l‘h...‘

 

 

17-1'13‘35‘3
;.

LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES OF
SERVICE-LEARNING PEDAGOGIES

presented by

JOSH P. ARMSTRONG

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration

 

 

i

 

‘ Maflir Pr‘efessor’sfiignature

l0 lie 104
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

._.-,_.-t-.-._.-.-.-.-.-.-o--.--

-.-.-.--- -o-o-o-I-o-o-

cn-o-a-.-----c-u--o-n----0-0-0-I-°-I-‘-'-‘-‘-‘-“ -‘-'-"‘“

 

 

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

 

0 2005

M 1.
K1

film

 

i‘z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES
OF SERVICE-LEARNING PEDAGOGIES

By

Josh P. Armstrong

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2004

ABSTRACT

DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES
OF SERVICE-LEARNING PEDAGOGIES

By
Josh P. Armstrong

This study explored the psychosocial development outcomes of service-
leaming from three distinct models: ongoing continuous service throughout a
semester in co-curricular service-Ieaming; one time, intensive week-long spring
break service-Ieaming trips; and ongoing service through a semester of
academically-based service-leaming. A control group of students who had no
involvement in service-leaming was used for comparative purposes. The
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA; Winston, Miller,
& Cooper, 1999b) was administered to college students involved in each of the
three types of service-leaming and the control group to examine the Developing
Autonomy Task and the Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task, as
well as the various subtasks that provide specific components of the larger
developmental tasks. This instrument was administered as a pretest at the
beginning of the academic semester, and then again at the end of the academic
semester as a posttest to determine the developmental differences.

The findings indicated that there were significant developmental
differences among the three service-leaming pedagogies. In particular, the
results suggested that, based on the SDTLA Developmental Tasks, the Spring
Break Service-Leaming pedagogy had statistically significant psychosocial

development gains. In addition, on the SDTLA Developmental Subtasks,

participants involved in the Co-curricular Service-Leaming pedagogy showed the
greatest gains in psychosocial development. The Academically-based Service-
Leaming pedagogy had no statistically significant psychosocial development
gains. Implications for service-Ieaming practitioners include further

understanding of the developmental outcomes of these service-leaming types.

Dedicated to Shawna for her unrelenting support and patience,

and to my parents, for fostering in me a curiosity for life and a love for learning.

iv

Acknowledgements

My doctoral studies and this research in particular would not have been
possible without the support of many people.

I would first like to thank my advisor, Dr. Marilyn Amey for her challenge,
support, and insightful guidance during this dissertation. I would also like to
thank my colleagues at Calvin College who supported me in my studies and
assisted me in various phrases of this project. In particular, John Witte, Rick
Zomer, Melisa Hubka, Jeff Bouman, Don DeGraff and Helen Sterk. I would also
like to thank the students and faculty that participated in the study.

There are many friends and family who have deeply enriched my life. I
would like to thank my parents, Bruce and Angie, for encouraging me along the
way; my mentors, Jim Waller, Jerry Sittser, and Robert Nash, for encouraging me
to find my academic voice; and my close friends, Aaron McMurray, Matt Boles
and Bryan Stanfill, for joining me on this incredible journey.

Most importantly, I’d like to acknowledge the contribution of my dear
family. My children, Aiden and Eli, who may not remember the late nights but
provided constant motivation to complete this project (before soccer games).
And to my wife, Shawna, who has sacrificed and supported, provided

encouragement and kept the family going. Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLE .................................................................................................. Ix

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. XI

CHAPTER ONE: SERVICE-LEARNING 8: DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
DEFINITION OF SERVICE-LEARNING .................................................... 2
TYPES OF SERVICE-LEARNING ............................................................ 5
Co-curricular service-leaming .......................................................... 6
Academically-based service-leaming .............................................. 7
Alternative spring break trips ........................................................... 8
OUTCOMES OF SERVICE-LEARNING ................................................... 9
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................................................... 1 1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING ................................................................... 1 5
SERVICE-LEARNING LITERATURE ...................................................... 20
Civic & Social Responsibility Development ................................... 21
Academic Development ................................................................. 23
Personal & Social Development .................................................... 26
VARIOUS SERVICE-LEARNING PEDAGOGIES ................................... 28
THEORIES OF PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ............................... 33

Vector 3: Moving through Autonomy to Independence .................. 38

Vector 4: Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships ............. 39
SERVICE-LEARNING AND CHICKERING'S THEORIES ....................... 40
SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... 41

CHAPTER THREE: DATA AND METHODS

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................... 43
POPULATION AND SAMPLE ................................................................. 44

The service-leaming setting .......................................................... 45
DESIGN ................................................................................................... 46
INSTRUMENT .......................................................................................... 50

Validity of the SDTLA .................................................................... 54

Reliability of the SDTLA ................................................................. 55
PROCEDURES ........................................................................................ 56
DATA ANALYSES ................................................................................... 59
LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................... 60

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE ........................................................... 62
DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA ANALYSIS ............................................. 65
RESULTS OF THE FIRST HYPOTHESIS TESTED ................................ 66
RESULTS OF THE SECOND HYPOTHESIS TESTED ........................... 74

vii

RESULTS OF THE THIRD HYPOTHESIS TESTED ............................... 76

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ....................................................................... 78

CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 80
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................................................... 81
STUDY POPULATION AND SAMPLE .................................................... 83
STATISTICAL METHODS ....................................................................... 84
FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................. 84

First Research Question ................................................................ 85

Second Research Question ........................................................... 98

Third Research Question ............................................................. 101
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .......................... 107
SUMMARY OF THE STUDY ................................................................. 110
REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 1 1 2
APPENDICES ........................................................................................ 119

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: SAMPLE BY SERVICE-LEARNING PEDAGOGY .............................. 64

TABLE 2: GENDER. CLASS 8: GENDER BY SERVICE-LEARNING
PEDAGOGY ...................................................................................................... 65

TABLE 3: MEAN & STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR DEVELOPING
AUTONOMY AND DEVELOPING MATURE INTERPERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS TASK ..................................................................................... 67

TABLE 4: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DEVELOPING
AUTONOMY TASK ............................................................................................. 68

TABLE 5: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DEVELOPING MATURE
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS ................................................................ 68

TABLE 6: POST-HOC TUKEY RESULTS FOR DEVELOPING
AUTONOMY TASK ............................................................................................. 69

TABLE 7: MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ACADEMIC AUTONOMY,
EMOTIONAL AUTONOMY, INSTRUMENTAL AUTONOMY AND

INTERDEPENCE SUBTASKS ........................................................................... 70
TABLE 8: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR INTERDEPENDENCE

SUBTASK ...................................................................................................... 70
TABLE 9: POST-HOC TUKEY FOR INTERDEPENDENCE SUBTAKS ............. 71
TABLE 10: MEAN & STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR PEER RELATIONSHIPS
SUBTASK & TOLERANCE SUBTASK ............................................................... 72
TABLE 11: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TOLERANCE SUBTASK .............. 72
TABLE 12: POST-HOC TUKEY RESULTS FOR TOLERANCE SUBTASK ....... 74

ix

LIST OF TABLES
(cont’d)

TABLE 13: MEAN & STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR DEVELOPING
AUTONOMY AND DEVELOPING MATURE INTERPERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS TASK ..................................................................................... 75

TABLE 14: MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ACADEMIC AUTONOMY,
EMOTIONAL AUTONOMY, INSTRUMENTAL AUTONOMY AND
INTERDEPENCE SUBTASKS ........................................................................... 76

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: A SERVICE AND LEARNING TYPOLOGY ........................................ 5
FIGURE 2: SPECTRUM OF SERVICE-LEARNING EXPERIENCES ................. 29
FIGURE 3: STUDENT DEVELOPMENTAL TASK AND LIFESTYLE
ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 53
FIGURE 4: STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT SDTLA DIFFERENCES ACROSS
THE SERVICE-LEARNING PEDAGOGIES ........................................................ 78
FIGURE 5: ACADEMIC SERVICE-LEARNING .................................................. 95

xi

CHAPTER ONE
SERVICE-LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES

Service-leaming is a pedagogy that combines academic learning with
meaningful student community service (Kendall, 1990). It is a form of
experiential education that has its theoretical roots in the works of John Dewey
(1916, 1927, 1938). In the beginning of the 20th century, John Dewey's theory of
education promoted the inclusion of experiential learning in all forms of education
(Giles, 1991 ). His work focused on “principles of experience, inquiry, and
reflection as the key elements of a theory of knowing in service-leaming” (Giles &
Eyler, 1994b, p.79). Despite the respect for Dewey, experiential education did
not gain credibility in the academy, and service-leaming did not fully bloom until
the 19603 and then had a decline until the 19803 when community service and
service-Ieaming began to make a resurgence.

The service-leaming movement in higher education is gaining momentum
on campuses throughout the country. For nearly two decades, the National
Society of Experiential Education (NSEE) has actively promoted service-leaming
as a legitimate pedagogy and an educational philosophy. Two major national
organizations encourage and support service-leaming. Campus Compact, a
coalition of college and university presidents, and the Corporation for National
Service, a federal government agency, report data that give some indication of

the popularity of service-leaming. With the creation of Campus Compact in

1985, service-leaming programs have blossomed on American college
campuses. Campus Compact reported that among its 900 member schools,
33% of students on campus were involved in service projects in the 2001-2002
academic year, 59% report that the number of students participating in service
has increased over the past year, and the average percentage of graduating
seniors who participated in service on member campuses was 46% (Campus
Compact, 2002). The Corporation for National Service’s Learn and Serve Higher
Education programs have funded service-leaming grants for many college and
universities. One evaluation of Learn and Serve Higher Education programs
found that during a three-year period, fiscal years 1995-1997, schools developed
about three thousand new service-leaming courses (Gray et al., 1998). In 1997,
these courses served a median number of sixty students per program.
Furthermore, in the past twenty years, nearly 20% of the institutions of higher
education have initiated formal service-leaming programs on their campuses
(Korbin & Nadelman, 1995). In spite of this growth, the full impact of service—
leaming on aspects of the undergraduate student experience, including aspects
of student development is not well documented. This study examines one aspect
of service-leaming: whether three distinct service-leaming pedagogies impact

student psychosocial development differently.

Definition of Service-Leaming

Service-leaming is still evolving and has not yet settled into a shared

vocabulary, a set of common theories, and a generally accepted approach to

validation. This has encouraged a great deal of experimentation, but has also
lead to some difficulty in constructing one definition for all service-Ieaming
programs. For purposes of this study, service-leaming is defined as “a form of
experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human
and community needs together with structured opportunities intentionally
designed to promote student leaming and development. Reflection and
reciprocity are key concepts of service-leaming” (Jacoby, 1996, p.5). Unlike
traditional volunteerism, service-Ieaming includes an opportunity for focused
reflection, which helps produce learning outcomes. it emphasizes focused
student learning through meaningful community action, and reciprocity between
student and service recipient. For example, if students collect trash out of an
urban wetland, they are providing a service to the community as volunteers.
When students collect trash from an urban wetland, then analyze what they have
found and uncover possible sources of pollution to share with the community,
they are engaging in service-leaming. In the service-leaming example, students
are providing an important service to the community and learning about water
quality, developing an understanding of pollution issues, and learning to impact
community policies. In this way, service-leaming on college campuses is often
offered imbedded within an academic course in which credit is given or as a co-
curricular program.

Although there is no one definition of service-leaming found in the

literature (Luce et al., 1988), the four criteria used by the Commission on

National and Community Service of 1990 have become widely accepted. A

service-leaming program provides educational experiences:

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

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

3. That provide students with opportunities to use newly acquired
skills and knowledge in real-life situations in their own communities.

4. That enhance what is taught in school by extending student
learning beyond the classroom and into the community, and that
help foster the development of a sense of caring for others. (Cohen
& Kinsey, 1994; Kraft & Swadner, 1994)

Eyler and Giles (1999) integrate many of these experiences into their definition:
service-Ieaming is a form of experiential education where leaming occurs
through a cycle of action and reflection as students work with others
through a process of applying what they are learning to community
problems and, at the same time, reflecting upon their experience as they
seek to achieve real objectives for the community and deeper
understanding and skills for themselves. (p. 4)

In this process, students link personal and social development with academic

and cognitive development.

Robert Sigmon (Jacoby & Associates, 1996) proposed a useful service
and learning typology for understanding four different variations of service-
leaming found at colleges and universities. Sigmon suggests that service-
leaming can be distinguished in terms of what aspect of service and/or learning
is being emphasized. For example, “service-LEARNING” implies that learning
goals are primary and service outcomes secondary; “SERVICE-leaming,” in
which the service agenda is central and learning secondary; “service learning” in
which the absence of the hyphen indicates that the two are viewed as completely
separate from each other", and “SERVICE-LEARNING” in which service and
learning goals are of equal weight and the hyphen between the words is “critical
in that it symbolizes the symbolic relationship between service and learning
(Jacoby, 1996).

Figure 1: A Service and Learning Typology.

 

service-LEARNING Learning goals primary; service
outcomes secondary

 

SERVICE-leaming Service outcomes primary; learning
goals secondary

 

 

 

service learning Service and learning goals separate
SERVICE-LEARNING Service and learning goals of equal
weight; each enhances the other for all
participants

 

 

Source: Sigmon (1996)
Types of Servicheamigg
Through Sigmon’s typology one can begin to identify the different

pedagogical methods of utilizing service-Ieaming in education. Jacoby and

 

Associates (1996) call for student affairs administrators to develop a “spectrum of
service-leaming experiences” designed for students at different points in their
education and development. They offer five options for involvement in service-
leaming: one-time and short-tenn service-leaming experiences; on-going co-
curricular service-leaming; service-leaming in the curriculum; intensive service-
learning experiences; and service-leaming experiences for post-college.

Through the service-leaming literature, it is clear that three distinct methods of
delivering service-leaming are most commonly used. While given various names
at different postsecondary institutions, for the purpose of this study these
methods are entitled co-curricular service-leaming, academically-based service-

leaming, and alternative spring break trips.

Co-curricular service-learning

The first method to be explored is co-curricular service-leaming, which is
defined as service-leaming that a student voluntarily participates in during the
course of a semester. Students on many campuses have regular participation in
a service-leaming site chosen by the college. Many of these students choose to
be involved in service-leaming to further their educational experience, provide
desirable vocational experience or to give back to the community (Astin & Sax,
1998). The sites chosen by the educational institutions provide opportunities for
community service and include an aspect of leaming and reflection on this
experience. The types of service opportunities often associated with co-

curricular service-leaming include tutoring disadvantaged students, working in

non-profit thrift shops, cooking or serving at homeless shelters, or mentoring
youth in programs like Big Brother/Big Sister. The students involved in this study
participated in co-curricular service-leaming for 2-4 hours a week, throughout the

semester.

Academically-based service-Ieaming

The second type of service-Ieaming to be examined is academically-
based service-leaming, which is defined as a service-leaming experience that is
a required and integral component of an academic course. Service-leaming has
been integrated across disciplines into the curriculum. This is most successful
when it is used to meet course objectives. As faculty begin to evaluate the links
between the service experience and academic content of their courses, they may
explore educational goals related to environmental consciousness,
multiculturalism and diversity, peaceful resolution of conflict, and community
building. Academically-based service-Ieaming also induces faculty to consider
how their discipline, as well as their teaching and research, relate to social issues
and problems. According to the Campus Compact member survey (2002),
campuses report that 11% of faculty integrate community service with academic
study or research. These faculty cite promoting engaged learning, facilitating
student learning of course content, and development critical thinking skills as key
incentives for integrating service with academic study (Compact, 2002). On
average 21.6% of faculty offer service-leaming courses on each Campus

Compact member campus. These campuses have an average of 30.3 courses

that integrate service and academic leaming. These courses span the breadth of
a university’s curriculum including courses from the departments of English, Art,
Music, Social Work, Political Science, Business, Economics, Education and
Biology. For this study, students in the courses with academically-based service-
leaming were required to participate in a service-leaming project with between
15-25 hours of service over the course of the semester. Depending on the
course, the service-leaming hours were administered in various ways. For
example, some students may participate in a tax preparation program for low-
income workers for a Business course, or a reading enrichment project at a local

elementary school for an Education course.

Alternative spring break trips

The third type of service-leaming examined is service-leaming spring
break trips or alternative spring breaks (ASB). These trips take a group of 12-20
students and faculty/staff mentors to various sites both nationally and
internationally for an intensive service-leaming experience. Participation in
alternative spring breaks is voluntary and students are typically selected for
participation by a student planning team based on an application and interview
process. Students are typically selected and trained during the latter part of the
fall semester and the service-leaming trip occurs during the spring break of the
second semester. The service-leaming experience last about 7-9 days and
takes place in a variety of service locations across the United States and abroad.

For example, the alternative spring break program of one institution had groups

participating in service-leaming opportunities in Gallup, New Mexico; Knoxville,
Tennessee; Kansas City, Missouri; East Palo Alto, California; and Dade City,
Florida. The service on these trips focused on one of the following areas of work:
Habitat for Humanity house building, working in half-way houses, women’s
shelters, or homeless missions. The participants are typically undergraduate
students from a variety of academic majors. As in other service-leaming
opportunities, college faculty and administrative staff participate in the service
projects as well as the processing discussions and reflection activities.

The growth of service-leaming programs has been widely discussed in the
literature. The outcomes of service-leaming, as well, have been prevalent in the
literature but only modestly demonstrated in a handful of empirical studies.
Service-leaming is experienced in various settings for students in higher
education including co-curricular and curricular environments. The outcomes of
these different types of service-leaming need to be documented and more fully
understood in order for higher education to embrace this pedagogy and

philosophy as a potential paradigm shift for higher education.

Outcomes of Service-Leaming
There is a wide range of research studies that suggest that service-
leaming may have an impact on the growth and development of students in a
variety of ways. Service-leaming has been cited as a means to positively affect
students’ sense of social responsibility and citizenship skills (e.g., Astin, Sax, 8

Avalos, 1999; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Rhoads, 1997). It has also been reported as

a way to influence students’ interpersonal development and ability to work well
with others, leadership, and community skills (e.g., Dalton & Petrie, 1997; Mabry,
1998). Not surprisingly, service-leaming has been found to have a positive effect
on students’ commitment to service (e.g., Giles & Eyler, 1994; Payne, 2000).
Finally, service-leaming has been shown to enhance students’ personal
development such as sense of personal efficacy, personal identity, spiritual
growth, and moral development (e.g., Rhoads, 1997; Vogelgesang & Astin,
2000).

The majority of these studies is limited to curricular based service-leaming
and have a variety of limitations in the methodology and study design. Many of
the studies employ small and under representative samples, and poor
methodology and design. They also have not adequately defined the different
types of service-leaming experience utilized. The extent to which the various
types of service-leaming influences student outcomes needs to be more
thoroughly studied and documented if service-leaming is to experience further
growth in higher education.

The Campus Compact (1998) recently published a national research
agenda for the field of service-leaming. Among the priorities listed was the
further understanding of the outcomes of the different methods for delivering
service-leaming. Partly in response to this document, the present study sought

to address the developmental outcomes of service-leaming pedagogies.

1O

Statement of the Problem

From the literature, it is clear that types of service-leaming models need to
be more fully explored in terms of outcomes for students (Campus Compact,
1998). Therefore, this study investigated the outcomes of service-leaming from
three distinct models: ongoing continuous service throughout a semester in co-
curricular service-leaming; one time, intensive week-long spring break service-
leaming trips; and ongoing service through a semester of academically-based
service-leaming. This study investigated one particular student outcome,
psychosocial development, among college students involved in three different
types of service-leaming.

This was achieved by administering to college students involved in one of
the three types of service-leaming the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle
Assessment (SDTLA; Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999b). This instrument was
devised to measure students on several developmental vectors defined by
Chickering and Reisser (1993). The psychosocial development of young adults,
the age group of traditional college students, is of particular interest for those
working in college student affairs. The education of the “whole person” is seen
as a fundamental goal of student affairs practitioners. Theories, such as
Chickering’s (seven vectors) student development theory, have been widely used
by student affairs officers to more clearly focus the student development agenda
of their programs (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). According to Chickering
(1969/1978; Chickering & Reisser, 1993), the seven vectors represent pathways

to development as opposed to stages of development. Furthermore, it was

11

postulated that students move along each vector at different times and at varying
paces, but eventually all journey each vector. Thus, Chickering theorized that
students move from a lower point of development to a higher point of
development within each vector as a result of their own individual life
experiences. Chickering’s seven vectors (revised version) are defined as
“developing competence”, “managing emotions”, “moving through autonomy
toward interdependence”, “developing mature interpersonal relationships”,
“establishing identity", and “developing purpose” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p.
38-39). Given its wide acceptance and recognized value to student affairs work,
Chickering’s theory (1969/1978; Chickering & Reisser, 1993) served as a
framework for the psychosocial development as measured by the Student
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA; Winston, Miller, &
Cooper, 1999b).

The specific research questions that are explored in this study are: Do
students involved in distinct types of service-leaming have different psychosocial
development outcomes? Are the student psychosocial development outcomes
different for students who participate in service-leaming and those who do not?
Does the spring break service-leaming pedagogy lead to developmentally distinct
outcomes when compared to the other service-leaming types?

