1

Assessing Service Learning at Utah State University:

A pilot study

Jozanne Lund

Gisela Martiz

Krista Gurko

Jordan Sebresos

Dean Hammond

Bryan Tanner

Nick Eastmond

And remaining students from Dr. Nick Eastman’s course

INST 6510

Spring 2010

2

Executive Summary

Introduction (pg.5-6)

Service-learning at Utah State University has been offered as part of the

curriculum since 2004, but the amount of courses incorporating service-learning are few.

The purpose of this research study is to evaluate the impact of service-learning (on

students, faculty, curriculum, and community) at Utah State University, find out how

service learning has been used, and examine what might attract faculty and students to

engage in this educational practice.

This pilot research study aims at collecting data to answer two research questions:

1. In what ways can service-learning be made more feasible and attractive for both

faculty and students at USU, leading to wider implementation on campus? 2. What are

the impacts of service-learning on students, faculty, community, and the curriculum?

Definition of Service-Learning (pg.6-8)

For the purpose of this study service learning is taken to be any educational

experience where the outcome or product is of direct benefit to a community outside the

classroom. A review of the service-learning literature reveals a number of characteristics

that are typically included in the definition of service-learning. These characteristics

include involving students, addressing community needs, contributing to the academic

curriculum, incorporating real-world experiences, promoting volunteerism, and

engaging in reflection.

3

Service-learning Literature Review (pg.8-15)

As part of this project, the students from a “Research and Evaluation” course were

required to read a service-learning related book and write a summary of the most relevant

aspects found in their reading.

The definition of service learning varies from book to book, and most of the time,

authors adapt it to the field they belong to. However, in general, each definition portrayed

the same or similar meaning.

Reflection is a common component found throughout the service learning books

and articles reviewed. The literature review revealed the different roles that reflection can

play in service-learning.

Implementing service-learning can poses challenges as well. Students and faculty

often site the lack of time or know-how as reasons for not incorporating service learning.

In general, Service Learning has more benefit to offer to students and faculty, and less to

the community, than it is usually assumed to have. Community organizations- as service

receivers- also face some problems with students- as providers-, such as lack of

commitment and professionalism (Stoeker & Tryon, 2009).

Methodology (pg.15-23)

For recruitment purposes potential participants from Utah State University were

conceptually grouped into four categories, two for faculty and two for students. The

categories were faculty who use service-learning, faculty who don’t use service learning,

students involved in service-learning, and students not involved in service-learning.

4

Data collection instruments reflected a mixed-methods approach and consisted of

faculty in-person interviews, faculty quantitative surveys, anonymous online student

surveys, and a focus group of service-learning scholars.

The survey and interview questions were refined through an iterative process and

pilot-tested with one faculty member and one service learning student.

One assumption of this study was that service-learning projects were occurring on

campus unknown or recorded by the service-learning center. In order to bring these

unknown projects to light, a random student and faculty population was surveyed and

asked about their experiences with service-learning.

Analysis and Results (pg.24-33)

With the research questions in mind, the research and analysis team reviewed the

data to look for patterns or emerging themes. Once those themes were identified,

analysis techniques were selected and the themes were related back to the original

research questions, and four themes emerged from the results. First, the majority of

faculty and students perceived themselves to be the major benefactors of service-learning.

Second, both faculty and students valued the authentic, real-world experiences they

gained through SL. Third, SL infuses a highly motivating and engaging element into the

curriculum of courses incorporating SL. The final theme which emerged is that a lack of

information poses a serious barrier to student participation and faculty implementation.

Conclusions and Recommendations (pg.33-34)

The student researchers involved in this project learned to appreciate the strengths

of the project and offer suggestions for future students who will carry this project

5

forward. Recommendations to future researchers include, among others, solidifying the

definition of service-learning, and generating a larger sample population.

Recommendations for the service-learning center are, among others, to host

interest raising meetings, fund teachers to attend service-learning workshops, and present

at department brown bags.

