of social
responsibility. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Central States
Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Jordan, K. L.( 1994). The relationship of service—learning and college student
development. Unpublished Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.

J uhn, G., Tang, J ., Piessens, P., Grant, U., Johnson, N., & Murray, H. (1999), Community
learning: the reach for health nursing program-middle school collaboration.
Journal of Nursing Education, 38(5), 215-221.

Keen . C. & Keen. J. (1998). Banner Student Impact Survey. Bonner Foundation.

Kendrick, J. R. (1996). Outcomes of service-learning in an introduction to sociology
course. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 72-81.

Kendall, J. C. (1990). Combining Service and Leaming: Volumes I and II. Raleigh, NC:
National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.

Kollross, C. A. (1997). Service learning and citizenship: Is there a connection?
Unpublished Thesis, California State University, Long Beach.

Knobloch, Neil A.(2001) Grounding new dimensions in experiential leaming.The
Agricultural Education Magazine ,v. 73 n06, p. 14-15

Kraft, R. J ., & Swadener, M. (Eds.). (1994). Building Community: Service-leaming in
the Academic Disciplines. Denver, CO: Colorado Campus Compact.

Kraft, R. J. (1996). Service learning: An introduction to its theory, practice and effects.
Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 131-159.

112

Leder, D. & McGuinness, I. (1996). Making the paradigm shift: Service learning in
higher education. [Electronic Version] Metropolitan Universities, Summer, 47-56.

Lelle, M. A. (1996). The community service mission of the private liberal arts college: A
study at Albion college. Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State University.

Mabry, J. B. (1998). Pedagogical variations in service-leaming and student outcomes:
How time, contact and reﬂection matter. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 5, 32-47.

Mandell, N. (1995). Integration of community service with academic courses in
Connecticut institutions of higher education. Unpublished Dissertation,
University of Connecticut.

Markus, G. B., Howard, J. P. F., & King, D. C. ( 1993). Integrating communication
service and classroom instruction enhances learning: results from an experiment.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 410-419.

Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (February,
2002). Mission statement.

Miller, J. (1994). Linking traditional and service-leaming courses: outcome evaluation
utilizing two pedagogically distinct models. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 1, 29-36.

Morris, P. V., Pomery, J. & Murray, K. E. (2002). Service-Leaming: Going beyond
traditional extension activities. Journal Of Extension [online version], 40,1-4.

Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1996a). Effect of a comprehensive service-learning program on
college students’ level of modern racism. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 3, 44-54.

Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1996b). Effect of service-leaming on college students’ attitudes
toward international understanding. Journal of College Student Development,
37(6), 659-668.

Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1998). Effect of a comprehensive service-learning program on
college students’ civic responsibility. Teaching Sociology, 26, 243-258.

National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. (1995). Urban
Community Service at AASCU and NASULGC Institutions: A Report on
Conditions and Activities. Washington, DC.

Nnakwe, N. E. (1999). Implementation and impact of college community service and its

effect on the social responsibility of undergraduate students. Journal of Family
and Consumer Sciences, 91(2), 57-61.

113

Osborne, R. E., Hammerich, S., & Hensley, C. (1998). Student effects of service-
learning: tracking change across a semester. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 5, 5-13.

Payne, C. A. & Bennett, E. B. (1999). Service-leaming and changes in involvement
preferences among undergraduates. NASPA Journal, 37(1), 337-348.

Roose, D., Daphne, J ., Miller, A. G., Norris, W., Peacock, R., White, C., & White, G.
(1997). Black Student Retention Study: Oberlin College. Oberlin, OH: Oberlin
College.

Sagaria, M. A. D. & Burrows, J. M. (1995). Higher education urban community service:
from periphery to core? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Saltmarsh, J. (1996). Education for critical citizenship: John Dewey’s contribution to the
pedagogy of community service learning. Michigan Journal of Community
Service-learning, Fall (3), 13-21.

Shastri, A. (1999). Investigating content knowledge gains in academic service-leaming:
a quasi-experimental study in an educational psychology course. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montral, PQ Canada.

Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical Reasoning for the Behavioral Sciences.(3rd
ed.)Needham Heights,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Shumer, R. & Belbas, B. (1996). What we know about service learning. Education and
Urban Society, 28(2), 208-223.

Siebold, M. L. (1998). An assessment of a community service program for allied health
students. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Sarasota.

Siscoe, D. S. (1997). Service learning in 4-year public colleges and universities:
Programs, proﬁles,problems, and prospects. Unpublished Dissertation. University
of North Texas.

Sigmon, R. (1979). Service-leaming: three principles. Synergist, 8(1).

Simon, L. A. (1999). Constructive and complex tensions in the art of engagement.
Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 4,(2), pp.2-6.

Smith, M. (1994). Community service-leaming: striking the chord of citizenship.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1, 37-43.

114

Smith, M. J. (1988). Contemporary Communication Research Methods. Belmont,
CA:Wadsworth.

SPSS (2001). Statistical Package for Social Sciences. (version 11.0)[Computer Software]
ChicagozPrentice-Hall.

Stanton, T. K. (1994). The experience of faculty participants in an instructional
development seminar on service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 1, 7-20.

Stanton, T., Giles, D. E., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Service-leaming: A Movements Pioneers
Reﬂect on its Origins, Practice, and Future. San Francisco, CA: J ossey- Bass.

Strage, A. (2000). Service-learning: enhancing student learning outcomes in a college
level lecture course. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 5-13.

Tartter, V. C. (1996). City College Report to FIPSE. New York: City College Research
Foundation.

The National and Community Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 125010990).

Vogelgesang, L. J. & Astin, A. W. (2000). Comparing the effects of service-leaming and
community service. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 25-34.

Wade, R. C., Anderson, J. B., Yarbrough, D. B., Pickeral, T., Erickson, J. B., & Kromer,
T. (1999). Novice teachers’ experiences of community service-learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(6), 667-684.

Wang, W. (2000). Service learning: is it good for you? Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Conference
Roundtable, New Orleans, LA.

Ward, K. (1996). Service-leaming and student volunteerism: reflections on institutional
commitment, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 55-65.

Waring, A. L. (1995). Urging students to serve: Organizational change in three
universities. Unpublished Dissertation, Stanford University.

Woods, M. (2002). Cultivating agricscience through service learning. The Agricultural
Education Magazine v. 74 n05 (Mar./Apr. 2002) p. 26-7.

Woods, M. (2002). Service learning in agriculture communication programs:A national
proﬁle study. Proceedings of the 2002 International Agricultural Communicators
in Education Meeting, Savannah, GA.

115

Wutzdorff, A. J. & Giles, D. E. (1997). Service-leaming in higher education. In J.
Schine(Ed.). Service-Leaming. (pp. 105-1 17). Chicago,IL: The National Society
For the Study of Education.

Zawacki, K. G. (1997). Personal and family factors related to service learning in an
undergraduate course on diversity. Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State

University.

Zlotkowski, E. (1996). A new voice at the table? Linking service-leaming and the
academy. Change, J anuary-February, 21-27.

116