Chapter One introduced the importance of service-leaming in
postsecondary education and identified the research questions to be addressed.
Chapter Two provides a synthesis and critical analysis of the literature related to

service-leaming and further exploration of the literature supporting psychosocial

12

development as an important aspect of college student development. Chapter
Three describes the methodology of this study through explaining the hypotheses
tested, a thorough description of the design and procedures undertaken, and a
review of the data analysis techniques employed. Chapter Four begins with a
description of the sample, and is followed by a complete presentation of the data
collected. Chapter Five concludes with a restatement of the problem,
hypotheses, population and sample, statistical methods, independent and
dependent variables. In addition, the findings, implications, and final

recommendations are reported.

13

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Over the past fifteen years, a service-Ieaming movement has arisen from
college and university campuses across the United States. Hundreds of colleges
and universities have initiated formal programs coupling students’ service
activities with curricular and co-curricular learning opportunities. For purposes of
this study, service-Ieaming is defined as “a form of experiential education in
which students engage in activities that address human and community needs
together with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student
Ieaming and development. Reflection and reciprocity are key concepts of
service-Ieaming” (Jacoby, 1996, p. 5). Several bodies of literature and theory
have given shape to this study of service-Ieaming. These include many aspects
of service-Ieaming, including the history, principles of and standards for service-
leaming programs, as well as the theoretical foundations of student development
and psychosocial outcomes. These served as a starting point and guide for this
study.

The literature has been organized in three general areas. First, the
historical foundations of the service-Ieaming movement are explored. The
theorists and frameworks that contributed to the birth of service-Ieaming are
thoroughly examined. Second, the recent service-Ieaming literature is reviewed
with particular attention given to outlining the outcomes associated with service-

leaming. Outcome variables are reviewed in terms of civic and social

14

responsibility, academic development, and personal and social development.
This literature review also explores the strengths and weaknesses of these
studies, building an argument for the present study undertaken. Further
examination is made of the spectrum of service-Ieaming experiences as
presented by Delve, Mintz, and Stewart (1990). The three different pedagogies
for facilitating service-Ieaming are presented in terms of the characteristics that
make each of these three types of service-Ieaming unique. Finally, the theories
that provide the foundation for psychosocial development are explored. In
particular, Chickering’s model of student development is examined, as it provides
the framework for the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment

(SDTLA; Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999b).

Experiential Learning: Roots for Service-Leaming

It is written that service-Ieaming is “a concept with long, sturdy roots”
(Hepburn, 1997). This is indeed correct, as there have been proponents of what
we now call service-Ieaming for the past hundred years (Dewey, 1938; Dunn,
1907; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Freire, 1963; Kolb, 1984; Piaget, 1952). However,
these long roots are also tangled, coming from different traditions and having
different definitions. At its simplest, service-Ieaming is an experiential education
technique where students take the knowledge, skills, and abilities that they learn
in college courses or in their lives and apply them by providing needed

community service. It is a pedagogical approach for those working in

15

postsecondary education to allow students to learn experientially (Jacoby, 2003).
This leads us to uncover the “root of experiential Ieaming.”

Learning, even self-directed Ieaming, rarely occurs “in splendid isolations
from the world in which the learner lives; . . . it is intimately related to that worid
and affected by it” (Jarvis, 1987, p.11). These thoughts by Jarvis point us to
experiential Ieaming. Experiential Ieaming is, as Michelson (1996) suggests,
arguably one of the most significant areas for current research and practice in
education. The term experiential learning is often used both to distinguish the
ongoing meaning making from theoretical knowledge, and nondirected informal
life experience from formal education. The notion of experiential Ieaming has
been appropriated to designate everything from instructional activities in the
classroom to special workplace projects interspersed with critical dialogue led by
a facilitator, to Ieaming generated though social action movements, and even to
team-building activities in the wilderness (Fenwick, 2000).

As pedagogy, service-Ieaming is education that is grounded in experience
as a basis for Ieaming. Likewise, experiential Ieaming is Ieaming through doing.
It is a process through which learners construct knowledge, acquire skills, and
enhance values from direct experience (Association of Experiential Education,
1995). Dewey (1938), Piaget (1952), and Lewin (1951) stand as the foremost
intellectual ancestors of experiential Ieaming theory.

Service-Ieaming is a form of experiential education whose pedagogy rests
on principles established by Dewey (1938), Piaget (1952), and other experiential

Ieaming theorists early in this century (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Learning occurs

16

through a cycle of action and reflection, and Dewey was convinced that Ieaming
is a wholehearted affair, linking emotions and intellect. Dewey believed an
educative experience is one that fosters student development by capturing
student interest because it is intrinsically worthwhile and deals with issues that
students are genuinely curious about discovering (Giles & Eyler, 1999).
According to Dewey, the traditional teaching method provided “experiences
which were . . . largely of the wrong kind. How many students, for example, were
rendered callous to ideas, and how many lost the impetus to learn because of the
way in which Ieaming was experienced by them?. . . How many associate the
Ieaming process with ennui and boredom?” (Dewey, 1938, p. 26-27). It was
through experiential Ieaming in a classroom that students would achieve true
Ieaming and develop the skills needed to participate in a democracy (Dewey,
1938). Dewey believed an idea can only be understood when it can be
reproduced on demand. He believed that by directing students toward
demonstrating concern for other people, increased Ieaming would take place.
Dewey’s call for “progressive" education is well documented and has been
integrated into higher education in the form of apprenticeships, internships, study
abroad programs, service-Ieaming, cooperative education and field projects.
Swiss biologist Jean Piaget (1952) proposed a model of cognitive
development that adds to this understanding of the importance of experience in
Ieaming. While behaviorists viewed humans as passive respondents to
environmental conditions, Piaget argued that people are active processors of

information. They do not merely respond to events around them, but manipulate

17

these events and learn from what occurs. Piaget believed that it is through this
interaction with their physical and social environment that children learn and
develop cognitively.

Another influential tradition of experiential Ieaming stems from the
research on group dynamics by the founder of American social psychology, Kurt
Lewin. Lewin’s (1951 ) work on group dynamics and the methodology of action
research have had practical significance for experiential Ieaming and service-
leaming. In addition, Lewin’s concern for the integration of theory and practice
were folded into the principles of experiential education.

Based on the work of Dewey (1938), Piaget (1952), and Lewin (1951),
David Kolb’s concept of the experiential Ieaming cycle (1984) is useful in
explaining the role of service-Ieaming as an important aspect of experiential
education. In elaborating on the importance of experience and reflection in
Ieaming, Kolb’s model of experiential Ieaming (Kolb, 1984) was developed to
show the important role experience could have in a person’s Ieaming. Kolb’s
ideas on experiential Ieaming are recognized as important in the discourse of
service-Ieaming because his model links theory to practice. Kolb looked to
describe Ieaming as a process through which knowledge is transformed through
experience. His model outlines the Ieaming experience as a constantly revisited
four-step cycle: concrete experience, reflection on the experience, synthesis and
abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Although one may enter
the cycle at any point, a person engaged in service-Ieaming often begins with

concrete service experience and then embarks on a personal reflection of that

18

experience, analyzing what actually occurred and what implications arise from
those observations. In the next step, reflection stimulates the learner to integrate
observations and implications with existing knowledge and to formulate concepts
and questions to deepen the learner’s understanding of the world and the root
causes of the need for service. In the fourth step of the model, the learner tests
these concepts in different situations. This experimentation leads the learner to
begin the cycle again and again (Jacoby, 1996).

Experiential education was a precursor to the service-Ieaming movement.
Freire, one of the recent leaders of experiential education, said that development
of political consciousness was central to instructing adults in literacy. Education
was not just about Ieaming to read, but Ieaming to question the conditions that
left many without access to education, economic opportunity, or political power
(cited in Eyler & Giles, 1999). Freire said, “If I do not love the world—if I do love
life—if I do not love man—l cannot enter into dialogue. Dialogue, when there is
nothing in common, seems unlikely if I do not care about my neighbor”
(Translated by ME. Ramons, 1963, p. 78). Students’ involvement in service-
leaming could be seen as an act of bridging a culture grounded in individualism.
Rhoads (1997) believes service-Ieaming experiences foster an ethic of care
among students and teachers that contributes to community building where
people care about others, about the idea of community, and see themselves
connected to one another. Further, Rhoads (1997) affirms the belief that the

college years are instrumental moments for the development of a sense of self

19

and the development of the whole person. Some service-Ieaming research

attests to this growth and development in the college years.

ServiceoLeaming Literature

There is a wide range of research studies that suggest that service-
leaming may have an impact on the growth and development of students in a
variety of ways. Service-Ieaming has been cited as a means to positively affect
students’ sense of social responsibility and citizenship skills (Astin 8 Sax, 1998;
Astin, Sax, 8 Avalos, 1999; Dalton 8 Petrie, 1997; Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon 8
Kerrigan, 1996; Eyler 8 Giles, 1999; Eyler, Giles, 8 Braxton, 1997; Giles 8 Eyler,
1994; Kendrick, 1996; Mabry, 1998; Myers-Lipton, 1998; Rice 8 Brown, 1998;
Rhoads, 1997). It has also been reported as a way to influence students’
interpersonal development and ability to work well with others, leadership, and
community skills (Astin 8 Sax, 1998; Dalton 8 Petrie, 1997; Eyler 8 Giles, 1999;
Giles 8 Eyler, 1994 Mabry, 1998; Rhoads, 1997). Not surprisingly, service-
leaming has been found to have a positive effect on student’s commitment to
service (Astin 8 Sax, 1998; Astin, Sax, 8 Avalos, 1999; Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon
8 Kerrigan, 1996; Eyler 8 Giles, 1999; Eyler, Giles, 8 Braxton, 1997; Giles 8
Eyler, 1994; Markus, Howard, 8 King; 1993; Payne, 2000; Payne 8 Bennett,
1999; Rhoads, 1997; Western Washington University, 1994). Finally, service-
leaming has been shown to enhance student’s personal development such as
sense of personal efficacy, personal identity, spiritual growth, and moral

development (Astin 8 Sax, 1998; Astin, Sax, 8 Avalos, 1999; Boss, 1994; Eyler,

20

Giles, 8 Braxton, 1997; Eyler 8 Giles, 1999; Giles 8 Eyler, 1994; Rhoads, 1997;
Vogelgesang 8 Astin, 2000).

However, the state of the research on service-leaming is mixed. Some of
the research and literature reviews have been prepared as a way to bolster
support for service-Ieaming, and often there are few attempts to discuss the
negative or inconclusive results. The research can by divided into three impacts
in three broad areas—civic and social responsibility development, academic

development, and personal and social development.

Civic 8 Social Resmnsibility _D_evelopme£t

As mentioned earlier, service-Ieaming has a positive effect on a sense of
social responsibility and citizenship skills. A variety of studies have been
conducted that examine the impact of different types of service on the civic
attitudes of the participants.

Barber et al. (1997) conducted a national study that looked at the short-
terrn civic effects of a number of different service-Ieaming programs. Most
programs dealt with college age students, and these programs included both
college service-Ieaming programs as well as AmeriCorps programs. The
researchers found broad preferences for a participatory view of democracy for all
service-leamers, and a significant increase in self-estimation of civic skills among
college service-Ieaming volunteers. They also discovered a small improvement
in the average score on a civic participation scale for service-Ieaming students

compared to non-service-Ieaming volunteers.

21

Morgan and Streb (2002) examined the change in political participation for
students involved in service-Ieaming. They discovered that students reported
that they discussed politics more frequently after the service project. Similarly,
they were more likely to report that in the future, they would serve on a jury if
asked, participate in programs to help people, contact public officials about
issues and to always vote in elections. The key mediating variable in this
analysis was the level of student leadership in designing and implementing the
service project. For example, the students who were most involved in
implementing the service-Ieaming project stated they were most likely to be
politically involved.

In a large study that examined the impact of participation in service-
leaming on college students, Astin and Sax (1998) noted that students who
decided to be involved in service experienced a greater growth in their
commitment to helping others as well as their conflict resolution skills.
Involvement in service-Ieaming was also found to be related to a more positive
self assessment of the college students’ political participation skills and political
efficacy (Eyler 8 Giles, 1999).

In a study of the outcomes for student volunteers of Learn and Serve
America, Higher Education, a national service program consisting of grants given
to higher education institutions, the researchers examined how service affected
student development in the areas of civic responsibility, educational attainment,
and life skills (Sax 8 Astin, 1997). The results indicated that the students

involved in service-Ieaming were different from the nonparticipants when they

22

came to college (Sax 8 Astin, 1997). Related to civic responsibility, the study

found;
On all twelve measures, service participants indicated higher levels of
civic responsibility than nonparticipants. The most dramatic differences
are in the areas of commitment to serving the community, planning to
conduct volunteer work in the near future, commitment to participating in
community action programs, and satisfaction with the opportunities for
community service provided by the college. In fact, a full 60 percent of
service-Ieaming participants (compared with 28 percent of other students)
believed their commitment to serving their communities had become
‘stronger’ or ’much stronger’ during college. These service-Ieaming
participants also were significantly more likely than nonparticipants to be
committed to influencing social values, helping others in difficulty,
promoting racial understanding, influencing the political structure, and
getting involved in environmental cleanup. These differences are
consistent with the expectation that service participation will have a
favorable impact of students’ sense of civic responsibility. (p. 49)

Despite these findings by Sax and Astin (1997) that support civic responsibility as

an outcome of service-Ieaming, there remains a need for further understanding

and explanation of the impacts of service-Ieaming on civic responsibility.

Academic Development

In the review of literature, there is some evidence to suggest that

participation in service-Ieaming programs may influence grades and academic

23

Ieaming in college students. In a study of college students participating in
service-Ieaming that is one of the few experimental designs, Markus and
colleagues (1993) randomly assigned sections of an American Politics course to
be involved in service-Ieaming, with the other sections serving as the control
group. Service-Ieaming students were significantly more likely to report that they
applied the principles that they learned in class, and they achieved significantly
better grades.

Cohen and Kinsey (1994) studied an undergraduate mass communication
and society course. Students found the service-Ieaming component most helpful
in understanding two key course concepts: audiences and messages. They
found the service-Ieaming less helpful in understanding a third course concept,
institutions. In testing the effects of service on college ethics students, Boss
(1994) found that service-Ieaming methods effectively moved students further
along the continuum of moral development. On post-test, students in the
service-Ieaming section scored significantly higher on their Defining Issues Test
(DIT) than the non-service-leaming control group. Most of the service-Ieaming
students were found to be using principled moral reasoning, as compared to only
13% of the control group. Miller (1994) noted that service-Ieaming
undergraduate students in two psychology courses reported that they were better
able to solve real-world problems. These comparative course section studies,
though not definitive, suggest that service-Ieaming enhances academic

development.

24

In a larger study of college students, Astin and Sax (1998) found that
participation in service-Ieaming was positively related to students’ grade point
average as well as their graduation rate. Looking at high school students,
Morgan (1998) noted that students were more interested in attending college
after they had participated in a service-Ieaming class. This study, unfortunately,
lacked a control group.

In a qualitative study, Eyler and Giles (1999) interviewed students to
assess their problem solving skills. Over the course of a semester, students in
service-Ieaming classes in which service and academic study were continuously
and closely linked showed significantly more change in the complexity of their
problem analysis. Students in these integrated academically-based service-
leaming courses were also more likely to apply subject matter knowledge to their
problem analysis.

Batchelor and Root (1994) sought to examine the influence of service-
leaming and student moral cognitions through the decision making process
students used in response to needs, and the level of reasoning used. Student
journals were scored for prosocial decision-making, prosocial reasoning, and
occupational identity processing skills. The study found significant gains for the
service—Ieaming students on these factors. However, this was a relatively small
study with forty-eight students each involved in the treatment and control groups.

Although students who perform volunteer service during college do
somewhat better on their graduating GPA than those who do not, service is not

necessarily linked to the classroom or particular academic subjects (Astin 8 Sax,

25

1998). It is quite possible that the relationship between service and grades
occurs because better students are more likely to involve themselves in service;
in fact previous studies have found this to be true (Fitch, 1991; Serow 8 Dreyden,
1990).

Unfortunately, there are various methodological limitations to these
studies. Astin and Sax (1997) compared students who decided to be involved
with service-Ieaming with those who did not decide to do service. Studies like
this ignore that the students who decide to become involved in service-Ieaming
may differ in significant ways from students who do not chose to serve others.
Finally, other research shows no academic Ieaming effects from participation in

service-Ieaming (Hudson, 1996; Kendrick, 1996; Parker-Gwen 8 Mabry, 1998).

Personal 8 Social Development

A large amount of the service-Ieaming research has focused on the
impact of participation on the personal development of the student. In fact, there
is more substantial evidence in the literature for an impact of service-Ieaming on
personal growth and development than on most other outcomes (Eyler 8 Giles,
1997; Waterman, 1997). Unfortunately, some of the research still has suffered
from weak research design, lack of control groups or serious sample selection
issues where the researcher only looks at “high quality” programs. Nevertheless,
there are some trends that emerge in terms of personal growth from involvement
in service-Ieaming. In the national evaluations of the “high quality” service-
leaming programs funded by the Corporation for National and Community

Service, there were a number of positive outcomes. Students reported an

26

increase in their perceived communication skills (Melchior, 1997). This was
measured using questions adapted from the Greenberger Psychosocial Maturity
Scale, Communications Subscale, which included questions like “I feel
comfortable speaking up in class discussions.”

Astin and Sax (1998) looked at how participating in service-Ieaming
affected college students. Using data from five cohorts from 1990 through 1994,
Astin and Sax found that the students involved in service-Ieaming reported an
improvement in interpersonal skills, leadership skills, social self-confidence and
conflict resolution skills. Unfortunately, this study did not have students assigned
to a treatment or control group; Astin and Sax (1998) simply looked at the
change in attitude of the students who decided to become involved in service.

Eyler and Giles (1998), using a quasi-experimental design, examined the
impact of service-Ieaming on 1100 college students-involved in service,
compared to 400 who were not. There were positive effects on students’
personal development as well as interpersonal skills. Specifically, Eyler and
Giles found that students report service-Ieaming contributes to greater self-
knowledge, spiritual growth, and finding reward in helping others. They write,
“service-Ieaming is a predictor of an increased sense of personal efficacy,
increased desire to include service to others in one’s career plans, and increased
belief in the usefulness of service-Ieaming in developing career skills over the
course of a semester” (Eyler 8 Giles, 1999, p. 55).

Boss (1994) used an experimental design to determine whether

participation in service-Ieaming would influence the moral development of college

27

students. Students were randomly selected from one section of the class and
required to complete twenty hours of community service each semester as well
as keep a journal. Students involved in the service scored significantly higher on
a battery of questions related to moral reasoning compared to the students not

involved in the service.

Various service-Ieaming pedagogies

Service-Ieaming is a pedagogy that combines academic Ieaming with
meaningful community service (Kendall, 1990). However, there are various
pedagogies or methods to deliver service-Ieaming in a postsecondary setting.
One of the dilemmas facing educators interested in service-Ieaming is
understanding the developmental outcomes of these various service-Ieaming
pedagogies. The Service Learning Model of Delve, Mintz, and Stewart (1990)
describes a “spectrum of service-Ieaming experiences“ designed for students at
different points in their education and developmental stage. Delve, Mintz and
Stewart build their model on the work of Perry (1970), Kohlbeg (1975), and
Gilligan (1982). The model identifies five phases, each of which is impacted by a
variety of developmental variables. The five phrases include: (1) exploration, in
which students demonstrate an eagerness to participate in service with little
focus on what they would like to accomplish; (2) clarification, in which students
continue to explore service experiences and begin to clarify their own personal
values; (3) realization, in which students begin to experience a change in their

orientation, Ieaming about themselves and their community; (4) activation, in

28

which students begin to understand more complex social issues and seek to
influence these issues; and (5) internalization, in which students integrate their
experience into their lives and make more long-tenn commitments toward their
personal and career goals.
Delve, Mintz and Stewart (1990) offer five options for involvement in service-
leaming: one-time and short-term service-Ieaming experiences; on-going co-
curricular service-Ieaming; service-Ieaming in the curriculum; intensive service-
leaming experiences; and service-Ieaming experiences for post-college. This
model suggests a continuum of service-Ieaming in which traditional community
service experiences, when properly designed, become progressively more
meaningful in terms of the potential Ieaming outcomes.

Figure 2

Spectrum of Service-Leaming Experiences
(Delve, Mintz 8 Stewart, 1990)

 

 

 

I I I I I
One-time On-going Co-curricular Academically-based Intensive Integrating Experience PostcoIIege
Service Service-Ieaming Service-Ieaming Service-Ieaming

 

At many colleges and universities, students are introduced to service-
leaming through participation in one-time or short-tenn experiences. They may
begin their college career by doing service for a day through an orientation
program or preparing and serving meals at a homeless shelter with a new
residence hall community. Well-planned and well-orchestrated introductory

experiences can serve as a foundation for all other types of service-Ieaming.