INTRODUCTION

Academic learning in the 21st century presents a challenge for the traditional

educational system. The fast development of technology, economy, and communication

allows learning to be increasingly multi-faceted. Learners have fast access to information

and a diversity of ways to develop their skills and knowledge. While this expanded

access to information facilitates learning, it does not assure hands-on experience. Service

Learning (SL) seeks to fill this gap by promoting student learning through experience

associated with volunteerism or community service. The incorporation of SL in education

as officially defined goes back to 1967 when the National Commission on Resources for

Youth (NCRY) created the National Center for Service Learning in Early Adolescence

(Schiene, 1997). Since then many schools at the middle, high schools and college levels

have incorporated SL as part of their academic program. The implementation level,

however, has been relatively low, to some 27 % of high schools and 20% or less of

colleges in the United States. Faculty members have been cautious to implement this

learning approach due to their doubts about the benefits offered to their students and

community.

6

As represented by its advocates, when fully implemented, SL benefits at least

three stakeholders: the student, the faculty and the community. The students develop their

awareness on the social responsibilities and that impacts their academic success. Faculty

have an opportunity to relate their teaching to the real world and enhance application of

course content. And finally, communities become partners of the academic institution and

receive services intended to contribute to the common good.

At Utah State University (USU) service learning has been offered as a part of the

curriculum of a selected number of classes since 2004. However, for the academic year

2007-2008 only 14 courses included SL as part of their program as listed by the Service

Learning Center. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of SL on students,

faculty, the curriculum, and the community, to find out how service learning has been

used at USU, as well as to examine what might attract faculty and students to engage in

this educational practice.

The following research questions will be investigated with this study:

1. In what ways can service learning be made more feasible and attractive for both faculty and students at USU, leading to wider implementation on campus? 2. What are the impacts of service learning on students, community, faculty and the curriculum?

Definition of Service Learning

Pritchard and Whitehead (2004) define service learning by emphasizing the connection among student involvement, community needs, and academic curriculum: Service learning is a teaching and learning approach that integrates community service with academic studies to enrich learning, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities. It engages students in addressing real unmet needs or issues in a community and actively involves them in decision-making at all levels of the process (p. 4). However, in general, these definitions portray the same or similar meaning.

Schine (1997), for example, emphasizes student's real world experience and

7

volunteerism: “Service Learning is defined as an educational activity, program or

curriculum that seeks to promote student learning through experiences associate with

volunteerism or community service” (Schine, 1997). Bringle & Hatcher (1996)

emphasize the relationship between service learning and academic success: “Service

learning is a credit-bearing educational experience in which students participate in a an

organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the

service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a

broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility.”

To Furco & Billig (2002) service learning is a teaching and learning approach; to

Canada & Speck (2001), service learning is the combination of students’ academic work

with service to an organization. Wade (2000) states that it integrates community service

with academic skills and structured reflection. Berman (2006) defines it as an in-context

learning that must meet the goals of the curriculum and be beneficial to the community.

Some authors are more specific and narrow in their definitions. According to

Cress, Collier, Vicki & Associates (2005) service learning is different from community

service and from community-based learning because it offers students the opportunity for

reflection that connect to their academic disciplines. Schine (1997) says that while

community service may or may not include learning, service learning always embodies it.

Jacoby & Associates (1996) affirms the hyphen is vital in the term service-learning

because it represents the “symbiotic relationship” between service and learning. These

authors define it as a form or experiential education that engages students in activities

related to human and community needs. For Boyle-Baise (2001), Bringle & Hatcher

(1996), and Stoecker & Tryon (2009), SL is an educational experience for which students

receive course credits.

8

For the purposes of this study, a broad definition will be used: service learning is

taken to be any educational experience where the outcome or product is of direct benefit

to a community outside the classroom

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review presents ideas from books and articles about definitions,

elements, benefits, and drawbacks of service learning with an emphasis on university

professors and students. Some literature also presents different strategies to apply

effectively service learning in different courses. As part of this project, the students from

“Research and Evaluation” course were also required to read a service-learning related

book and write a summary of the most relevant aspects found in their reading. These

findings are also included in this review.