29

 

Indirect, nondirect, and direct modes of service (Delve, Mintz, and Stewart, 1990)
provide students with opportunities to reinforce previous service experiences,
explore the community in which the institution is located and gain new insights
about themselves and others through experience and reflection on that
experience. The first steps into service-Ieaming can help move students to take
further action and add focus to their courses of study.

The tradition of co-curricular service-Ieaming is a long standing one in
higher education. From fraternity and sorority philanthropic activities to
organizations affiliated with campus ministries, community service has long been
an integral part of student life outside the classroom (Jacoby, 1996). Many
colleges and universities are seeking to develop more co-curricular service-
leaming experiences for students and service—Ieaming educators are attempting
to include the key elements of reflection and reciprocity in the design of these
programs. This requires intentional thought and planning can enable Ieaming to
take place in co-curricular service-Ieaming experiences.

Academically-based service-Ieaming, which is defined as a service-
leaming experience that is a required and integral component of an academic
course, has taken various forms in postsecondary education. It may be a
significant course requirement, a stand-alone service-Ieaming module, a link
between service and leadership courses, integrated into the core curriculum, a
graduation requirement or a piece of a disciplinary capstone project. As Jacoby
(1996) suggests, “courses employing service-Ieaming encourage students to ask

the larger questions that lie beyond the bounds of most traditional courses. Not

30

only does service-Ieaming have the potential to help students learn the content in

a particular discipline, it also asks students to consider the context of a discipline

and how its knowledge base is used in practice” (p. 156). In some institutions

where service is a significant course requirement, a set of criteria has been

developed for official designation as a service-Ieaming course. The Lowell

Bennion Community Service Center at the University of Utah established the

following criteria for its designated service-Ieaming courses;

1.

Students in the class provide a needed service to individuals,
organizations, schools, or other entities in the community.

The service experience relates to the subject matter of the course.
Activities in the class provide a method or methods for students to think
about what they learned through the service experience and how these
leamings related to the subject of the class.

The course offers a method to assess the Ieaming derived from the
service. Credit is given for the Ieaming and its relation to the course, not

for the service alone.

. Service interactions in the community recognize the needs of service

recipients, and offer an opportunity for recipients to be involved in the

evaluation of the service.

. The service opportunities are aimed at the development of the civic

education of citizens even though they may also be focused on career

preparation.

31

7. Knowledge from the discipline informs the service experiences with which
the students are involved.

8. The class offers a way to learn from other class members as well as from
the instructor. (Service Learning Scholars Program, as cited in Jacoby,

1 996)

Through these criteria, one gets a sense of the intentional and thoughtful nature
of Ieaming through academically-based service-Ieaming experiences.

Intensive service-Ieaming programs in which student immerse themselves
in the community they serve include both curricular and co-curricular models and
can take many forms such as alternative spring breaks, summer experiences,
internships, independents study, action research, and national or international
service. Program goals may be primarily academic or developmental and may
emphasize civic values, commitments to faith or social justice, personal and
leadership development, or application of theory to practice. The intensive
service-Ieaming experiences provide an opportunity for students to develop a
sense of solidarity with the people they work with and an understanding of the
issues that drive their lives.

Finally, the Spectrum of Service-Leaming Experiences addresses the
integration of service-Ieaming experiences into postcollege choices. Delve,
Mintz, and Stewart (1990) suggest that the stage at which students begin to
consider postgraduation choices provides a rich opportunity for personal

introspection on the values they have recognized or developed through service.

32

This can be a critical time for service-Ieaming educators to assist students with
career and lifestyle choices through service-Ieaming experiences.

Through the service-Ieaming literature, it is clear that three distinct methods of
delivering service-Ieaming are most commonly used. While given various names
at different postsecondary institutions, for the purpose of this study these
methods are entitled co-curricular service-Ieaming, academically-based service-
leaming, and alternative spring break trips. The differences between the various
types of service Ieaming are currently under debate, and therefore, are being

explored in this study.

Theories of Psychosocial Development

Scholars and theorists have studied students in postsecondary education
for many years in an attempt to understand the growth and development that
occur during these four years. Theories about how student learn and develop
provide information about both the nature of college students who are
participating in service-Ieaming and about the Ieaming and developmental
outcomes that can be expected from their participation. Development is the
redefining of the self in more complex and more distinct ways, yet at the same
time putting all the parts together in an integrated fashion (McEwen, 1996).
Knefelkamp, Wydick and Parker (1974) wrote about the delicate balance of
challenge and support that must exist for development to occur. Development is

promoted by offering the challenges to the individual that require new responses

33

while simultaneously offering sufficient support to confront the challenge (cited in
Jacoby and Associates, 1996).

Colleges and universities are major social agents in promoting the
personal development of students in addition to their intellectual Ieaming.
College students mature and develop not only because of what they learn in the
classroom. Student interaction with college administrators, involvement with
peers, acquisition of new personal values, exposure to varied campus climates
and expectations all have an immense impact on the evolution of young adults’
self and world views and achievement of personal identities (Pascarella 8
Terenzini, 1991).

Especially during the college years, young adults seek to resolve the child-
parent relationship in a search for independence (Erickson, 1971 ), to establish a
sense of identity and self-worth (Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993; Erickson, 1968),
and to form concepts about themselves as separate adult persons (Chickering 8
Reisser, 1993; Kegan, 1982). They also develop increasingly mature patterns of
interpersonal behaviors, coping styles, career orientations, values systems, and
lifestyles that will greatly influence the shape of their futures (Pascarella 8
Terenzini, 1993).

The work of Auther Chickering has been consistently among the most
widely applied theories of student development. According to Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991), Chickering (1969/1978) was the first to attempt to integrate the
prior research on college student development into some kind of an organized

framework. Without question, several psychosocial theories have emerged since

34

Chickering first introduced the seven vectors of development (1969), but
Chickering’s theory has probably gained more recognition and influenced more
research and student affairs practice than other student development theories.
Chickering’s vectors have been widely used by student affairs practitioners and
postsecondary researchers as a basis to establish the student development
agenda of many programs and extend the body of research pertaining to college
student development.

The Chickering and Riesser (1993) model of student development does
not portray development as one predominant challenge or crisis resolution after
another, each invariably linked to specific ages. The vectors are proposed as
maps to help educators determine where students are developmentally.
Movement along any one of the vectors can and does occur at different times for
different students. The assumption is that higher is better than lower because
one adds skills and competencies by moving through each vector (Chickering 8
Reisser, 1993). As the students progress through the vectors, they experience
more and therefore, enhance their own development. The vectors can be
described as a roadmap towards the developing of one’s self. Each student
follows their own roadmap created by their experiences. Chickering and Reisser
(1993) stated the following:

The student may have different ways of thinking, Ieaming and deciding,

and those differences will affect the way the journey unfolds, but for all the

different stories about turning points and valuable lessons, college

students live out recurring themes: gaining competence and self-

35

awareness, Ieaming control and flexibility, balancing intimacy with

freedom, finding one’s voice or vocation, refining beliefs, and making

commitments. (p.35)

This model of psychosocial development provides a tool for student
administrators to facilitate such development through valuable co-curricular
expenences.

The Chickering and Reisser model was founded upon an optimistic view
of human development. It assumes that a nurturing, but challenging college
experience will help students grow in stature and substance (Chickering 8
Reisser, 1993). Institutions that emphasize only intellectual development and
lack emphasizing other strengths and skills are leaving a void in growth for
college students. The student affairs profession prides itself in taking advantage
of educating college students beyond the intellectual development they learn in
the classroom. They emphasize the development of the whole student.
Chickering and Reisser (1993) state their purpose for their model to benefit the
profession in the following manner:

To develop all the gifts of human potential, we need to be able to see

them whole and to believe in their essential worth. In revising the seven

vectors, we hope to offer useful tools to a new generation of practitioners
who want to help students become “excellent all-rounders.” We also hope
to inspire experienced faculty, administrators, and student services and
support staff to recommit to the mission of nurturing mind, body, heart and

spirit. (p. 41).

36

To be effective in educating the whole student, colleges must hold student
affairs professionals accountable for understanding and fostering student
development. The Chickering and Reisser seven vector model provides a tool
for student administrators to facilitate psychosocial growth in college students.
Since 1969, with a substantial base of research to support his theory, Chickering
and Reisser have made some adjustments to his original seven vectors. The
vectors are briefly described as:

Vector 1: Developing competence: Encompassing intellectual competence

physical and manual skills, interpersonal competence, and an overall

sense of competence.

Vector 2: Managing emotions: Developing an increasing awareness of

both positive and more difficult emotions and Ieaming how to handle and

integrate these emotions in appropriate ways.

Vector 3: Moving through autonomy toward interdependence: Developing

emotional and instrumental independence, which lead to a recognition and

acceptance of interdependence.

Vector 4: Developing mature interpersonal relationships: Developing

tolerance and appreciation of differences and a capacity for true and

healthy intimacy.

Vector 5: Establishing identity. Developing a solid and comprehensive

sense of one’s own being.

Vector 6: Developing purpose: Clarifying goals and making plans in regard

to one’s vocation, interests, and lifestyle.

37

Vector 7: Developing integrity. Clarifying a personally valid set of beliefs

that have some internal consistency and that provide at least a tentative

guide for behavior. (Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993, p 43-52)

Two of Chickering and Riesser’s (1993) vectors are of particular interest to
this study because they are the vectors that will be measured by the Student

Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA).

Vector 3: Moving through Autonomy to Independence

 

Chickering and Reisser (1993) define moving through autonomy toward
interdependence with three components: emotional independence — freedom
from continual and pressing needs for reassurance, affection, or approval from
others; instrumental independence - the ability to carry on activities and solve
problems in a self-directed manner, and the freedom and confidence to be
mobile in order to pursue opportunity or adventure; and interdependence - an
awareness of one’s place in and commitment to the welfare of the larger
community (Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993).

Emotional interdependence begins with a separation from parents to a
reliance on peers and role models, and ideally moves to a comfort with one being
alone or comfortable with one’s identity. Some students have an easier time
developing autonomy if they learned to develop skills to manage anxiety and
make choices while they were growing up. Success in college requires freedom
from fear, of not knowing what to do, of making mistakes, or being less than

perfect (Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993).

38

Instrumental independence has two components: the ability to carry out
activities on one’s own and to be self-sufficient, and the ability to leave one place
and function well in another. Emotional and instrumental independence facilitate
growth for one another.

The capstone of autonomy is the recognition and acceptance of
interdependence. This capstone is experienced when one has a sense of his or
her place in the world. Chickering and Reisser (1993) further define
interdependence as respecting the autonomy of others and looking for ways to

give and take with an ever-expanding circle of friends.

Vector 4: Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships

Relationships with others have a very powerful impact on students’ lives.
Through these relationships students learn how to communicate, how to share
pain, how to comfort and celebrate, and how to manage emotions. Successful
relationships that last over time require tolerance and appreciation of differences
and the capacity for intimacy. Intimate relationships involve respect, honesty,
and responsibility. Both components of successful relationships require one to
accept individuals for who they are. Tolerance implies one is able to suspend
judgment and accept differences in others. This awareness leads to further
appreciation and comfort with differences for students (Chickering 8 Reisser,

1 993).
Increased capacity for intimacy involves in higher quality of relationships.

The higher quality is marked by interdependence between the individual with

39

freedom, trust, and honesty circling the relationship. Movement along this vector
also involves a growing ability to differentiate between relationships and those
that are toxic and demanding (Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993). Students begin to
become more selective in their relationships and begin to surround themselves

with relationships that bring them life.

Service-Ieaming and Chickering’s Theories

Chickering’s vectors are important to service-Ieaming because they
provide awareness of the kinds of psychosocial issues students may be facing as
they engage in service-Ieaming. A first or second year student may be struggling
with issues of competence or a sense of confidence or with becoming less
dependent on others while a senior student may be facing prominent issues of
life purpose or congruency within his or her life (cited in McEwen, 1996).
Chickering believed that significant vectors of change can occur within students if
colleges and universities meet students where they are and establish relevant
programs designed to advance the Ieaming and developmental needs of
students.

According to Chickering and Reisser (1993), “psychosocial theories view
development as a series of developmental tasks or stages, including qualitative
changes in thinking, valuing and relating to others and to oneself” (p. 2). Service-
leaming experiences can provide the necessary opportunities for changes in
student thought and relationships to others. It is this development that this study

seeks to assess in relationship to the three distinct service-Ieaming models.

40

Summary of the Literature Review

As evident from the literature, service-Ieaming can influence a variety of
psychosocial outcomes. However, it is difficult to make general conclusions
regarding the effects of service-Ieaming due to the range of issues studied,
sample size employed and the varied methodologies used. Many studies report
positive effects, while others were inconclusive or showed no change. Since the
results of many of these students are inconsistent and inconclusive, more in-
depth studies are needed to explore the psychosocial outcomes of service-
leaming more fully.

Pedagogically distinct models of service-Ieaming also need to be
explored. The literature suggests that service-Ieaming can impact students in a
variety of powerful ways, however, the delivery of service-Ieaming, through
academically-based service-Ieaming, co-curricular service-Ieaming, and
alternative spring break service-Ieaming trips, must be better understood in order

to move this potential paradigm shift for higher education forward.

41

CHAPTER THREE
DATA AND METHODS

Chapter Three describes the methodology of this study. It begins with an
overview of the research questions and presents the hypothesis tested. The
population sample and site setting are explained, followed by a thorough
description of the design and procedures for the study. In this section, the
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment instrument that was
utilized is explained. Finally, a description of the data analysis techniques that
were employed is reviewed.

Service-Ieaming is a pedagogy that focuses on individual student growth
and Ieaming. Understanding the efficacy and utility of differing models of
service-Ieaming is critical to the advancement of service-Ieaming. From the
literature, it is clear that types of service-Ieaming models need to be more fully
explored in terms of outcomes on students (Campus Compact, 1998). This study
investigated the outcomes of service-Ieaming from three distinct models: ongoing
continuous service throughout a semester in co-curricular service-Ieaming; one
time, intensive week-long spring break service-Ieaming trips; and ongoing
service through a semester of academically-based service-Ieaming. This study
investigated one particular student outcome, psychosocial development, among
college students involved in three different types of service-Ieaming. This was

achieved by administering to college students involved in one of the three

42

pedagogies of service-Ieaming the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle
Assessment (SDTLA; Winston, Miller, 8 Cooper, 1999b). A fourth control group

of students was used for comparative purposes.

Research Questions
This study explored the questions: Do students involved in distinct types of
service-Ieaming have different psychosocial development outcomes? Are the
student psychosocial development outcomes different for students who
participate in service-Ieaming and those who do not? Does the spring break
service-Ieaming pedagogy lead to developmentally distinct outcomes when

compared to the other service-Ieaming types?

Hmtheses

Three hypotheses were tested in an attempt to answer the stated research
questions:

1. The “SDTLA difference scores” of traditional college students will
significantly differ across the three types of service-Ieaming.

2. The “SDTLA difference scores“ of traditional college students will
significantly differ for students involved in the three types of service-
leaming from those not involved in service-Ieaming (control group).

3. The “SDTLA difference scores“ for the alternative spring break
service-Ieaming pedagogy will reflect the most significant

differences when compared to the other two pedagogies.

43

* “SD TLA difference score” is a derived score when a post-SD TLA

score is subtracted from a pre-SD TLA score.

Population and Sample

The population for this study was comprised of currently enrolled,
traditional age, full-time, degree-seeking students at a private, liberal arts college
of approximately 4,000 undergraduate students located in the Midwest. The
sample was selected using a stratified random selection procedure. The
students who were asked to join this study were already participating in three
distinct service-Ieaming pedagogies. One group of sixty students who were
involved in academically-based service-Ieaming was invited to participate in this
study. These students were participating in a service-Ieaming project connected
to their course content. Another group of sixty students involved in co-curricular
service-Ieaming facilitated through the college’s service-Ieaming office was
invited to participate. These students were involved in continuous service-
leaming projects throughout the semester at locations such as thrift stores, after
school programs, and homeless shelters. The third group of students was
involved in the college’s service-Ieaming alternative spring break trips. These
sixty students invited to participate traveled during the college spring vacation to
a location to serve for a week. A final group of sixty students who were not
involved in service-Ieaming was choSen at random from the college student

population to serve as a baseline group.

44

The service-Ieaming setting

The college has an established and developed service-Ieaming program
that has been integrated into many facets of the institution. The Service-Leaming
Center began in 1964 as the “KIDS” program (Kindling Intellectual Desire in
Students), with a focus on tutoring young people in core-city schools. The
program grew quickly and expanded into other areas of service, such as Big
Brothers/Big Sisters and the Volunteer Moving Service, helping low-income
families move household belongings. The KIDS program became the Student
Volunteer Service (SVS) in 1980 and reflected a broader focus of community
involvement. As SVS, the program continued its emphasis on inner-city
education, but expanded to provide assistance in local food pantries, nursing
homes, and in homes struggling to break the cycle of domestic abuse. The
students became valued volunteers in hospitals and social service organizations.

In 1991 the college joined Campus Compact, a national coalition of
colleges and universities, which also has a strong state organization called the
Michigan Campus Compact. The purpose of Campus Compact is to increase
student involvement in community service, to increase public, federal, and
foundation support for student involvement, and to promote the value of civic
responsibility by people and institutions. The college joined the Campus
Compact with the particular interest of exploring with other colleges and
universities how to integrate service into traditional academic curricula. It

seemed to some faculty members and to the academic administration at the

45

institution that building a more direct link between theory and practice through
service had potential as a pedagogical tool. Since then, faculty members have
increasingly used service-Ieaming as an academic resource.

Working together, students and faculty members of this institution
contribute numerous hours of service in the community. Last year over 1,800
students and one-third of the faculty participated in service-Ieaming activities.
For many students this involvement begins in the fall of their first year, when all
new students participate in StreetFest, a service-Ieaming activity that is part of
the college’s orientation program. Hundreds of other students participate each
semester in academically-based service-Ieaming courses, exploring the

connection between course content and service experiences.

Design

This quasi-experimental design employed a classic pretest-posttest
control group design to test the hypothesis whether psychosocial development,
the dependent variable, is different among students who participate in co-
curricular service-Ieaming, academically-based service-Ieaming and service-
leaming spring break trips, the independent variables.

The independent variable in this study, service-Ieaming type, was
operationalized into three fixed categories, and a fourth baseline control group.
The first type was co-curricular service-Ieaming, which is defined as service-
leaming that a student voluntarily participates in during the course of a semester.

The students involved had regular participation in a service-Ieaming site chosen

46

by the college. The site provided opportunities for community service and
included an aspect of reflection on these experiences. The college had over 250
students participating in forty various sites through the city. A group of sixty
students participating in an array of service-Ieaming activities were randomly
selected and invited to participate in this study.

The second type of service-Ieaming was academically-based service-
leaming, which is defined as a service-Ieaming experience that is a required and
integral component of an academic course. In the 2002 Campus Compact
member survey, it was found that 59% of the member institutions gave academic
credit for service-Ieaming, 35% incorporate service-Ieaming into departments,
and 19% incorporated service-Ieaming into the core curriculum. The faculty
surveyed cite promoting engaged Ieaming, facilitating student Ieaming of course
content, and developing critical thinking skills as key incentives for integrating
service with academic study (Compact, 2002).

The college had forty courses that integrated service-Ieaming into their
for-credit courses. These courses spanned the breadth of the college’s
curriculum including courses from the departments of English, Art, Music, Social
Work, Political Science, Business, Economics, Education and Biology. Students
in the courses with academically-based service-Ieaming were required to
participate in a service-Ieaming project with between 15-25 hours of service over
the course of the semester. Depending on the course, the service-Ieaming hours
were administered in various ways. For example, for students enrolled in Biology

112 the academically-based service-Ieaming consisted of a service-related

47

research project working with an environmental survey of a local river. This
project required students to serve for about 15 hours over the course of three
weeks. However, in Education 202 students were asked to complete at least 15
hours of service-Ieaming by working in a classroom with a student experiencing
Ieaming difficulties for 1 1/2 hours per week for ten weeks. For this study,
students enrolled in about thirty different courses offeringacademically-based
service-Ieaming during the spring semester were eligible to be randomly selected
by the college’s registrar office to be invited to participate in this study. Sixty
students were invited to participate in this study from the academically-based
service-Ieaming group.

The third type of service-Ieaming was service-Ieaming spring break trips
or alternative spring breaks (ASB). About half of the Campus Compact member
institutions in 2002 offered service-Ieaming spring break trip options for college
students (Compact, 2002). These trips take a group of 12-20 students and
faculty/staff mentors to various sites, both nationally and internationally.
Participation in alternative spring breaks is voluntary and students are typically
selected for participation by a student planning team based on an application and
interview process. Students are typically selected and trained during the latter
part of the fall semester and the service—Ieaming trip occurs during the spring
break of the second semester. These service-Ieaming experiences last about 7-
9 days and take place in a variety of service locations across the United States.
In the past years, the college has developed various spring break trips to a

Native American reservation in New Mexico, to urban Cleveland, and a building

48

project in Tennessee. The participants are undergraduate students from a
variety of academic majors. As in other service-Ieaming opportunities, college
faculty and administrative staff participate in the service projects as well as the
processing discussions and reflection activities. For this study, sixty students
were randomly selected from the five trips that participated in service-Ieaming
projects in the spring break of 2004. These trips include groups participating in
service-Ieaming opportunities in Gallup, New Mexico; Knoxville, Tennessee;
Kansas City, Missouri; East Palo Alto, Califomia; and Dade City, Florida. The
service on these trips focused on one of the following areas of work: Habitat for
Humanity house building, working in half-way houses, women’s shelters, or
homeless missions.

The dependent variable in this study was the psychosocial development of
college students. In previous studies, service-Ieaming has been shown to
enhance students’ personal development such as sense of personal efficacy,
personal identity, spiritual growth, and moral development (Astin 8 Sax, 1998;
Astin, Sax, 8 Avalos, 1999; Boss, 1994; Eyler, Giles, 8 Braxton, 1997; Eyler 8
Giles, 1999; Giles 8 Eyler, 1994; Rhoads, 1997; Vogelgesang 8 Astin, 2000). It
was therefore important to further the research in this area in order to more fully
understand the impact of various modes of service-Ieaming on students’
psychosocial development. The dependent variable was analyzed using data
from the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA;
Winston, Miller, 8 Cooper, 1999b). The SDTLA is an assessment tool and

procedure that educational practitioners can use with young adult college

49

students. The SDLTA enables the educator to facilitate development of life
purpose, mature interpersonal relationships, and academic autonomy as well as
the establishment of healthy lifestyles (Winston, Miller 8 Cooper, 1999). The
assessment tool is based on three of Chickering’s developmental vectors:
moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature
interpersonal relationships, and developing purpose, and the SDTLA was
developed for college students between the ages of 18 and 24 (Winston, Miller 8
Cooper, 1999). The Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment
(SDTLA) provided a t-test score for these three developmental tasks, each of
which is further delineated by subtasks. The three developmental tasks of the
SDTLA are establishing and clarifying purpose, developing autonomy, and
developing mature interpersonal relationships. The pretest and posttest
difference score of these developmental tasks served as the dependant variable

in this study.

Instrument
The Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment Instrument
(SDTLA) was revised from an earlier edition, the Student Development Task and
Lifestyle Inventory (Winston, Miller 8 Prince, 1987). According to Winston,
Cooper and Saunders (1999) the instrument was revised from its earlier version
to make it more useful as an outcomes assessment tool and to incorporate new
research findings related to the identity development of women, ethnic minorities,

and gay, lesbian and bisexual students.

50

The SDLTA form 1.99 is made up of 153 items and measures student task
and lifestyle development along three broad developmental tasks, comprised of
ten more specific developmental subtasks, and one lifestyle scale. According to
Winston, Miller and Cooper (1999), a developmental task is an “interrelated set of
behaviors and attitudes that the culture specifies should be exhibited at
approximately the same time by a given age cohort in a designated context
higher education” (p. 10). The tasks and subtasks included in the SDTLA
represent psychosocial developmental changes indicative of individuals who are
successfully addressing important life events or issues within the context of
higher education. The three developmental tasks are establishing and clarifying
purpose, developing autonomy, and developing mature interpersonal
relationships. The developmental tasks directly correlate to three of Chickering’s
vectors (Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993).

The SDTLA is further delineated by developmental subtasks. Winston,
Miller and Cooper (1999) define a subtask as “a more specific component or part
of a larger developmental task. Subtasks are independent constructs that also
share commonality with other subtasks within a larger developmental task area”
(p. 10).

The SDTLA is an untimed instrument. Form 1.99 of the SDTLA generally
requires 25 to 30 minutes to complete (Winston, Miller 8 Cooper, 1999). The
overall reading level of the SDTLA is between grade 11.2 and 11.5, and a

student’s reading level may affect the time it takes to complete the assessment.

51

Based on pilot data, the 1.99 form of the SDLTA was found to be too time-
consuming for subjects. The 153-item survey was taking subjects approximately
30 minutes to complete. It was determined that the length of this version of the
SDTLA would negatively affect the response rate of this study. A different
version of the SDTLA that utilizes the same questions in the form of an 80-itém
survey was used. The reliability and validity estimates for this version of the
SDTLA instrument were consistent with the 1.99 version. The scores from this
survey form provided two developmental scales, Developing Autonomy Task and
Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task, that were used in this study to
operationalize the dependant variable, psychosocial development. The
developmental tasks were further broken down into subtasks. The Developing
Autonomy task had four subtasks: Emotional Autonomy, Interdependence,
Academic, and lnstmmental. Students who have scored high on the Developing
Autonomy task: (a) are able to meet their needs and action on their own ideas
without the need for continuous reassurance from others; (b) can structure their
lives and manipulate their environment in ways that allow them to satisfy daily
needs and meet responsibilities without extensive direction or support from
others; (c) structure their time and devise and execute effective study strategies
to meet academic expectations without the need for direction from others; and (d)
recognize the reciprocal nature of the relationship between the individual and his
or her community and acts as a responsible, contributing member.

The second task used in this study was the Mature Interpersonal

Relationships Task. This task is defined by two subtasks: Peer Relationships

52

and Tolerance. Students who scored high on this task: (a) have relationships
with peers that are open, honest, and trusting; their relationships reflect a
balance between dependence and self-assured independence; and (b) show
respect for and acceptance of those of different backgrounds, beliefs, cultures,
races, lifestyles, and appearances

Figure 3

 

 

Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment

 

 

 

Developing Autonomy Task Developing Mature Interpersonal
Relationships Task
Emotional Autonomy subtask
Interdependence subtask Peer Relationships subtask
Academic Autonomy subtask Tolerance subtask

Instrumental Autonomy subtask

 

 

 

In addition, there are two scales in the form 1.99 of the SDTLA: the
salubrious scale and the response bias scale. A scale in the SDTLA is the
measure of the degree to which students report possessing certain behavioral
characteristics, attitudes, or feelings, but unlike a developmental task, may not be
directly affected by the participation in the higher education environment
(Winston, Miller 8 Cooper, 1999). The salubrious lifestyle scale measures the
degree to which a student’s lifestyle is consistent with or promotes good health
and wellness practices. The response bias scale is used to detect a student that
is attempting to portray himself/herself in an unrealistically favorable way

(Winston et al., 1999a, p.11-13).

53

Validity of the SDTLA

A normative sample was collected by Winston, Miller 8 Cooper (1999)
from over 1800 students from 31 colleges and universities in the United States
and Canada. Data from both public and private institutions were collected
voluntarily through regular scheduled classes, student organizations, residence
hall staffs, and members of self-exploration and career exploration groups
(Winston et al., 1999a). The normative data indicate changes in the SDLTA
scores from the freshman to senior year in college (Winston et al., 1999). A
longitudinal study was also conducted to assess the effectiveness of the SDTLA
in measuring psychosocial changes from the freshmen to senior year (Wachs 8
Cooper, 2002). Using the same population as the normative sample, the study
was designed to establish construct validity for the SDTLA by demonstrating that
it was responsive in measuring psychosocial growth and development during the
college experience (Wachs 8 Cooper, 2002). With the pre-test and post-test
data from 188 students, the researchers scored the results of the 10 subtasks
and 3 tasks and one scale score from the SDTLA. After conducting a multiple
analysis of variance (MANOVA) to determine that those who completed the
posttest were essentially similar at pre-test on the variables of interest to those
who did not complete the post-test and after conducting fourteen paired ttests to
determine if significant change had occurred, the researchers found increases in
all of the subtasks and three of the four tasks. The salubrious lifestyle task was
the one task that students did not make significant gains in during their four-year

tenure in college.

54

This study by Wachs and Cooper (2002) provides practical significance to
a researcher planning to use the SDTLA. The authors of the SDTLA created the
instrument to measure students on three developmental vectors defined by
Chickering and Reisser (1993). Students are expected to make gains in a
particular vector as they grow older, gain more experiences, and matriculate
through college. The results of this study demonstrate that as a measurement
tool, the SDTLA is sensitive to these changes within individuals across time

(Wachs 8 Cooper, 2002).

Reliabilig of the SDTLA
Winston, Miller and Cooper (1999) used test-retest and internal

consistency from reliability estimation. Test-retest was used to give an
estimation of stability of measure over time. The SDTLA was administered to
three classes of students at two different institutions. Without any intervention,
students were given the assessment one month later. The total number of
students who completed the pre-test and post-test equaled 52 subjects. The
researchers computed Pearson product-moment correlations for all tasks,
subtasks, and scales (Winston et al, 1999). The results yielded correlations to
cluster around .80. All correlations were statistically significant at p<.01. The
SDTLA would not be expected to vary greatly over short periods of time
(Winston, Miller 8 Cooper, 1999). The second method of determining reliability

was estimating internal consistency. The alpha coefficients for a sample of 1822

55

students produced results ranging from .88 to .62 (Winston, Miller 8 Cooper,
1999).

Procedures

The sample of students was identified with the assistance of the college’s
Service-Leaming Center and the Registrar's office. The center provided a list of
students currently involved in co-curricular service-Ieaming, and the students
chosen to participate in the alternative spring break trips. The Registrar’s office
provided the names of students enrolled in academically-based service-Ieaming
courses. With these resources, a list of students eligible for the three distinct
service-Ieaming groups was compiled. A group of sixty students was randomly
selected from the larger population of students involved in co-curricular service-
leaming. Another group of sixty students involved in academically-based
service-Ieaming were randomly selected from the larger population of students in
these courses. A group of sixty students were randomly selected from the
students chosen to participate in the alternative service-Ieaming spring break trip.
Finally, the baseline college student group was also identified using a random
sample technique. With assistance from the Registrar’s office, a complete list of
all currently enrolled, full-time, degree-seeking, undergraduate students was
obtained. A randomly selected sample of 60 students from this population of
students was identified using a table of random numbers. Before participating in

the study, the researcher verified with the Service-Leaming Center that these

56

students were not involved in any service-Ieaming activities throughout the spring
semester.

Using these lists of students, the following stratified random sampling
technique was used. The sample for the four groups was achieved by using
simple random sampling techniques described by Folz (1996): “1. Obtain a
complete list of the population. 2. Assign each case in the population a number.
3. Use a table of random numbers to select enough cases for the desired sample
size” (p. 57). Within the lists of each stratified group, a random sample was
obtained. For example, sixty students involved in academically-based service-
Ieaming in the spring semester were selected from the total list of student
enrolled in these courses given to the researcher by the Registrar’s office.

Once the sample was identified, an email message was sent to each of
the students in the sample explaining the purpose of the study and requesting
their participation (see Appendix B). The data collection process was done with
the assistance of the college’s social research center using the lnquisite web
survey software. The student participants were sent an email from the lnquisite
web survey software that invited them to follow a link embedded in their email
message, complete the survey, and submit the SDTLA instrument directly to this
computer program. The lnquisite software program kept the identities of the
subjects confidential and tracked the completed surveys by the student ID
number. After a week, if the student had not responded to the first email, the
software program generated a follow-up email inviting the student to complete

the SDTLA instmment.

57

During the third week of the spring semester, mid February, the
information was gathered from the four selected sample groups that served as
the pre-test data. The post-test assessment was gathered following the
fourteenth week of the semester courses (early May). In both phases of data
collection, the lnquisite web survey software was employed with the four sample
groups.

The most effective strategies for contacting the students in the three
distinct groups and the control group were employed. All of the students
contacted for involvement in this study were ensured that their participation was
voluntary and that all data collection was in compliance with accepted protocols
for ensuring human subjects protection in research. In an effort to maximize the
return rate of the assessment, the researcher asked for the assistance of the
service-Ieaming student staff and faculty members. The students involved in co-
cunicular service-Ieaming have regular contact with service-Ieaming student
staff. The researcher met with this student staff and asked for their assistance in
encouraging students to complete the survey. The students involved in the
alternative spring break were also encouraged to participate in the study at a
group planning meeting held during the first two weeks of the semester. The
researcher asked faculty members using academically-based service-Ieaming to
make an announcement encouraging students that are randomly selected to
participate in this study. Students invited to participate in the study were entered

into drawing for two $50 gift certificates to the college bookstore.

58

Data Analyses

Data analyses were done in two steps. First, scores on the SDTLA were
calculated as defined by the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle
Assessment manual (1999). For this study, all statistical analyses were
conducted using SPSS statistical software. For each of the two developmental
tasks that were tests (Developing Autonomy, and Developing Mature
Interpersonal Relationships), 3 t-score was calculated (Winston, Miller and
Cooper, 1999). A t-score was also calculated for each of the subtasks of the two
developmental tasks. For the Developing Autonomy task, the subtasks
calculated were the Academic Autonomy, Emotional Autonomy, Instnimental
Autonomy and Interdependence subtasks. For the Developing Mature
Interpersonal Relationships task, the Peer Relationships and Tolerance subtasks
were calculated using a t-score. A pre-test SDTLA score and post-test SDTLA
score were calculated for the combined tasks for each subject. Next, appropriate
descriptive and inferential statistics were used to address the research questions.
Mean, standard deviation, effects sizes, multiple ttests and other statistical
analyses were used to report the results of the research questions. The
researcher conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether
students’ “SDTLA difference score” varied according to the type of service
Ieaming. A difference score for each of the two developmental tasks (post-test
SDTLA minus pre-test SDTLA) was computed and served as a dependent
variable in an ANOVA test to determine whether scores varied by type of service

Ieaming. This dependent variable score was compared to the three types of

59

service-Ieaming pedagogies. This dependent variable was also used in

comparison to the baseline non-service-leaming group.

Limitations
Some limitations to this study involve the sample size. Since one of the
service—Ieaming groups, alternative spring break, only takes about 60 students
on the trips, this study was limited to four groups of sixty potential subjects.
However, the total numbers of subjects who responded to the survey (112)
should provide enough power (d=.70) to find significant results to the data
analysis for this study (Howell, 2002). Further recommendations and limitations

of this study will be explored in Chapter Five.

60

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

The intent of this study was to investigate the outcomes of three distinct
service-Ieaming models: ongoing continuous service throughout a semester in
co-curricular service-Ieaming; one time, intensive week-long spring break
service-Ieaming trips; and ongoing service through a semester of academically-
based service-Ieaming. This study explored one particular student outcome,
psychosocial development, among college students involved in three different
types of service-Ieaming. This was achieved by administering to college
students involved in each of the three pedagogies of service-Ieaming a pre-test
and post-test Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA;
Winston, Miller, 8 Cooper, 1999b). A fourth control group of students was used
for comparative purposes. This study explored the questions: Do students
involved in distinct types of service-Ieaming have different psychosocial
development outcomes? Are the student psychosocial development outcomes
different for students who participate in service-Ieaming and those who do not?
Does the spring break service-Ieaming pedagogy lead to developmentally distinct
outcomes when compared to the other service-Ieaming types?

This chapter, Chapter Four, begins with a description of the sample
involved in the study, including total number of participants, demographic data

and types of service-Ieaming involvement. This is followed by analyses of the

61

data collected to test the three hypotheses in this study. Mean, standard
deviation, multiple ttests and other statistical analyses were used to report the
results of the research questions. The researcher conducted an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) to determine whether students’ “SDTLA difference scores”
varied according to the type of service Ieaming. A difference score for each of
the two developmental tasks (post-test SDTLA minus pre-test SDTLA) was
computed and served as a dependent variable in an ANOVA test to determine
whether scores varied by type of service-Ieaming. The dependent variable
(SDTLA difference score) was compared across the three types of service-
leaming pedagogies and the baseline non-service-leaming group. Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) is used to test hypotheses about difference between two or
more populations. ANOVA can be used to test differences among several
means for significance without increasing the Type I error rate. The ANOVA
enables one to tell whether one population mean is different from at least one
other population mean by conducting multiple T-tests. The ANOVA does not
reveal which means differ from which others. To further understand the
significant differences between the various pedagogies studied, the post-hoe
procedure, Tukey “Honestly Significant Difference” HSD test was employed. The

results of these tests are presented in this chapter.

Description of the sample

The population for this study was comprised of currently enrolled,

traditional age, full-time, degree-seeking students at a private, liberal arts college

62

located in the Midwest. The population was selected using a stratified random
sample selection design. Four distinct groups of 60 students representing a
sample size of 240 participants were invited to participate in this study. Students
who completed the first pre-test SDTLA represented 82% of the sample (164
subjects). Of the 164 subjects who completed the pre-test, 112 chose to
continue participation in the study by completing the post-test SDLTA. This
represented 68% of the pre-test sample group and 47% of the original entire
sample.

The students who were asked to join this study were already participating
during the previous semester in three distinct service-Ieaming areas. One group
of sixty students who were involved in academically-based service-Ieaming were
invited to participate in this study. These students were participating in a service-
Ieaming project connected to their course content. Thirty-one students from this
group representing 52% of the sample completed both the pre and post surveys.
Another group of sixty students involved in co-curricular service-Ieaming
facilitated through the college’s service-Ieaming office were invited to participate.
These students were involved in continuous service-Ieaming projects throughout
the semester at locations such as thrift stores, after school programs, and
homeless shelters. From the co-curricular service—Ieaming group, twenty-five
students representing 42% of the sample completed the pre and post survey.
The third group of students was involved in the college’s service-Ieaming
alternative spring break trips. These sixty invited students traveled during the

college spring vacation to a location to serve for a week, and had thirty-one

63

students representing 52% of the sample complete the SDTLA assessment. A
final group of sixty students who were not involved in service-Ieaming were
chosen at random from the college student population to serve as a baseline
group. This control group had twenty-five participants representing 42% of the
sample complete both assessments. As Table 1 illustrates, the 112 subjects that
completed the pre and post test of the SDTLA represent 47% of the sample
invited to participate.

Table 1

Sample bv Service-Leaming Pedagogy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-test subjects Post-test subjects % of entire sample
Academically-based
Service-Ieaming 46 31 52%
Co-curricular
Service-Ieaming 38 25 42%
Alternative
ring break trips 39 31 52%
Baseline Control
Group 41 25 42%
Total Sample
164 112 47%

 

 

 

 

Demographic data collected from the study participants included gender,
class standing, racial background and present living situation. This information is
presented in Table 2 and broken into the three service-Ieaming groups and one
control group. The sample was divided into thirty-two males (28.6%) and eighty
females (71.4%). From Table 2 it can be seen that the one to three proportion of
gender, although not typical in the general student population of the institution,
holds relatively consistent in each of the three types of service-Ieaming and

control group. The class standing of participants was fairly consistent across the

64

 

four groups, with first-year students making up the largest group with 33% of the

surveyed sample. The ethnic or cultural background of the subjects

approximated the larger campus population of the private, liberal arts college with

about 4% students of color, and 96% students from a white or Caucasian

background. The living situation of the sample was reflective of the residential

campus studied. However, the 92% of the respondents in the co-curricular

service-Ieaming group lived on-campus, which did not reflect the overall sample.

These data were collected in order to describe the sample and the consistency

between the four groups and are not directly related to the hypotheses tested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2

Gender Class and Living Situation by Service-Leaming Pedagogy

Academically-based SL Spring Break SL Co-curricular SL Control Group Total Sample
GENDER 22-fcmales 23-femalcs lS-females 17-females 80-females (71.4%)
9-males 8—ma1cs 7-malcs 8-males 32-males (28.6%)
CLASS 8-first-ycar ll-first-year IO-first-year 8-first-year 37-first-year (33%)
9-sophomorcs 7-sophomores lO-sophomores 6-sophomores 32-sophomore (28%)
7-juniors 9-juniors 2-juniors 4-juniors 22-juniors (20%)
7-seniors 4-seniors 3-seniors 7-seniors 21-seniors (19%)
LIVING 22 on—campus 26 on-campus 23 on-campus 16 on-campus 87 On-campus (77%)
SITUATION 9 off-campus 5 off-campus 2 off-campus 9 off-campus 25 Off-campus (23%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description of the Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the eight dependent variables

(two SDTLA tasks and six SDTLA subtasks) used in this study. A thorough

description of the dependent variables is found in Chapter Three. For purposes

of interpretation, raw scores from the SDTLA assessment were converted to

individual T scores, for which the mean was set at 50 and the standard deviation

65

 

was set at 10 (Winston, Miller, 8 Cooper, 1999). Scores were calculated for the
pre-test of the SDTLA and for the post-test of the SDTLA according to the
Technical Manual of the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment.
A difference score (post-test minus pre-test) was calculated for each of the two
tasks, Developing Autonomy and Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships.
For further analysis, a difference score (post-test minus pre-test) was calculated
for each of the four subtasks in the Developing Autonomy task. For the SDLTA
instrument, a subtask is defined as “a more specific component or part of a larger
developmental task (Winston, Miller 8 Cooper, 1999). The subtasks are
Academic Autonomy, Emotional Autonomy, Instrumental Autonomy, and
Interdependence. A difference score (post-test minus pre-test) was also
calculated for the subtasks of the Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships

Task, which are Peer Relationships subtask and Tolerance subtask.

Results of First Hypothesis tested

The first hypothesis to be tested as part of the research questions was
whether the “SDTLA difference scores” of traditional college students significantly
differed across the three types of service-Ieaming. The “SDTLA difference
scores” were calculated by obtaining the post-test minus the pre-test on the two
developmental tasks generated from the SDTLA: Developing Autonomy and
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships. Table 3 compares the means
and standard deviations of the difference scores for these two SDTLA tasks

within the four subject groups.

66

Table 3

Mean and Standard Deviations for Developing Autonomy and Developing Mature
lnte_rp_ersonal Relationships Tasks

 

 

 

 

 

Autonomy Relationships N
Control/Baseline
.8584 (4.01) 2.6400 (4.89) 25
Co-curricular SL
-.7767 (3.49) 2.5643 (5.61) 25
Academic SL
.3785 (8.04) 3.6917 (6.67) 31
Spring Break SL
3.6054 (4.99) 4.2707 (4.10) 31

 

 

 

 

 

As shown in Table 3, there appears to be only small differences between the
means of the four groups, with exception of the Spring Break Service-Leaming
group. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted as part of the study to
test the differences between the means, as well as the Tukey HSD post-hoc
procedures. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the ANOVA for the two developmental
tasks. Data presented in Table 4 for the Developing Autonomy task indicate an F
value with three degrees of freedom between groups, which was significant at an
alpha level of .05. The Developing Autonomy Task represents students who are
able to meet their needs and action on their own ideas without the need for
continuous reassurance from others; can structure their lives and manipulate
their environment in ways that allow them to satisfy daily needs and meet
responsibilities with extensive direction from others; structure their time and

devise effective study strategies to meet academic expectations; and recognize

67

the reciprocal nature of the relationships between the individual and her/his
community and acts as a responsible, contributing member.
Table 4

Analysis of Variance for Develooing Autonomy Task

 

 

 

 

Source df Sum of Squares Mean Squares F
Between Groups
3 300.179 100.060 3205*
Within Groups
108 3371.324 31.216
Total
111 3671.503

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level
The ANOVA for the Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task
presented in Table 5 did not show any significant difference between the groups
F (3, 108) = .657, p=.580.

Table 5

Analysis of Variance for Developing Mature Intermrsonal Relationships

 

 

 

 

Source df Sum of Squares Mean Squares F
Between Groups
3 57.906 19.302 .657
Within Groups
108 3173.732 29.386
Total
111 3231.638

 

 

 

 

 

The post-hoe procedure employed the Tukey HSD method to investigate
the differences within the Developing Autonomy task. The Tukey HSD provides
a value that allows the researcher to make comparisons of means after a
significant F-value has been observed in an ANOVA. The significant comparison

between the Spring Break Service-Leaming group and the Co-curricular Service-

68

 

 

Learning group is presented in Table 6. The Tukey method showed a statistically
significant difference in developing autonomy for students who engaged in the
Spring Break Service-Leaming pedagogy when compared to students who
participated in the Co-curricular Service-Leaming pedagogy. The students
involved in Spring Break Service-Leaming had significantly more development on
this SDTLA Task than those involved in Co-curricular Service-Leaming.

Table 6

Post-hoc Tukey Results for Developing Autonomy Task

 

 

 

 

Type Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.

Spring Break
Service-Learning Control 2.7469 1.50187 .265
Academic SL 3.2269 1.41913 .11 1
Co-curricular SL 43820“ 1.50187 .022

 

 

 

 

 

*Significance at the .05 level

To further understand the differences between the three service-Ieaming
pedagogies, an ANOVA for the subtasks for the Developing Autonomy Task
were conducted to further determine any significant differences between the
three service-Ieaming pedagogies and the control group. The mean scores and
standard deviations for the four subtasks that constitute the Developing

Autonomy Task are presented in Table 7.

69

 

Table 7

Mean Standard Deviations for Academic Autonomy subtask Emotional

 

 

Autonomy subtask, Instrumental Autonomy subtask, and Interdefindence

 

 

 

 

 

 

subtask
Academic Emotional Instrumental Interdependence N
Control/Baseline
6.369 (12.87) -8.118 (14.80) 1.496 (15.43) 2.276 (12.76)
25
Co-curricular SL
8.857 (18.57) -1.495 (10.64) 11.585 (14.92) 17.724(12.27)**
25
Academic SL
3.976 (8.04) -8.610 (15.29) 6.160 (16.16) 3.133 (16.54)
31
Spring Break SL
8.646 (16.00) -4.763 (11.69) 8.528 (16.10) 9.633 (16.05)
31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSignificance at the .001 level

While the subtasks of Academic Autonomy, Emotional Autonomy, and
Instrumental Autonomy had mean difference scores that were greater than the
control group, these were not found to be statistically significant differences. The
Interdependence subtask, which reflects the relationship between the individual
and her/his community, produced a significant difference F (3, 108) = 6.136,
p=.001.

Table 8

Analysis of Variance for Interdependence subtask

 

 

 

Source df Sum of Squares Mean Squares F
Between Groups
3 4000.072 1333.357 6.136"
Within Groups
108 23466.768 217.285

 

 

 

 

 

70

 

Table 8 (cont’d)

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

111 27466.839

 

"Significant at the .001 level
The Tukey post-hoe procedure tests for significant differences between the four
groups on the Interdependence subtask of the SDTLA. The significant
differences at the .01 level between the Control Group and Co-curricular Service-
Leaming Group, and Academically-based Service-Leaming Group and Control
Group and the Co-curricular Service-Leaming Group are presented in Table 9.
The Tukey method showed a statistically significant difference in developing the
interdependence subtask for students who engaged in the Co-curricular Service-
Leaming pedagogy when compared to students who did not participate in any
service-Ieaming or those who participated in the Academically-based Service-
Leaming. The students involved in Co-curricular Service-Leaming had
significantly more development on this SDTLA Subtask than those involved in
either of the other groups.

Table 9

fist-hoe Tukey Results for Interdependence SubTas_k

 

 

 

 

Type Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.
Control Group
Spring Break SL -7.3572 3.96240 .253
Co-curricular SL -1 5.4478" 4.16927 .002
Academic SL -.8564 3.96240 .996

 

 

 

 

 

“Significance at the .01 level

71

 

Table 9 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

Type Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.
Co-curricular SL
Control Group 1 5.4478" 4.16927 .002
Spring Break SL 8.0906 3.96240 .179
Academic SL 14.5913" 3.96240 .002

 

 

 

 

 

"Significance at the .01 level

The Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task is defined by two subtasks: Peer
Relationships and Tolerance. An ANOVA for the subtasks for the Mature
Interpersonal Relationships Task was conducted to further determine any
significant differences between the three service-Ieaming pedagogies and the
control group. The mean scores and standard deviations for the two subtasks
that constitute the Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task are presented in
Table 10.

Table 10

Mean Standard Deviations for Peer Relationships Subtask and Tolerance
Subtask

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peer Relationships Tolerance N

Control/Baseline
1.179 (17.57) .957 (12.29) 25

Academic SL

-1.884 (14.10) 4.672 (10.93) 31

Spring Break SL
4.167 (14.29) 7.669 (8.67) 31

Co-curricular SL
6.605 (15.93) 11.724 (8.36)“ 25

 

 

 

 

 

** Significance at the .01 level

72

 

While the Spring Break Service-Leaming group and the Co-curricular

Service-Leaming group had mean scores that were greater than the Control

group on the subtasks of Peer Relationships, these were not found to be

significant differences. The Tolerance subtask, which reflects respect for and

acceptance of these of different backgrounds, beliefs cultures races, lifestyles

and appearances, produced a significant difference F (3, 108) = 5.129, p=.002.

Analy§is of Variance for Tolerance Subtask

Table 11

 

 

 

 

Source df Sum of Squares Mean Squares F
Between Groups
3 1589.24 529.74 5.129"
Within Groups
108 1 1154.73 103.28
Total
11 1 12743.98

 

 

 

 

 

"Significant at the .01 level

The Tukey post-hoc procedure tests for significant differences between the four

groups on the Tolerance subtask of the SDTLA. The significant differences

between the Control Group and Co-curricular Service-Leaming Group at the .01

level are presented in Table 12. The Tukey HSD test also produced differences

between the Control Group and the Spring Break Service-Leaming Group, p =

.073, and between Co-curricular Service-Leaming Group and the Academically-

based Service-Leaming Group, p = .054.

73

 

Table 12

Post-hoc Tukey HSD Results for Toler_a_nce Subtask

 

 

 

 

Type Mean Difference Std. Error Si}.
Control Group
Spring Break SL -6.7119 2.7318 .073
Co—curricular SL -10.7677** 2.8745 .002
Academic SL -3.7156 2.7318 .527

 

 

 

 

 

"Significance at the .01 level

The first hypothesis tested was whether the “SDTLA difference scores” of
traditional college students would significantly differ across the three types of
service-Ieaming. An ANOVA and Tukey post-hoe test were utilized to compare
the three different types of service-Ieaming with the eight dependent variables
(two SDTLA tasks and six SDTLA subtasks) used in this study. A statistically
significant difference was found between the Spring Break Service-Leaming type
and the others on the Developing Autonomy Task. In addition, a statistically
significant difference was found on three SDTLA subtasks for the Co-curricular
Service-Leaming type when compared to the others. The meaning and

significance of these results will be discussed more fully in Chapter Five.

Results of Second Hypothesis tested

The second hypothesis tested as part of the research questions was

whether the “SDTLA difference scores” of traditional college students significantly

74

 

differed for students involved in the three types of service-Ieaming from those not
involved in service-Ieaming (control group). The “SDTLA difference scores” were
once again calculated by obtaining the post-test minus the pre-test on the two
developmental tasks generated from the SDTLA: Developing Autonomy and
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships. The three groups of service-
leaming pedagogies were regrouped into one service-Ieaming group to compare
to the non-service—leaming control group. An independent sample T-test was
conducted to determine any differences. Using SPSS, the unequal sample size
of the two groups was accounted for in the T-test. Table 13 compares the means
and standard deviations for these two tasks within the two groups.

Table 13

Mean and Standard Deviations for Developing Autonomy and Developing Mature

Interpersonal Relationships Tasks

 

 

 

Autonomy Relationships N
Service-Learning 1.1963 (6.17) 3.5740 (5.53) 87
Control/Baseline .8584 (4.01) 2.6400 (4.89) 25

 

 

 

 

 

While the mean difference scores of the Service-Leaming group appear to
be higher than the control group in both the Developing Autonomy Task and the
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task, the independent sample T-
test did not prove them to be significantly different, Autonomy t(1 10)=.258,

p=.797 and Relationships t(110)=.761, p=.448.

75

To determine whether there were differences between the Service-
Leaming group and the Control group on the six subtasks of the SDTLA, an
independent sample t-test was conducted. The data suggest that there are
indeed significant differences between the Service-Leaming group and the
Control group. Specifically, there are statistically significant differences for the
Instrumental Autonomy subtask, t(110) = 1.984, p =.05, Interdependence
subtask, t(110) = 2.095, p =.038, and Tolerance subtask t(110) = 2.892, p = .005.
The mean scores and standard deviations for the six subtasks are shown in
Table 14. The meaning and significance of these results will be discussed more
fully in Chapter Five.

Table 14
Mean and Standard Deviations for the Academic Autonomy, Emotional
Autonomy, and Instrumental Autonomy, Interdegndence. Peer Relationships,

and Tolerance subtasks

 

Acad. Emot. Instr-u. Interd. Peer Toler.

 

Service-Learning 7.04 -5.19 8.56“ 9.64* 2.71 7.76“
(17.00) (13.00) (15.76) (16.17) (14.97) (9.77) 87

 

 

Control/Baseline 6.36 -8.1 1 1 .46 2.27 1.17 .95
(12.87) (14.80) (15.43) (12.76) (17.57) (12.29) 25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significance at the .05 level

Results of Third Hypothesis tested
The third hypothesis tested as part of this research project was whether

the “SDTLA difference scores” for the alternative spring break service-Ieaming

76

 

pedagogy significantly reflected the most positive difference when compared to
the other two pedagogies. Using the SDTLA differences scores for the
Developing Autonomy Task and the Developing Mature Interpersonal
Relationships Task, Table 3 shown previously in this chapter, compares the
means and standard deviations for these two tasks within the four subject
groups. The Spring Break Service-Leaming group had the largest mean
difference scores on the SDTLA developmental tasks when compared to the
other service-Ieaming pedagogies. However, this difference was only found
statistically significant at the .05 level when compared to the Co-curricular
Service-Leaming group. As shown in Table 6, the Tukey HSD post-hoe
procedure measured a mean difference of 4.3820, p = .022.

To further understand the differences between the Spring Break Service-
Leaming Group and the other two Service-Leaming groups, a Multivariate
Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed. A MANOVA is a technique used
to assess group differences across multiple dependent variables simultaneously.
This produced similar results with significant differences found on the Developing
Autonomy task between the Spring Break Service-Leaming group and the other
two Service-Leaming groups F (3) = 3.205, p = .026. In the multivariate tests,
Roy’s Largest Root found an F = 3.220, p = .026. The meaning and significance

of these results will be discussed more fully in Chapter Five.

77

Summary of Results

The intent of this study was to investigate the outcomes of service-
leaming from three distinct models: ongoing continuous service throughout a
semester in co-curricular service-Ieaming; one time, intensive week-long spring
break service-Ieaming trips; and ongoing service through a semester of
academically-based service-Ieaming. This study explored one particular student
outcome, psychosocial development, among college students involved in three
different types of service-Ieaming. This was achieved by administering to college
students involved in one of the three pedagogies of service-Ieaming the Student
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA; Winston, Miller, 8
Cooper, 1999b). A total of 112 participants were involved in this study.

Three hypotheses were tested in an attempt to answer the stated research

questions. The comprehensive results of this study are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Statistically Significant SDTLA differences across the Service-Leaming

 

 

 

 

 

Pedagmies
Autonomy Relationships Instrumental Interdependence Tolerance
Task Task Subtask Subtask Subtask
Academrc
SL
Co-Curricular Significant Significant
SL .01 .01
Spring Break Significant
SL .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first hypothesis tested whether “SDTLA difference scores” of traditional
college students significantly differed across the three types of service-Ieaming.

It was found that there were significant psychosocial developmental differences

78

among the three types of service-Ieaming on the Developing Autonomy Task, the
Interdependence Subtask, and the Tolerance Subtask. The second hypothesis
tested was whether “SDTLA difference scores” of traditional college students
would significantly differ for students involved in the three types of service-
Ieaming from those not involved in service-Ieaming (control group). A statistically
significant difference was found between the Service-Leaming group and the
Control group on the Instrumental Autonomy, Interdependence, and Tolerance
subtasks. The final hypothesis tested was whether “SDTLA difference scores”
for the alternative spring break service-Ieaming pedagogy reflected the most
significant differences when compared to the other two pedagogies. A
statistically significant difference was found between the Spring Break Service-
Leaming group and the Co-curricular Service-Leaming group on the Developing
Autonomy task. A thorough discussion of these results and their impact on

service-Ieaming pedagogies will be presented in Chapter Five.

79

CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS 8: RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

During the past decade, there has been a marked increase in interest in
the pedagogy of service-Ieaming. Many postsecondary educators have unitized
service-Ieaming as part of their curriculum and co-curriculum. For purposes of
this study, service-Ieaming is defined as “a form of experiential education in
which students engage in activities that address human and community needs
together with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student
Ieaming and development. Reflection and reciprocity are key concepts of
service-Ieaming” (Jacoby, 1996, p.5). A well-planned service-Ieaming project
allows students to learn and develop through active participation in a carefully
planned service that is developed to meet and address the needs of a
community.

Much of the research conducted to date speaks to the degree to which
service-Ieaming has a positive effect on students' general personal and cognitive
development (e.g., Eyler 8 Giles, 1999; Jacoby, 1996; Sax 8 Astin, 1997).
However, relatively little is known about whether the various types of service-
leaming are effective tools for developing students and what the differences may
be between these service-Ieaming pedagogies. Accordingly, this study

examined the outcomes of service-Ieaming from three distinct models to

80

determine their developmental impact on student participants. In this chapter,
the problem, hypotheses, population and sample, statistical methods,
independent and dependent variables are restated. In addition, the findings,

implications, and final recommendations are reported.

Statement of the Problem

Service-Ieaming has been shown to have an impact on the growth and
development of college students (Astin, Sax, 8 Avalos, 1999; Eyler 8 Giles,
1999; Rhoads, 1997). The use of service-Ieaming has varied in postsecondary
education with different methods employed by faculty and student life educators
(Delve, Mintz 8 Stewart, 1990). These types of service-Ieaming pedagogies
have needed further investigation in terms of outcomes for students (Campus
Compact, 1998). This study explored the outcomes of service-Ieaming from
three distinct models: ongoing continuous service throughout a semester in co-
curricular service-Ieaming; one time, intensive week-long spring break service-
leaming trips; and ongoing service through a semester of academically-based
service-Ieaming. A fourth control group of students was used for comparative
purposes. This study investigated one particular student outcome, psychosocial
development, among college students involved in three different types of service-
leaming by administering the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle
Assessment (SDTLA; Winston, Miller, 8 Cooper, 1999b). This instrument was
devised to measure students on several developmental vectors defined by

Chickering and Reisser (1993). In particular, this study examined the Developing

81

Autonomy Task and the Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task, as
well as the various subtasks that provide specific components of the larger‘
developmental task. This instrument was given to participants as a pretest at the
beginning of the academic semester, and then again at the end of the academic
semester as a posttest to determine the developmental differences gained.

This study explored the questions: Do students involved in distinct types of
service-Ieaming have different psychosocial development outcomes? Are the
student psychosocial development outcomes different for students who
participate in service-Ieaming and those who do not? Does the spring break
service-Ieaming pedagogy lead to developmentally distinct outcomes when
compared to the other service-Ieaming types?

Three hypotheses were tested in an attempt to answer the stated research
questions:

1. The “SDTLA difference scores" of traditional college students will
significantly differ across the three types of service-Ieaming.

2. The “SDTLA difference scores“ of traditional college students will
significantly differ for students involved in the three types of service-
leaming from those not involved in service-Ieaming (control group).

3. The “SDTLA difference scores" for the alternative spring break service-
leaming pedagogy will reflect the most significant differences when
compared to the other two pedagogies.

* “SD TLA difi‘erence score” is a derived score when a post-SD TLA

score is subtracted from a pre-SD TLA score.

82

This study employed a classic pretest-posttest control group design to test
the hypothesis whether psychosocial development, the dependent variable, was
different among students who participate in co-curricular service-Ieaming,
academically-based service-Ieaming and service-Ieaming spring break trips, the

independent variables.

Study Population and Sample

The population for this study comprised currently enrolled, traditional age,
full-time, degree-seeking students at a private, liberal arts college located in the
Midwest. The population was selected using a stratified random sample
selection design. The students asked to join this study were already participating
in three distinct service-Ieaming pedagogies. One group of sixty students who
were involved in academically-based service-Ieaming was invited to participate in
this study. These students were involved in a service-Ieaming project connected
to their course content. Another group of sixty students involved in co-curricular
service-Ieaming facilitated through the college’s service-Ieaming office was
invited to participate. These students were involved in continuous service-
leaming projects throughout the semester at locations such as thrift stores, after-
school programs, and homeless shelters. The third group of students was
involved in the college’s service-Ieaming alternative spring break trips. These
sixty students invited to participate traveled during the college spring vacation to

a location to serve for a week. A final group of sixty students who were not

83

involved in service-Ieaming was chosen at random from the college student
population to serve as a baseline group.

In total, four distinct groups of 60 students representing a sample size of
240 participants were invited to participate in this study. Students who
completed the first pre-test SDTLA represented 82% of the sample (164
subjects). Of the 164 subjects who completed the pre-test, 112 chose to
continue participation in the study by completing the post-test SDLTA. This
represented 68% of the pre-test sample group and 47% of the original sample

invited to participate in this study.

Statistical Methods

Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated for the independent
variable in this study, service-Ieaming type, which was operationalized into three
fixed categories, and a fourth baseline control group and for the eight dependent
variables, which were the tasks and subtasks of the Student Developmental Task
and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA; Winston, Miller 8 Cooper, 1999b). Mean,
standard deviation, multiple t tests, an analysis of variance (ANOVA), a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and Tukey HSD method were used

to report the results of the research questions.

Findings and Implications

Based on the findings of this study, there is a significant difference in the

psychosocial development outcomes between the three service-Ieaming

84

pedagogies. In particular, the results show that, based on the SDTLA
Developmental Tasks, the spring break service-Ieaming pedagogy has the most
statistically significant developmental differences. In addition, it seems that on
the SDTLA Developmental Subtasks, participants involved in the co-curricular
service-Ieaming pedagogy experienced the most psychosocial development.
The implications of these findings will be explored further through the three

research questions.

First Research Question
The first research question asked whether students involved in distinct

types of service-Ieaming had different psychosocial development outcomes. In
order to answer this question, the first hypothesis that was tested was whether
the “SDTLA difference scores” of traditional college students significantly differed
across the three types of service-Ieaming. The SDTLA difference score is a
score calculated when the raw post-SDTLA score is subtracted from the raw pre-
SDTLA score. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the
differences between the four independent variables, three service-Ieaming
pedagogies and control group, and the two SDTLA developmental tasks,
Developing Autonomy and Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships.
While no significant differences were found on the Developing Mature
Interpersonal Relationships Task, a statistically significant difference was found
between the Spring Break Service-Leaming group and the Co-curricular Service-

Leaming group on the Developing Autonomy Task (see Table 3 and Table 6).

85

The Developing Autonomy Task measures the psychosocial development
of students who: (a) are able to meet their needs and action on their own ideas
without the need for continuous reassurance from others; (b) can structure their
lives and manipulate their environment in ways that allow them to satisfy daily
needs and meet responsibilities without extensive direction or support from
others; (0) structure their time and devise and execute effective study strategies
to meet academic expectations without the need for direction from others; and (d)
recognize the reciprocal nature of the relationship between the individual and his
or her community and acts as a responsible, contributing member. While a
statistically significant difference was found between the Spring Break Service-
Leaming group and the Co-curricular Service-Leaming group on the Developing
Autonomy Task, it seems clear from the mean scores that the difference was due
to a strong difference score from the Spring Break Service-Leaming group, rather
than a lack of development from the Co-curricular Service-Leaming group. The
students involved in Spring Break Service-Leaming had significantly more
development on this SDTLA Task than those involved in Co-curricular Service-
Leaming. A thorough discussion of the possible reasons for this difference is
presented in the section examining the third research question and hypothesis
tested.

To further understand the differences in developmental gains between the
three types of service-Ieaming models, the subtasks of the Developing Autonomy
Task were investigated. The Developing Autonomy Task had four subtasks:

Emotional Autonomy subtask, Academic Autonomy subtask, Instrumental

86

Autonomy subtask, and Interdependence subtask. While the subtasks of
Academic Autonomy, Emotional Autonomy, and Instrumental Autonomy had
mean scores that were greater than the control group, these were not found to be
of statistical significance. On the Interdependence subtask, a significant
difference between the Co—curricular Service-Leaming group and the Control
group was found (p=.001). In addition, a significant difference was found
between the Academically-based Service-Leaming group and the Co-curricular
Service-Leaming group (p=.01, see Table 7 and Table 9).

The Interdependence subtask measures the reciprocal nature of the
relationship between the individual and his/her community. Students who have
high scores on this subtask fulfill their citizenship responsibilities and are actively
involved in activities that promote improvement of the institution and the larger
community. Concern for others is reflected in these students’ awareness of how
their behavior affects the community (Winston, Miller 8 Cooper, 1999b). Given
this result, this research provides evidence that students involved in Co-curricular
Service-Leaming have greater psychosocial development in the area of
citizenship and community awareness and development, than the other service-
Ieaming types and the control group.

One of the reasons for the developmental difference found for spring
break service-Ieaming and co-curricular service-Ieaming might stem from the
nature of these two types of service-Ieaming. For example, spring break service-
leaming offers a social component to service-Ieaming whereas academically-

based service-Ieaming does not offer this aspect as clearly. The spring break

87

service-Ieaming includes a significant amount of time for students to socialize
together, and has the added dimension of being an immersion experience, which
typically does not happen in an academically-based service-Ieaming experience.
The power of immersion experiences in service-Ieaming was documented by
Pompa (2002) who found these educational experiences provide Ieaming
dimensions that are difficult to achieve in a tradition classroom. Pompa (2002)
writes, “different from the idea of service-Ieaming as a ‘feel good’ experience,
which can be transient and ephemeral, what we are talking about here involves
depth, direction, hard work, and a commitment to make change in the world” (p.
74). Immersion experiences in service-Ieaming, such as spring break trips, have
the power to turn things inside—out and upside-down for those engaged in them.
It provokes one to think differently about the world, and to consider one’s
relationship to the world in a new way (Rhoads, 1997).

Another factor affecting the results of the study might be individual
motivation to join these two types of service-Ieaming experiences. Both co-
curricular service-Ieaming and spring break service-Ieaming are voluntary
programs. Students choose to spend their spring vacation from postsecondary
education participating in a service-Ieaming project. For co-curricular service-
leaming, participants make a weekly commitment to serve, and this motivation is
not rewarded through curricular means. Some students enjoy the work of
service-Ieaming and desire to be involved in these activities, and therefore
choose to be involved in co—curricular and spring break service-Ieaming.

Conversely, students involved in academically-based service Ieaming often are

88

unaware when they enroll for a course that service Ieaming is a component
unless it is mentioned in the course description. This motivation to be involved in
the service-Ieaming experience may affect the results of this study.

To further understand the differences in developmental gains between the
three types of service-Ieaming models and the control group, the subtasks of the
Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task were investigated. The Mature
Interpersonal Relationships Task had two subtasks: Peer Relationships subtask
and Tolerance subtask. Once again, the mean scores for the Spring Break
Service-Leaming group and the Co-curricular Service-Leaming group show the
developmental differences as compared to the Academically-based Service-
Leaming group and the Control group. The statistically significant difference was
found on the Tolerance subtask between the Co-curricular Service-Leaming
group and the Control group (p= .002, see Tables 10 and 12). The Tolerance
subtask is defined as “the respect for and acceptance of those of different
backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, races, lifestyles and appearances” (Winston,
Miller 8 Cooper, 1999b, p.12). Students who score high on this subtask respond
to people as individuals and do not perpetuate racial, sexual or cultural
stereotypes. According to this subtask, tolerance involves an openness to and
acceptance of differences and does not mean shielding oneself from the values
and ideas of those with different backgrounds, lifestyles, or belief systems. The
students who score high on the Tolerance subtask do not shy from or reject
contact with those with different ethnic, racial, or cultural heritage or with different

religious beliefs, political views, or lifestyles (Winston, Miller 8 Cooper, 1999b).

89

Co-Curricular Service-Leaming

The significant difference in developmental growth for participants in co-
curricular service-Ieaming on the Independence and Tolerance Subtask is an
important finding. Development in civic responsibility and understanding
differences are two key goals of service-Ieaming professionals (Astin, Sax, 8
Avalos, 1999; Campus Compact, 2002; Dalton 8 Petre, 1997; Green 8 Diehm,
1995). It was found in previous studies that service-Ieaming has a positive effect
on students’ sense of social responsibility and citizenship skills (Astin 8 Sax,
1998; Eyler, Giles 8 Braxton, 1997; Mabry, 1998). Of the eight SDTLA subtasks
that were studied as part of the psychosocial development of students, it seems
that the Interdependence and Tolerance subtasks are the most directly related to
the developmental goals of service-Ieaming. Civic responsibility and tolerance
are values that service-Ieaming professionals aspire to develop in their
participants; therefore, it is intuitive that these subtasks were found to have
significant differences across the various pedagogies. This study affirms the
belief that co-curricular service-Ieaming can be a powerful tool for facilitating
tolerance and civic engagement within college students. With this knowledge,
service-Ieaming practitioners should design co-curricular service-Ieaming with a
focus on this knowledge set.

One reason for these differences between the service-Ieaming
pedagogies might stem from the nature and focus of co-curricular service-

leaming. Students involved in co-curricular service—Ieaming voluntarily decided

90

to participate in ongoing service-Ieaming at a community partnership provided to
them by the campus service-Ieaming office. The opportunities for service
included tutoring disadvantaged, low-income children; working at a homeless
shelter and food bank; and rebuilding neighborhoods through community
organizations. The students’ participation in this service-Ieaming was regular
throughout the semester, with students averaging 24 hours a week during the
course of a semester. It could be argued that students may commit to be
involved in co-curricular service-Ieaming due to their interest and commitment to
service, citizenship, and understanding differences in others. This may offer one
explanation to the increased developmental scores on the Interdependence and
Tolerance Subtasks for this group. However, when examining the pretest scores
on the Interdependence and Tolerance subtasks for the Co-Curricular Service-
Leaming group, one does not find a higher starting point for this group. In fact,
the mean scores for those involved in Co-Curricular Service-Leaming were
slightly lower than the control group on the Interdependence and Tolerance
subtasks. This would lead the researcher to support the developmental
differences resulting from this service-Ieaming experience.

In considering other factors that may influence the developmental
outcomes associated with service-Ieaming, one must examine the relationship
the office of service-Ieaming has with the agencies, placements, or community
partnerships that provide a place for students to serve. Eyler 8 Giles (1999)
found that service-Ieaming placements impacted Ieaming outcomes significantly.

The role that community agencies play is integral in service-Ieaming as students’

91

community service work frequently takes place in these organizations. However,
as Jones (2003) writes, “great care must be taken to design and sustain
partnerships with community agencies that enable student-Ieaming objectives to
be realized while advancing community agency goals and activities” (p. 153).
This role is often facilitated by the service-Ieaming office in regards to co-
curricular service-Ieaming, and may have contributed developmental outcomes
associated with this service-Ieaming pedagogy.

Furthermore, the professionals involved in coordinating the co-curricular
service-Ieaming experiences are aware of the importance of reflection and
reciprocity within the service-Ieaming experience. Although reflection is an
integral part of all service-Ieaming experiences, it can be more fully utilized by
trained professionals to enable students to derive meaning from the experience
of service. In A Practitioner’s Guide to Reflection in Service-Leaming, Eyler,
Giles 8 Schmiede (1996) teach that meaningful reflection is “continuous in time
frame, connected to the ‘big picture’ information provided by academic pursuits,
challenging to assumptions and complacency, and contextualized in terms of
design and setting” (p. 21). This knowledge by professionals involved in co-
curricular service-Ieaming may have contributed to more extensive opportunities
for focused reflection, which helps produce Ieaming outcomes. In a recent study
entitled How Service Learning Affects Students, Astin et al. (2000) provide

quantitative and qualitative results that suggest providing students with an

92

opportunity to process the service experience with each other is a powerful
component of service-Ieaming.

For this dissertation study, the co-curricular service-Ieaming experiences
that were examined had service-Ieaming student leaders or others facilitating
reflection exercises for student growth. It is the belief of this researcher that the
processing of these co-curricular service experiences contributed to the
significant differences found in this study. Many studies have found the quantity
and quality of reflection to be consistently associated with Ieaming outcomes for
those involved in service-Ieaming (Eyler 8 Giles, 1999; Green 8 Diehm, 1995;
Mabry, 1998). The supervision and oversight that a service-Ieaming office can
provide the co-curricular service-Ieaming and spring break service-Ieaming
pedagogies in terms of facilitating reflection is one of the differences between
these types of service-Ieaming and the academically-based service-Ieaming.

It may also be that the on—going relationships established in a co-curricular
service-Ieaming experience increase the psychosocial development for the
students involved. Whereas the academically-based service-Ieaming experience
was defined as 15-25 hours of service that was integrated into the for-credit
classes over the course of the entire semester, the co-curricular service-Ieaming
group had regular, consistent interaction with their community partnerships
throughout the semester. The depth of this latter relationship of service may
have contributed to further development on the Interdependence and Tolerance

subtasks.

93

Academically-based Service-Leaming

While academically-based service-Ieaming provided some difference
scores that were higher than the control group, none were found to be
statistically significant. In addition, as compared to the other two service-Ieaming
methods, academically-based service-Ieaming was found to yield the least
psychosocial development differences. While this seems contrary to some of the
service-Ieaming literature, (Astin 8 Sex, 1998; Boss, 1994; Markus, Howard 8
King, 1993; Strage, 2000; Vogelgesang 8 Astin, 2000), this researcher believes
there are some legitimate concerns in regards to the effectiveness of
academically-based service-Ieaming. These concerns and the possible reasons
for the lack of psychosocial developmental differences for those participating in
academically-based service-Ieaming in this study will now be addressed.

First, some faculty are misinformed about the true nature of academically-
based service-Ieaming. Grafting a community service requirement onto an
otherwise unchanged academic course does not constitute academically-based
service-Ieaming. While such models are practiced, this interpretation
marginalizes the Ieaming in, from and with the community, and presents
challenges for transforming students’ community experiences into Ieaming.
Moving students and the practice of service-Ieaming beyond “getting credit for
doing good,” requires treating service-Ieaming as more than a casual addition to
a course. Merely giving credit for a few hours of service, even in conjunction with
having students keep a log or journal of their service-Ieaming activities, does not

lead to broader connections and academic Ieaming. To realize service-leaming’s

94

full potential as a pedagogy, community experiences must be considered in the
context of, and integrated with, the other planned Ieaming strategies and
resources in the course (Howard, 2000).

Second, the models given to faculty for constructing academically-based
service-Ieaming do not take into account the importance of facilitating student
development outcomes. For example, one influential model for academically-
based service-Ieaming offers three criteria as the litmus test for whether a course
may be considered service-Ieaming by faculty (Howard, 2001 ). These criteria
are: (1) relevant and meaningful service with the community, (2) enhanced
academic Ieaming, and (3) purposeful civic Ieaming. The following Venn
diagram is given as a model for constructing academic service-Ieaming.

Fi ure 5: Academic Service-Leamin Howard 2001 .

Service

Academic Learning

 

All three criteria are necessary for a course to qualify as academic service-

leaming, according to this model. However, this model creates no space for

95

psychosocial or student development outcomes in the service-Ieaming process.
In fact, according to a course design workbook published by Campus Compact,
“it is important to note that while service-Ieaming courses may have other
Ieaming objectives and/or outcomes, such as in the social or affective domains,
these are not necessary conditions for academic service—Ieaming” (Howard,
2001, p.13). After performing a search of exemplary syllabi of service-Ieaming
courses gathered by Campus Compact through a national research study, only
twelve of the over one hundred courses mention student development outcomes
in the course objectives. With this focus on academic Ieaming objectives,
meaningful service, and civic Ieaming, there is an absence of recognition of the
importance of student development outcomes. As faculty construct
academically-based service-Ieaming courses without this awareness, it should
come as no surprise that students are not coming away with these psychosocial
development outcomes.

Third, the role of community in creating Ieaming experiences should be
considered in regards to academically-based service-Ieaming. The experience
of participating in service and reflecting on this service in the context of a
community has provided some powerful Ieaming experiences for students (Eyler
8 Giles, 1999). This sense of community is more difficult to construct in a
classroom setting, especially when compared to the immersion experience of the
spring break service-Ieaming experience.

Finally, it is the belief of this researcher that student life professionals bear

responsibility for the inefficiencies in constructing service-Ieaming experiences

96

that further psychosocial development in the academically-based service-
leaming pedagogy. In an effort to construct partnerships between the Ieaming
inside and outside the classroom, student life professionals have not advocated
for student development objectives within academically-based service-Ieaming.
The findings and recommendations from this study should embolden student life
professionals in the service-Ieaming field to advocate for student development
outcomes in all forms of service-Ieaming. This study affirms other previous
research that found performing service as part of a course adds significantly to
the benefits associated with community service for all outcomes except
interpersonal skills, self-efficacy, and leadership (Astin et al., 2000). This study’s
emphasis on researching the psychosocial development of students may not
have assessed the true value of academically-based service-Ieaming to the
academy. The researcher believes the outcomes of academically-based service-
Ieaming could be enhanced if service-Ieaming professionals provided further
training for faculty about the importance of reflection, reciprocity and mutuality
within the service-Ieaming experience. I believe the full potential of this service-
leaming experience could be realized.

With these recommendations in mind, it is the belief of this researcher that
academically-based service-Ieaming is an important pedagogy in the area of
service-Ieaming. When done thoughtfully, it provides a much needed connection
of student Ieaming between student life professionals and faculty. The

academically-based service-Ieaming pedagogy holds great opportunity to

97

collaborate between faculty and student affairs professionals in postsecondary

education.

Second Research Question

The second research question, are the student psychosocial development
outcomes different for students who participate in service-Ieaming and those who
do not, has already been partially addressed with the data just presented. In
order to answer this question more completely, the second hypothesis that was
tested was whether the “SDTLA difference scores” of traditional college students
significantly differed for students involved in the three types of service-Ieaming
from those not involved in service-Ieaming (control group). The three types of
service-Ieaming pedagogies were regrouped into one service-Ieaming group to
compare to the non-service-leaming control group. In each of the SDTLA Tasks
and Subtasks, the service-Ieaming group had a higher mean difference score
than the non-service-leaming control group (see Tables 13 and 14). An
independent sample T-test was conducted to determine any significant
differences across the two SDTLA developmental tasks and the six SDTLA
developmental subtasks. As shown in Table 14, there are statistically significant
differences between the service-Ieaming group and the non-service-Ieaming
control group for the Instrumental Autonomy subtask, t(110) = 1.984, p =.05,
Interdependence subtask, t(110) = 2.095, p =.038, and Tolerance subtask t(110)

= 2.892, p = .005.

98

The Instrumental Autonomy and Interdependence subtasks combine as
two parts of the Developing Autonomy Task. The Instrumental Autonomy
Subtask measures students’ ability to structure their lives and manipulate their
environment in ways that allow them to satisfy daily needs and meet personal
responsibilities without assistance or support from others. Students who score
high on the Instrumental Autonomy Subtask are able to manage their time and
other aspects of their lives in ways that allow them to meet daily demands, fulfill
community responsibilities, and satisfy personal needs. They are independent,
goal-directed, resourceful and self-sufficient persons (Winston, Miller & Cooper,
1999b). The Interdependence subtask measures the extent to which students
recognize the reciprocal nature of the relationship between themselves and their
community, and fulfill their citizenship responsibilities.

This dissertation research supports the impact of service-Ieaming on
college students’ psychosocial development, especially in Chickering and
Reisser’s (1993) “moving through autonomy toward interdependence” vector.
Chickering and Reisser (1993) have stressed that “human development should
be the organizing purpose for higher education,” and postsecondary “institutions
can have significant impact on student development along the major vectors“ (p.
265). Chickering (2001) views the “development of a sense of self as a
contributing part of the community" as a vital contribution of postsecondary
education (p. 4). Chickering (2001) believes service-Ieaming is one avenue for
developing civic responsibility, and this seems to be supported by the findings in

this study. The service-Ieaming that participants were involved in during this

99

study helped to develop a commitment to active citizenship. This is supported by
researchers Eyler, Giles & Schmiede (1996) who interviewed students involved
in service-Ieaming. One of their subjects said, “I would never have really truly
understood these issues—like homelessness. . .it is Ieaming a larger scale of
these issues. Instead of just seeing myself working with the shelter or a few kids,
I guess I have a picture of myself as part of a larger community working with
these issues” (p. 31). Service-Ieaming gives students an opportunity to identify a
growing sense of responsibility to do something about the community problems
they are encountering. This often stems from students’ understanding of the
systemic nature of social problems and their empathy with those with whom they
are working in their service projects. Through critical reflection on these service-
leaming activities, students have the opportunity to be confronted with powerful
experiences and be challenged to question their assumptions. This
transforrnative Ieaming enables some students to see their society in a new way
(Mezirow, 2000).

One interesting discovery from this research question was the finding of
significant difference on the Instrumental Autonomy subtask. There have been
few service-Ieaming studies that explore the development of autonomy in
students. It may be that students who choose to be involved in service-Ieaming
are the type of student who are able to manage their time in ways that allow them
to meet daily demands and satisfy personal needs. The increased development
throughout the semester by students involved in service-Ieaming in this study

suggests that the experience contributed to their sense of being independent,

100

goal-directed and self-sufficient persons. The further exploration of autonomy
development would be an interesting follow-up to this research.

There is a mounting body of evidence documenting the efficacy of
participating in service-Ieaming during the undergraduate years (Astin, Sax &
Avalos, 1999; Bringle & Hatcher, 2000b; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Rhoads, 1997;
Stienke & Buresh, 2002). This dissertation study provides further support to the
notion that service-Ieaming has a positive effect on student psychosocial
development. During a time in postsecondary education when many student life
professionals are being asked to validate the Ieaming outcomes of their work,
studies such as this dissertation are helpful for service-Ieaming professionals.
The findings specifically provide evidence for the importance of service-Ieaming

in developing civic responsibility and tolerance in its participants.

Third Research Question
The third research question explores the predicted differences between

the spring break service-Ieaming experience and the two other service-Ieaming
pedagogies. In order to answer this question, the third hypothesis that was tested
was whether the “SDTLA difference scores” for the alternative spring break
service-Ieaming pedagogy will reflect the most significant differences when
compared to the other two pedagogies. Using the SDTLA differences scores for
the Developing Autonomy Task and the Developing Mature Interpersonal
Relationships Task, Table 3 shown previously in Chapter Four compares the

means and standard deviations for these two tasks within the four subject

101

groups. The mean scores for the Developing Autonomy Task show the Spring
Break Service-Leaming group had statistically significant developmental
differences when compared to the other two pedagogies. An analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were
conducted to determine the differences between the four independent variables,
three service-Ieaming pedagogies and control group, and the two SDTLA
developmental tasks, Developing Autonomy'and Developing Mature
Interpersonal Relationships. A significant difference between the Spring Break
Service-Leaming group and the Co-curricular Service-Leaming group was found.
The Tukey HSD method showed a statistically significant difference in developing
autonomy between students who engaged in the Spring Break Service-Leaming
pedagogy and those students who participated in the Co-curricular Sen/ice-
Leaming pedagogy. On the Developing Autonomy Task, the hypothesis that the
Spring Break Service-Leaming group would reflect the most significant
developmental change was found to be true. However, this was not found
across all SDTLA tasks and subtasks.

To further understand the differences between the three service-Ieaming
pedagogies, an ANOVA for the subtasks of the Developing Autonomy Task was
conducted to determine any significant differences between the three service-
Ieaming pedagogies and the control group. In the testing of the subtasks of
Academic Autonomy, Emotional Autonomy, and Instrumental Autonomy, the
Spring Break Service-Leaming group was found to have statistically significant

mean difference scores when compared to the control group and the

102

Academically-based Service-Leaming group. However, the Co-curricular
Service-Leaming had the most significant differences on the Developing
Autonomy subtasks.

In addition, while the Spring Break Service-Leaming group showed the
most developmental difference on the Developing Mature Interpersonal
Relationships Task, the Co-curricular Service-Leaming group had a stronger
difference score on the two subtasks, Peer Relationships and Tolerance.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Spring Break Service-Leaming pedagogy will
significantly reflect the most significant difference when compared to the other

two pedagogies was found in the SDTLA Tasks, but not the SDTLA Subtasks.

Spring Break Service-Leaming

The findings of this study provide some utility for service-Ieaming
practitioners. Some reasons for the strong difference scores for the SDTLA
Tasks by the Spring Break Service-Leaming type as compared to the other
service-Ieaming types will be briefly explored. First, the importance of providing
quality altemative spring break opportunities from service-Ieaming offices has
been affinned. The psychosocial development differences for students involved
in the spring break service-Ieaming trips were greatest when compared to the
two other service-Ieaming types and the control group. One reason for this
difference may be due to the immersion experience of this type of service-
Ieaming, and the personal and community development aspects of these trips.

Therefore, professionals working in service-Ieaming offices should provide

103

opportunities for students to organize alternative spring break projects.
Currently, of the Campus Compact member schools, 60% of the service-Ieaming
offices offer spring break service-Ieaming trips as an option (Campus Compact,
2003).

The investment in planning these trips, building community on these trips,
and serving with fellow students and community partners during these trips to
unfamiliar parts of the country have provided student leaders with important
Ieaming and development. Most spring break service-Ieaming trips are advised
by service-Ieaming professionals, but planned by student leaders. This
involvement in the design and facilitation of the service-Ieaming experience has a
powerful effect on student leaders (Astin, 1985). This student empowerment
element is unique to spring break service-Ieaming, and may account for some of
the developmental differences. In planning for spring break service-Ieaming
trips, students and staff should intentionally facilitate the development of
community for those going on the trip. The community that is built during these
experiences should be intentionally developed, not just left to chance. This will
foster an environment that will accelerate the psychosocial development for
those involved.

In Rhoads and Neururer’s (1998) qualitative study of an alternative spring
break program, the service-Ieaming experience provides some concrete
examples of this unique Ieaming opportunity. The intensity of spending a week
immersed in a service-Ieaming experience can offer a better understanding of

self and community for the students involved (Rhoads & Neururer, 1998). While

104

the service interactions at the work site are not as prolonged as the semester-
long service performed by the co-curricular service-Ieaming group, the spring
break service-Ieaming experience offers students an opportunity to “tmly live” the
service experience 24 hours a day, for seven days. As noted earlier, this
immersion seems to influence the Ieaming and development of students. It also
seems that the sense of community and relationships developed within the
service-Ieaming group can have profound Ieaming outcomes. One student in
Rhoads and Neururer’s (1998) study states that, “we really have a community
within our group. We’re from really diverse backgrounds yet everybody really got
along” (p. 111). Another explained his perception of the service-Ieaming group
as a community: “I have been influenced by the other students and volunteers
here. They have left a real impression on me. We all got along and I feel very
close to everyone. And it’s only been one week” (p. 112). It seems that students
learned through the environment they were serving, through both the college
group and the people they were assisting. This mutuality, the willingness to
receive as well as give, becomes an important aspect of the spring break
service-Ieaming experience.

The findings of this study provide some legitimacy to the spring break
service-Ieaming pedagogy. There have been some reservations about affinning
this pedagogy by professionals because some students tend to view service-
leaming work as traveling to a destination to “save the poor people.” Some
professionals and researchers have questioned whether the money used to send

students great distances to participate in spring break service-Ieaming could be

105

 

used more effectively for the community by simply sending them the money (Van
Engen, 2000). An example of this perspective is articulated by a community
partner in Honduras who wrote, “the spring break group spent their time and
money painting and cleaning the orphanage in Honduras. That money could
have paid two Honduran painters who desperately needed the work, with enough
left over to hire four new teachers, build a new dormitory, and provide each child
with new clothes” (Van Engen, 2000, p. 21) Others acknowledge that students
have various motivations for serving including guilt, curiosity about different
cultures or peer pressure.

With the strength of this type of service-Ieaming affirmed in this study, it is
important to return to Rhoads and Neururer’s (1998) concept of mutuality, the
willingness to receive as well as to give. They write, “students bring multiple
agendas and experiences with their enthusiasm to volunteer. Staff members
need to be sensitive to the experiences that shape students’ interest in and
commitment to service” (p. 115). Students should be encouraged to reflect on
what they are receiving in this experience of serving others. For some service-
Ieaming professionals, the spring break service-Ieaming pedagogy may be seen
as the “least serious Ieaming experience” of the three types. However, as this
study affirms, there are valuable developmental opportunities in this type of
service-Ieaming, if it is viewed as more than just “fun and games.”

This study also supports the important role that spring break service-
Ieaming plays in developing autonomy in students. The Developing Autonomy

Task represents students who are able to meet their needs and action on their

106

own ideas without the need for continuous reassurance from others; who
recognize the reciprocal nature of the relationships between themselves and their
community, and who act as a responsible, contributing member. This is an
important area of Ieaming for students in postsecondary education, and should
be intentionally utilized in the student life professionals’ quest to foster student
Ieaming.

Given the previous studies of spring break service-Ieaming, this
researcher would have expected to see stronger significant differences on the
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task for this type of service-
leaming. This may be due to a small sample size or other factors. The pretest
score for the Peer Relationships subtask was strong (x = 50.30) and did not show
significant differences after the posttest on this subtask. One explanation of this
could be that the participants who chose to be involved in spring break service-

Ieaming already possess strong relational skills.

Recommendations for Further Research
The intent of this study was to investigate whether the distinct types of
service-Ieaming have different psychosocial development outcomes utilizing the
Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) instrument. The
following are recommendations for future study, which are based on the findings
and conclusions of this research.
1. A qualitative research study is needed to further explore the differences

between the three service-Ieaming pedagogies. The reason for the

107

differences in the psychosocial development gains in the three service-
leaming pedagogies is not fully known at this time. A qualitative study
focused on the nature of service-Ieaming would provide deeper
understanding of the service-Ieaming types and their impact. After finding
differences between the service-Ieaming types in this study, a study that
explores the meaning in this experience would be helpful. A descriptive
account of the service-Ieaming experience seems to be lacking. There
seems to be important Ieaming that occurs in service-Ieaming that may be
more fully understood through the use of observations, interviews and
other qualitative research techniques. Qualitative research on the
developmental differences between the service-Ieaming types would
provide more depth, further understanding, and color to the distinctions
shown in this study with the use of observations and interviews.

. A research study that examines long-term effects of the three service-
leaming pedagogies is needed. This current study that conducted a
pretest and posttest over the course of a semester of service-Ieaming
experiences does not account for long-term growth for students. The role
of reflection and Ieaming applied to life experiences could be more fully
explored in this research design.

. If possible, a larger sample size would possibly yield stronger conclusions
and significant differences between the three service-Ieaming pedagogies.
For example, when comparing the spring break service-Ieaming group to

the control group on the difference score of the Tolerance subtask a good

108

effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d (d=.68). So while the
difference was not statistically significant (p=.073), a larger sample size
may produce significant results. This was true for a few of the SDTLA
Tasks and Subtasks.

4. Future studies of the developmental difference between service-Ieaming
pedagogies should be extended beyond a single higher education
institution to include other colleges and universities provided that each
institution has a similarly defined service-Ieaming program with the three
types of service-Ieaming pedagogies. Students from various types of
institutions may develop in unique ways given their environments. There
have been few studies that address the institutional impact on service-
Ieaming outcomes.

5. The use of the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment
(SDTLA) in more service-Ieaming studies would continue validation of this
instrument for assessing student Ieaming outcomes in particular areas of
student affairs and further understanding of the outcomes as seen through
Chickering’s developmental model. In future studies, other instruments
such as the Social Responsibility Inventory (SRI) or the Scale for Social
Responsibility Development (SSRD) could be used to provide further

insights and depth into the outcomes of service-Ieaming.

In summary, future research that considers the psychosocial differences

between the various service-Ieaming types is encouraged. Hopefully, this

109

research has added to the literature pertaining to the outcomes of service-
Ieaming, thereby better informing student affairs and service-Ieaming practice in

higher education.

Summary of the Study

This study explored the psychosocial development outcomes of service-
leaming from three distinct models: ongoing continuous service throughout a
semester in co-curricular service-Ieaming; one time, intensive week-long spring
break service-Ieaming trips; and ongoing service through a semester of
academically-based service-Ieaming. A control group of students who had no
involvement in service-Ieaming was used for comparative purposes. The
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA; Winston, Miller,
& Cooper, 1999b) was administered to college students involved in each of the
three types of service-Ieaming and the control group to examine the Developing
Autonomy Task and the Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task, as
well as the various subtasks that provide specific components of the larger
developmental tasks. This instrument was administered as a pretest at the
beginning of the academic semester, and then again at the end of the academic
semester as a posttest to determine the developmental differences.

The findings indicated that there were significant developmental
differences among the three service-Ieaming pedagogies. In particular, the
results suggested that, based on the SDTLA Developmental Tasks, the Spring

Break Service-Leaming pedagogy had statistically significant psychosocial

110

development gains. In addition, on the SDTLA Developmental Subtasks,
participants involved in the Co—curricular Service-Leaming pedagogy showed the
greatest gains in psychosocial development. The Academically-based Service-
Leaming pedagogy had no statistically significant psychosocial development
gains. Implications for service—Ieaming practitioners include further

understanding of the developmental outcomes of these service-Ieaming types.

111

REFERENCES

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical
assessment of priorities and practice in higher education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A.W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by
service participation. Journal of College Student Development 39 (3), 251 -263.

Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long term effects of
volunteerism during the undergraduate years. Review of Higher Education, 22(2),
187-202.

Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., lkeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How
service Ieaming affects students. UCLA Higher Education Research Institute:
Los Angeles.

Barber, B. R., Higgins, R. R., Ballou, J. K., Dedrick, J., & Downing, K.
(1997). Democratic theory and civic measurement: A report on the measuring
citizenship project. Paper presented at the Campus Compact, Denver.

Batchelder, T. H., & Root, 8. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program
to integrate academic Ieaming and service: Cognitive, pro-social cognitive and
identity. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 341-355.

Boss, J. A. (1994). The effects of community service work on the moral
development of college ethics students. Journal of Moral Education. 23: 183-
1 98.

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

Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (2000b). Meaningful measurement of
theory-based service-Ieaming outcomes: Making the case with quantitative
research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 68-75.

Campus Compact. (1998). Special report: Advancing our knowledge of the
impacts of service learning. Providence, RI: Author.

112

Campus Compact (2000). Highlights and Trends in Student Service and
Service Leaming: Statistics from the 1999 Member and Faculty Survey. Campus
Compact, Providence, RI.

Campus Compact. (2002). Service statistics: Highlights of Campus
Compacts’s annual membership survey. Providence, RI: Author.

Chickering, A. W. (1978). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass. (Original work published in 1969).

Chickering, A. W. (2001). Maximizing civic learning and social
responsibility. Boston: New England Resource Center for Higher Education.

Chickering, A. w., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. (2mi ed).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Dalton, J. C. & Petrie, A. M. (1997). The Power of Peer Culture.
Educational Record, 78(3-4), 18-24.

Delve, C. I., Mintz, S. D., and Stewart, G. M. (1990). (Eds), Community
service as Values Education, New Directions for Student Services, (50). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University.

Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Henry Holt.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: The Macmillan
Company.

Driscoll, A., Holland, 8., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An
assessment model for service-Ieaming: Comprehensive case studies of impact
on faculty, students,community, and institutions. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 3, 66-71.

Dunn, A. W. (1907). The community and the citizen. Boston: DC Heath.

Eyler, J. & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning?
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

113

Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Braxton, J. (1997). The impact of service-
Ieaming on college students. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
4, 5-1 5.

Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Schmiede, A. (1996). A practitioner’s guide
to reflection in service-Ieaming: Student voices and reflections. Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University.

Fenwick, T. J. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential Ieaming: A
review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education
Quarterly, 50(4), 243-272.

Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political
efficiacy: A panel analysis. . Educational Record. Summer-Fall, 18-32.

Fitch, R. T. (1991). Differences among community service volunteers and
nonvolunteers on the college campus. Journal of College Student Development,
32(6), 534-540.

Freire, P. (1963). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans). New
York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1982). Education for critical consciousness. New York:
Continuum.

Giles, D., & Eyler, J. (1994a). The impact of a college community service
laboratory on students’ personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of
Adolescence 17(4), 327-339.

Giles, D., & Eyler, J. (1994b). The theoretical roots of service-Ieaming in
John Dewey: Toward a theory of service Ieaming. Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 1( 1), 77-85.

Gray, M. J., Ondaatje, E.H., & Zakaras, L. (1998). Coupling service and
learning in higher education: The final report of the evaluation of learn and serve
America, Higher education program. Washington, DC: Corporation for National
Service.

Green, D., 8 Diehm, G. (1995). Educational and service outcomes of a
service integration effort. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2,
54-62.

Hepburn, M. (1997). Service Ieaming in civic education: A concept with
long, sturdy roots. Theory into practice, 36 (3): 136-142.

114

Howard, J. (2000). Academic service-Ieaming: Myths, challenges and
recommendations. Essays on Teaching Excellence, 12 (3) 12-19.

Howard, J. (2001). Service-Ieaming course design workbook. Ann Arbor,
MI: OCSL Press.

Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology. Pacific Grove,
CA: Duxbury Thomson Learning Press.

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

Jacoby, B. A., & Associates (1996). Service Ieaming in higher education:
Concepts and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jacoby, B. A. & Associates (2003). Building partnerships in service-
Ieaming. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult Ieaming in social context. New York: Croom Helm.

Jones, 8. R. (2003). Principles and profiles of exemplary partnerships with
community agencies. In B. Jacoby (Ed), Building partnerships in service-Ieaming.
(pp.151-1 73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kendall, J. (Ed.). (1990). Combining service and Ieaming: A resource book
for community and public sen/ice (Vol. I and II). Rhode Island: NSEE.

Kendrick, J. R. (1996). Outcomes of service-Ieaming in an introduction to
sociology course. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Leaming 3: 72-81.

King, P. & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment:
Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in
adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knelfelkamp, L., Wydick, C. & Parker, C. (1974). Applying new
developmental findings. New directions for student services, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

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

Korbin, M. & Nadelman, R. (1995). Sen/ice counts: Revitalizing literacy
efforts in American higher education. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.

115

Kraft, R. & Swad ner, L. (1994). Building community: Service Ieaming in
the academic disciplines. Denver, CO: Colorado Campus Compact.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social sciences. New York: Harper &
Row.

Luce, J. (1988). Service-Ieaming: An annotated biography, linking public
service with the curriculum. Raleigh, NC: National Society for lntemships and
Experiential Education.

Mabry, J. B. (1998), Pedagogical variations in service-Ieaming and
student outcomes: How time, contact, and reflection matter, Michigan Journal of
Community Sen/ice Learning 5, 34.

Markus, G. B., Howard, J., & King, D. (1993). Integrating community
service and classroom instmction enhances Ieaming: Results from an
experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1 5(4), 41 0-419.

McEwen, M. K. (1996). Enhancing student Ieaming and development
through service-Ieaming. In B. Jacoby (Ed.) Service-Ieaming in higher education.
57-80 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Melchior, A. (1997). Learn and service evaluationfinterim report. A report
prepared by the Center of Human Resources, for the Corporation for National
Science.

Mezirow, J. & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical
perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Michelson, E. (1996). Usual suspects: experience, reflection, and the
(en)gendering of knowledge. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 15(6),
438-454.

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

Morgan, W. (1998). Evaluations of school-based service Ieaming in
Indiana, 1997—98. Report for the Indiana Department of Education.

Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2002). Service-Ieaming: Promoting civic activism
or civic apathy?” Politics and Policy, 30 (1 ): 161 -1 88

Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1998). Effect of a comprehensive service-Ieaming

program on college students' civic responsibility. Teaching Sociology, 26, 243-
258.

116

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parker-Gwen, R., & Mabry, B. (1998). Service-Ieaming as pedagogy and
civic education: Comparing outcomes for three models. Teaching Sociology 26:
276-291.

Payne, C. A. (2000). Changes in involvement as measured by the
community service involvement preference inventory. Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 7, 41-53.

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

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans).
New York: W. W. Norton.

Pompa, L. (2002). Service-Ieaming as crucible: Reflections on immersion,
context, power, and transformation. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 9, 67-76.

Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Community service and higher Ieaming:
Explorations of the caring self. New York: University of New York Press.

Rhoads, R. A. & Neururer, J. (1998). Altemative spring break: Learning
through community service. NASPA Journal, 35(2), 100-118.

Rice, K. L., & Brown, J. R. (1998). Transforming educational curriculum
and service Ieaming. Journal of Experiential Education, 21(3), 140-146.

Sax, L. J. & Astin, A. W. (1997). The benefits of service: Evidence from
undergraduates. Educational Record. Summer-Fall, 25-33.

Serow, R. C. & Dreyden, J. L. (1990).Community service among college
and university students: Individual and institutional relationships. Journal of
Adolescence, 25(9), 553-566.

Sigmon, R. (1996). The journey to service-learning: Experiences from
independent liberal arts colleges and universities. Washington DC: Council of
Independent Colleges.

Strage, A. (2000). Service-Ieaming: Enhancing student Ieaming outcomes

in a college level lecture course. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 7, 5-13.

117

Steinke, P. & Buresh, S. (2002). Cognitive outcomes of service Ieaming:
Reviewing the past and glimpsing the future. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 8(2), 5-14.

Van Engen, J. (2000). The cost of short term missions. The Other Side,
1, 20-23.

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

Wachs, P. & Cooper, D. L. (2002). Validating the Student Development
Task and Lifestyle Assessment: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of College Student
Development, (43), 124-1 29.

Waterman, A. (1997). The role of student characteristics in service-
Ieaming. In A. Waterman ( Ed .), Service-Ieaming: Applications from the research.
32-57. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Western Washington University. (1994). Community service activity by
Western Washington Students: Its extent, nature, and impact on the surrounding
community. Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.

Winston, R. B. Jr., Miller, T. K., & Cooper, D. L. (1999). Preliminary
Technical Manual for the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment
Manual. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.

Winston, R. B. Jr., Miller, T. K., & Cooper, D. L. (1999b). Student
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment Manual. Athens, GA: Student
Development Associates Inc.

Winton, R. B., Miller, T. K. & Prince, J. S. (1987). The student
development task and lifestyle inventory. Athens, GA: Student Development
Associates, Inc.

118

APPENDIX A: Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment

119

Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment

Roger B. Winston, Jr.
Theodore K. Miller
Diane L. Cooper

 

 

The Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment is composed of statements shown to
be typical of some students and is designed to collect information concerning college students’
activities, feelings, attitudes, aspirations, and relationships. The Assessment is designed to
help students learn more about themselves and for colleges to learn how to assist students more
effectively. The SDTLA’s usefulness depends entirely on the care, honesty, and candor with

which students answer the questions.

It will regfl' e about 15-20 minutes for you to complete this Questionnaire.

DIRECTIONS

For each question choose the one response
that most closely reflects your beliefs,
feelings, attitudes, experiences, or interests.
Record your responses as directed.

- Consider each statement carefully, but do
not spend a great deal of time deliberating
on a single statement. Work quickly, but
carefully.

° In this questionnaire, “college” is used in a
general sense to apply to both two and
four year colleges, as well as universities;
it refers to all kinds of post-secondary
educational institutions.

' If you have no parent, substitute guardian
or parent equivalent when responding to
items about parent(s).

DEMOGRAPHIC

QUESTIONS

Mark your responses where you have been
instructed to provide this information. It is
crucial that you provide this information.

A. What is your sex? (Select one.)
1 = Male
2 = Female

B. What was your age at your last birthday?

120

 

 

C. What is your racial or cultural
background? (Select one best response.)

1 = Black or African American

2 = Hispanic, Latino/a, or Mexican

American

3 = Asian American or Pacific Islander

4 = Native American/People

5 = White or Caucasian/European

6 = Biracial or multiracial

7 = Other

D. What is your academic class standing?
(Selection one.)
1 = Freshman (fust year)
2 = Sophomore (second year)
3 = Junior (third year)
4 = Senior (fourth year)

E. Where do you presently live? (Select the
one best response.)
1 = In on-campus residence hall
2 = At home with parent(s)
3 = At home with spouse/spouse

equivalent

4 = In on-campus apartment/trailer/house
(not with parent or spouse)

5 = In off-campus

aparnnent/trailer/house (not with
parent or spouse)
F. Are you an international student?
(Selection one.)
1 = No
2 = Yes

 

 

Respond to the following items by selecting:

PART 1: Questions 1 — 12

A = True
B = False

 

 

10.

11.

12.

I never regret anything I have done.

I followed a systematic plan in making
an important decision within the past
thirty days.

I like everyone I know.

I would prefer not to room with
someone who is from a culture or race
different from mine.

I never get angry

It’s important to me that I be liked by
everyone.

Since beginning college, my friends
have become more frequent sources of
support than my parents.

During the past twelve months, I have
acquired a better understanding of what
it feels like to be a member of another
race.

I never say things I shouldn’t.

I never lie.

Within the past twelve months, I have
undertaken an activity intended to
improve my understanding of
culturally/racially difl‘erent people.

I never get sad.

 

 

PART 2: Questicms l3 — 46

Respond to the following statements by marking
the appropriate letter".

A = Never (almost never) true of me

B = Seldom true of me

C = Usually true of me

D = Always (almost always) true of me

 

 

121

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

I satisfactorily accomplish all important
daily tasks (e.g., class assignments, test
preparation, room/apartment cleaning,
eating, and sleeping).

It bothers me if my friends don’t share
the same leisure interests as I have.

I avoid discussing religion with people
who challenge my beliefs, because there
is nothing that can change my mind
about my beliefs.

I’m annoyed when I hear people

speaking in a language I don’t
understand.

I have made conscious efforts to make
this college a better place to attend.

I have a difficult time in courses when
the instructor doesn’t regularly check up
on completion of assignments.

My classmates can depend upon me to
help them master class materials.

I avoid groups where I would be of the
minority race.

I don’t perform as well in class as I
could because I fall short of
requirements.

It’s more important for me to make my
own decisions than to have my parents’
approval.

When I wish to be alone, I have
difficulty communicating my desire to
others in a way that doesn’t hurt their
feelings.

A person’s sexual orientation is a
crucial factor in determining whether I
will attempt to develop a friendship
with her/him.

I conceal some of my talents or skills so
I will not be asked to contribute to
group efforts.

It’s hard for me to work intensely on
assignments for more than a short time.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

When in groups, I present my ideas and
views in a way that it’s clear I have
given them a serious thought.

I feel uncomfortable when I’m around
persons whose sexual orientation is
different from mine.

It’s very important to me that I am
successful both inside and outside the
classroom.

Because of my friends’ urgings, I get
involved in things that are not in my
best interest.

My personal habits (e.g.,
procrastination, time management,
assertiveness) get in the way of
accomplishing my goals or meeting my
responsibilities.

I accept criticism from friends without
getting
upset

I get bored and quit studying after
working on an assignment for a short
time.

I try to avoid people who act in
unconventional ways.

I have difficulty following through with
decisions I have made when I discover
others (e.g., parents or friends) disagree
with these decisions.

I have difficulty disciplining myself to
study when I should.

It’s more important to me that my
friends approve of what I do than it is
for me to do what I want.

My study time seems rushed because I
fail to realistically estimate the amount
of time required.

I feel confident in my ability to
accomplish my goals.

It’s essential that those important to me
approve of everything I do.

122

41.

42.

43.

45.

46.

I find it difficult to accept some of the
ways my close friends have changed
over the past year.

Even when I’m not particularly
interested in a subject, I’m able to
complete course requirements
satisfactorily.

It’s important to me that I achieve to the
limits of my abilities.

I don’t socialize with people of whom
my friends don’t approve.

I use library materials, resources, and
facilities effectively.

Itrytodresssothatlwillfitinwithmy
friends.

 

 

PART 3: Questions 47 — 50

Respond to the items below by

marking one of the following:

 

 

A = Strongly agree

B = Agree

C = Disagree

D = Strongly disagree

 

47.

48.

49.

50.

I have arranged my living quarters in a
way that makes it easy for me to study,
sleep, and relax.

Society has a responsibility to assist
people who cannot sustain themselves.

As a citizen, I have the responsibility to
keep myself well-informed about
current issues.

Learning to live with students from
cultural or racial backgrounds different
from mine is an important part of a
college education.

 

 

 

PART 4: Questions 51- 61

Respond to the items below by marking

one of the following:

A = Never

B = Seldom

C = Sometimes
D = Ofien

 

 

51.

52.

53.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

Within the past year, I have participated
in activities that directly benefited my
fellow students.

I wonder what my friends say about me
behind my back.

I am confident in my ability to make
good decisions on my own.

I participate in community service
activities.

I dislike working in groups when there
are a significant number of people who
are from a race or culture that is
different from mine.

I trust the validity of my values and
opinions, even when they aren’t shared

by my parent(s).

I have an inner sense of direction that
keeps me on track, even when I am
criticized.

In the past six months, I have gone out
of my way to meet students who are
culturally or racially different from me
because I thought there were things I
could learn from them.

I feel anxious when confronted with
making decisions or taking actions for
which I am responsible.

I have used my time in college to
experiment with different ways of living
or looking at the world.

I express my disapproval when I hear
others use racial or ethnic slurs or put-
downs.

123

 

 

PART 5: Questions 62 — 80

General Responses: Select and mark the

one best response fi'om the alternatives

provided that best describes you.

 

62. Within the past twelve months, I have

OF”?

65.

taken a public stand on issues or beliefs
when many friends and acquaintances
didn’t agree.

Never

Seldom

Sometimes

. After a friend and I have a heated

argument, I will . . .
a. never (almost never) speak to

him/her again.

seldom speak to him/her.
usually speak to him/her.
always speak to him/her.

I never have disagreements
with friends.

9999'

. During the academic year,

A. I have organized my time well
enough for me to get everything
completed.

B. I sometimes had difficulty
organizing my time well enough to
get everything done.

C. I often had difficulty organizing my
time well enough to get everything
done.

D. I seldom seem able to organize my
time well enough to do everything.

When faced with important decisions

thisyear,lhave.. .

A. relied on others - such as parent(s),
friend(s), or teacher(s) — to tell me
what to do.

B. sought information and opinions,
but made the final decisions on my
own.

C. relied on myself alone in making
the decisions.

D. attempted to avoid making
decisions as much as possible.

 

66.

67.

68.

69.

When I have heated disagreements with
friends about matters such as religion,
politics, or philosophy I . . .
A. am likely to terminate the fiiendship.
B. am bothered by their failure to see
my point of view but hide my
feelings.
C. will express my disagreement, but
will not discuss the issue.
D. will express my disagreement and
am willing to discuss the issue.
E. don’t talk about controversial
matters.

I have identified, and can list, at least

threewayslcanbeanassettothe

community.

A. No, I haven’t thought about that
much.

B. No, I don’t know what I can
contribute.

C. No, that’s not important to me.

D. Yes.

During this academic year,

A. I have tended to put ofi‘ most
school work, and assignments to
the last minute and, as a result,
don’t do as well as I could.

B. I have often forgotten about
assignments or put them off so long
thatlwasunabletoturntheminon
time.

C. I have established a study routine
that has
enabled me to get most school
work and assignments completed
on time and to my own satisfaction.

D. I have established a study routine
that has
enabled me to get all work and
assignments completed on time and
to my own satisfaction.

I have made a positive contribution to

my community (residence hall, campus,

neighborhood, or hometown) within the

past three months.

A. No, that isn’t important to me.

B No, I don’t know what I could do
to make a positive contribution.

C. No, but I have tried to find ways.

D. Yes.

124

70. I am familiar with sources of help on

71.

campus (e.g., tutoring, counseling,

academic information, library research

tools and procedures, and computers).

A. I really don’t know much about
these things.

B. I know about a few.

C. I know about most of them.

D. I know about all of them.

When I don’t agree with someone in
authority

(e.g., professor, administrator), I . . .

A. never express my opinion.

B. express my opinion only when I am
angry.

express my opinion when asked.
express my opinion if given a
chance.

avoid dealing with persons in
positions of authority if possible.

mp0

72. Within the past three months, I have

taken an

active part in a recycling activity/program.

73.

A No, recycling is too much trouble.
B. No, I don’t know where to dispose
of materials.

Yes, I have participated

occasionally.

Yes, I have participated regularly.

Yes, I have participated and

promoted recycling activities to

others.

Within the past month,

A. I took the initiative to bring several
people together to resolve a mutual
problem.

B. I joined with several people to
resolve a
mutual problem.

C. I have not encountered problem
that needed a group effort to solve.

D. I have avoided situations that
required me to work with other
people in solving problems.

1719.0

74.

75.

If I thought my friends would

disapprove of a decision I made, I

would most likely . . ..

A. try to keep them from finding out
(keep it a secret).

B tell them and pretend I didn’t care
what the thought.

C. tell them and explain my reasoning
for this decision.

D. make up something to mislead
them from
knowing the truth.

In the past twelve months, I have taken
an active part in activities or projects
designed to improve the community,
such as a charity drive, clean up

campaign, or blood drive.
A. Never

B. Once

C. Twice

D. Three times

E. Four or more times

76. Each day,

A. I depend on my memory to make
sure that I get done what needs to
be done, and that works for me.

B. I keep a calendar or make a “To
Do” list of what needs to be done
each day and that works for me.

C. I dislike planning what I need to
do; I just let things happen and that
works for me.

D. I don’t make detailed plans about
what I need to do each day, and as
a result I forget important things.

125

77.

78.

79.

80.

In regards to social issues,

(e.g.,homelessness, environmental

pollution, or AIDS),

A. I don’t think much about them.

B. I am concerned, but haven’t taken
any specific actions.

C. I contribute money to organizations
that address the issue(s).

D. I am actively involved in
organizations that address the
issue(s).

I have one or more goals that I am
committed to accomplishing and have

been working on for over a year.

A. No, I don’t like making definite
goals.

B. No, I have tried, but have been
unable to follow through

C. No, I have difficulty making
realistic long-range plans.
D. Yes.

Within the past twelve months, I
contributed my time to a worthy cause
in my community (campus or
town/city).

A. No.

B. l — 10 hours.

C. 11 — 20 hours.

D. 21 — 30 hours.

E. 31 or more hours.

I have developed a financial plan for

achieving my educational goals.

A. No, my parent(s) are taking care of
it.

B. Yes, I have a plan that depends on
the continuation of the present level
of funding.

C. No, I haven’t thought much beyond
the current term.

APPENDIX B: Letter of Informed Consent
(Emailed to participants)

February 1, 2004
Dear student,

You are invited to participate in a study I am conducting as part of my doctoral studies in
the College of Education at Michigan State University. This study, entitled Exploring
the Developmental Outcomes of Service-Learning Pedagogies, focuses on the impact
of various types of service-Ieaming on college student’s growth and development.
Specifically, this study is interested in exploring the developmental differences for
students involved with co-curricular service-leaming, the alternative spring break
program, and academically-based service-Ieaming.

If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete an 80-question survey at the
beginning and at the end of this spring semester 2004. The survey should take about 10
minutes to complete. Participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose to not
participate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain
questions at any time during the study. If you choose to participate you will be entered
into a drawing for one of two $50 gift certificates to the college bookstore.

Your confidentiality will be protected throughout the study. All data obtained from you
will be kept confidential and will not be viewed by anyone except my dissertation advisor
and myself. The surveys will be coded so I can determine individuals that I have not
received information from and for the post-test comparison of scores. Your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

There are no anticipated benefits or risks to you as a participant, aside from helping the
Service-Ieaming Center understand the development impacts of their work with students.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Josh Armstrong, 612 Hoyt St,
Grand Rapids, MI 49507, 245-9154, firmstro@calvin.edu or stop by my office anytime.
If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if
you wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4053,
email: ucrihs@msu.edg, or regular mail: 202 Olds hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study by accessing the link to this survey below.

126

517/355-21m
FAX 51 ”4324503

Web: mnmeduluwr/wiis
E-Ihil: wireOrrsueriu

USU is m aflimulivradim.
soul-Wit) Helium

 

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R s I T Y

 

January 9. 2004

TO: Marilyn J. AMEY
427 Erickson Hall
MSU

RE: IRBI 03-1013 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-2

APPROVAL DATE: January 7, 2004
EXPIRATION DATEDecember 7, 2004

TITLE: EXPLORING THE DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES OF SERVICE-LEARNING
PEDAGOGIES

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects’ (UCRIHS) review of this

projectlscompleteandlam pleasedtoadvisethattheridrtsandmltareoithetuman

subjedsappearmbeadequatdyprotectedandmedndsmobtalnmnede

appropriate. “version, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approvd is valid until the expkation date listed above. Projects
continuingbeyondthis dale mustberenewedwiththerenewalform.Amaximumoffoursuch
expedited renewals are possible. Investigators wishlng to contlme a project beyond that tine
need to submit a 5-year application for a 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 you
written request with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project‘s lRBtt and title. Include in your request a description of
the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMSlCHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly. 1) problems (unexpected slde effects, complaints, etc.) Involvhg
Immansubjeclsu2)chmgeshfinmseardimvruunananewhfumauonhdicafing
geaturbkmmehumansubjecumanexbtedmmuotocdwaswwbudymbwedmd
approved.

If we can be of further assisbnce. please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via emal:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
htthlwwwhumanresearchmsuedu

Sincerely.
WE

Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.
UCRIHS Chair

PV: jm

0C1 Josh Armstrong
612 Hoyt St SE
Grand Rapids. MI 49507

127

Dr parrrm‘nl nl ('licmislr \‘

and firm llr'mrslr \

3201 Burrmr )rru‘l. 5 E

Grand Rapids. MI 40546

610-957-0200

Fm l\l(‘-‘l57~(‘3lll

CALVIN

(Sollcgo

2-12-04
Josh:

The Calvin IRB has approved your research pr0posal “Explori ng the
Developmental Outcomes of Service Learning Pedagogies".

I wish you well in your investigations. .

Sincerely:
/ ,
/ \..,,.-, . ,, ._,_____—-t _3 ;/

Ken Piers, Chair. Calvin [RE

128

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC
PMB 500 .
2351 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 306054664

STUDENT DEVELOPMENTAL TASK and LIFESTYLE ASSESSMENT
UCENSE AGREEMENT and ORDER FORM

Ti'risdocumentconflrmsthatStudentDeveIopmentAssod ,.Inc refenedtoherelnestheAesociates)
andthefollowlnglnstltutlon, program. orsmdentcumpm)
(referred to herein as the licensee), have entered Into a license agreement wh ein the licensee Is
authorized to reproduce and adrrinlster the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment
(SDTLA) and/or Its Developmental Task and Subtask versions for research or programmatic Intervention
purposes. For Icensees this agreement may be extended for up to thirty-six (36) months on the same
financial basis. Extensions of the license agreement beyond a 36 month period must be reviewed and
renegotiated.ngmmendsmdentlcensesaulnitedtomedunfionofmepmjectforwhldrme lcense
was obtained.

 

This lcense agreement stipulates that the Institution wll pay the Associates the fee specified below for
ecceestotheSDTLAfora 12Mpenodforflielnsfltu10n‘suseonlylortheopuoncheckedbelow.

SDTLA Licensing Options [check license option requested].

UcenseOpttonA:InslltutlonalHardCopyBooldetResearchUcenseatflOOOforflmonthperlod.
Site lcense linited to use In a single Institution only. No charge for Initial 100 booklets reproduced;
$1.00 per additional SDTLA booldet copled [semi-annual audit and payment for addllional booklets
due on regular six month bases, (June 1 and Decenber 1 of contract year). Ucense holder agrees to

subnit copies of raw data [with individual identifies removed] and research results elicited to
Associates.

Ucense Option 8: Institutional Cormuter Adrrinistered Site Ucense at $1000 for 12 month period.
Site lcense Ilrrited to use In a single Institution only. No additional charge for first 200 corrputer
administrations and 50¢ per additional computer administration beyond Initial 200 due on regular six
month bases (June 1 and December 1 of contract year). License holder agrees to subrrit copies of
rewdata [withlndlvidual ldeniitiesremovedl and research results elcitedtotheAssodates.

Ucense Opdon O. Individual Functional Area Program Ucense at $250 for a one-time or test-relied
project Ilrrited to students Involved In a single functional area In the Institution only. In additional, a
$1.00 per SDTLA booklet copled or computer adrrinlstratlon (Mlnlrrarrn $100) will be charged to the
Ucensee and payable attirrreotlnltlal lcense agreernentand on reguareix month beses(June1 and
December 1) forihedurationofthe project.

License Option D: Graduate Student (verified unsponsored funding) Research Project Ucense at
$50.00 fee per degree-related research project (e.g., thesis. dissertation) plus 50¢ per SDTLA booklet
copied or corrputer administration for student project only (minimum $25.00). Plus copy of research
report (e.g., thesis, dissertation) submitted to Associates. Appleents for Graduate Student Research
Ucense must subrrit letter from soil and faculty research supervisor stipulating that personal funds
only will be used to support the student's project and Indicate where and quantity of data to be
colested.

SDTLA Site Ucense Stipulations.

A paid institutional site license authorizes the licensee to reproduce up to 100 copies of the SDTLA
booklet, which is reusable, or to provide 200 computer adrrinlstraiions, at no addtlonal cost. If the
Licensee wishes to administer the SDTLA to students at other Institutions, those Institutions must
establish a lcense agreement with the Associates before such administration can be authorized. The
licensee may reproduce additional copies of the SDTLA booklet at a cost of $1.00 per copy or SDTLA
developmental task booklet versions at a cost 0150¢ per copy. Functional area program project licenses
call for the Licensee to pay. in addition to the licensing fee, $1.00 per hard copy or computer
administration of the SDTLA with a minimum of $100 per project. The Licensee will provide an accounting
report and submit payment to the Associates for copies reproduced or computer administrations offered
beyond the number stipulated by the Ucense on June 1 and December 1 of the year in which the lcense
is in force). Administration, scoring, and statistical analyses of the SDTLA are the responsibility of the

129

Institution. program. or student. The lcensee agrees to provide a copy of all research reports and raw
data on computer disk to the Associates for archival and research purposes.

The special graduate student research lcense is provided at a discount to students of unsponsored
research which receives no funding. In addition to the $50.00 project license fee. students will pay 50¢
per SDTLA booklet copied or convuter administration offered (minimum of $25.00). to be paid as of June
1 and December 1 during the course of the project Students must provide a joint letter from themselves
and their faculty research supervisor verifying that no funding has been provided for the project. If
external funding is provided, students must apply for one of the other three Icense options. Students who

receive a student research lcense agree to provide to the Associates a copy of their final research report
(on either disk or hardcopy).

The Associates. upon receipt of the annual lcense fee, will provide the licensee with a copy of the SDTLA
booklet in Macintosh Adobe PageMaker computer disk format for duplcatlon purposes; hardcoplcs of the
various fonns of the SDTLA; a scoring key; and a technical manual that describes the SDTLA, furnishes
technical information. and provides application and adninistration advice. Administration, scoring. and
other uses of the SDTLA are the responsibility of the licensee. Consultation will be provided by the
Associates as time pernits. The copyright for the SDTLA is held by the Associates and Institutional.
program. or student project lcense holders are not authorized to provide SDTLA materials or scoring
keysto anyone beyondthescope ofthislcense agreement.

Agreement:

‘l'helicenseeagreestotheabovestated criteriaandwlllabidebyflielcense agreementforacceatothe
Student Developmental TeslrandUestyie Assessmertfora period of 12 months or the duration of the
researchproject

mum Am- Asa/4k 9n (cw. mm- in M Mm?

Name-Title of Authorizing Adrrinistrator or Faculty Research Su or (please type or prior) '

 

SlgnatureSDete

3 his T. AVmH'nM

and Title Prlma rcher (please type orprfl)

WI 8! 03

Name, US mail & e-maii addresses, phone a fax nurrbers of Institutional contact person who is
responsibieforsupervlsing the terms ofthis agreement(pleasetypeor print):

um. Mime MW

lndilutlonal afllalion: WW WdMim—QBLJL—

nature!- e

 

 

 

 

\llbrkTelepIiorieNunbenLIL.El (15% rum: (nib. 526.9901’
magmas-[maoeoxw 320i MM 5}. SE. 4nd fld'w'Jl: MI
V4644.

 

Student Development Associates. inc. agrees to abide by the above stipulated agreement criteria upon
receipt of the annual or project lcense fee.

Roger B. Winston. Jr., President, SDA. Inc: Date:

 

Please complete. sign. and return m completed copies of this agreement-order form to Student Development
Associates. Inc.. PMB 500. 2351 College Station Road. Athens. GA 30605-3664 with check payable to Shrdent
Development Associates and one copy signed by an authorizing Associate will be returned with your order.

 

 

 

130

   

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITV LIBRARIES
ilHlHHllWiIIHIIHWIIHillllillil‘WWIWIHIHI
3 1293 02504 0134