Reflection as an essential element in service learning

Reflection is a common component found throughout the service learning books

and articles reviewed. These readings present in different ways the role that reflection

plays inside service learning programs. Canada & Speck (2001) consider students and

professors’ reflections the most important element in a service learning course. Maas

Weigert (1998) considers that when service is integrated to a course, it requires some

form of reflection in view of course objectives. Service learning provides the link where

connections between the service performed and the course content are made, and where

the student’s learning outcomes will be met. Watkins & Braun (2005) affirm that service

learning has three components: service, reciprocity and reflection. Authors who write

about the benefits of service learning in specific subject matters also include reflection as

9

an important part of it. For instance, Stevens (2008) whose main theme is implementing

service learning for health, physical education and recreation, points out the role of

reflection through the five stages in learning service presented in her book. Hadlock

(2005) presents a compilation of essays written by mathematics faculty who have used

service-learning in their courses, and who required certain type of reflections (through

journals) from the participant students. In a field study carried out in a multicultural

education course, service learning was also used to help pre-service teachers gain

attitudes and practice skills to become better professionals (Boyle-Baise, 2001). This

author also points out reflection, through essays and discussions, as an important element

to help students to connect with people from different cultures. Jacoby (2006) suggests

that along with reciprocity, reflection must be present in service-learning projects in order

to achieve a real service-learning experience. As a part of research study that took place

during a service-learning project in the University of Southern California, students were

required to submit journals that would give them the opportunity for unstructured

reflection (Sotelo & Raskoff, 1994).

Strategies used to implement service learning programs

Some authors present their points of view on how to incorporate service learning

into the teacher’s curriculum. Berman (2006) offers novice teachers a model for service

learning project coordination taking the reader through each phase (planning,

implementing and assessing). Likewise, Stevens (2008) presents a step-by-step guide to

plan, implement, and evaluate a service learning project for K-12 and college students.

Although the content of this book is aimed to a physical education course, these steps can

be applied to almost any other subject matter. Canada & Speck (2001) in their

10

compilation of different works in service learning provide seven steps for faculty to

implement service learning in different academic contexts in higher education. These

steps are worth to be mentioned:

-define student learning outcomes

-define personal scholarship outcomes

-plan community collaboration

-design the course

-arrange logistics and create forms.

-reflect, analyze and deliver

-perform assessment and evaluation.

Other authors rely on specific approaches to develop their strategies. For

instance, Watkins & Braun (2005) base their steps in preparing service learning programs

on the stages of Bloom’s Taxonomy: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis,

Synthesis and Evaluation.

Benefits of Service Learning

The importance of the interaction between service learning providers (students

and professors) and community is discussed in most of the books and articles consulted,

as well as the benefits that each participant derive from it. In K-12 as well in the higher

education environment, students can learn from the diversity of the society and the world

outside, bringing their knowledge together with the real world (Wade, 2000), (Canada &

Speck, 2001). Implementing service learning in a course puts students in situations

where they can discover and develop new skills, as well as think critically and become

more self confident (Cress et al., 2005), (Berman, 2006). Service learning engages

11

students with other people and helps them to develop the sense of altruism and

unselfishness. It is needless to say that students assimilate new material in a much more

effective way (Watkins & Braun, 2005) when service learning is involved. The fact that

in many cases service learning is a “credit-bearing educational experience” also benefits

students: it provides an important function for students by including various life roles on

campus and the community, with support services and academic credit (Bringle &

Hatcher, 1996).

Regarding faculty, service learning also offers several benefits. According to

Tashlik & Tomaszewski (2005), teachers feel more satisfaction in making their students

interested and committed. It also allows them to gain an educational tool to educate in

reality (Watkin & Braun, 2005). Service learning implementation can also drive to

expanded research opportunities, increased access to funding and educational mandates

among university professors (Gelmon & Billig, 2007). According to Mass Weigert

(1998) service learning offers new opportunities to think more consciously and creatively

about the relationship between faculty and students; besides, as an evolving field, it gives

faculty the opportunity to contribute to its improvement. In Bringle & Hatcher’s opinion

(1996), faculty involvement is very important because service learning is a “course-

driven feature from the curriculum”. By using service learning, faculty find out how it

improves performance on traditional ways of learning and increases student interest in the

subject and makes teaching more fun. They affirm that a good way to motivate and

promote faculty interest in service learning would be the creation of an office of service

learning that will develop a program to prepare faculty in service learning. For instance,

Bringle et alt (2000) present an article about the program Faculty Fellows at Indiana

Campus Compact, that encourages faculty professional development through service

12

learning by awarding fellowships (up to $3,600) for revising a course to include service

learning.

Finally, with regard to the community, besides the benefit of the service provided

by the students, it can also get citizens involved in the harmony of where they live

(Tashlik & Tomaszewski, 2005). Community representatives can see themselves as co-

teachers or partners to the students (Mass Weigert, 1998)

Issues and challenges

However, some issues arise when talking about service learning implementation

in higher education. For example, Sherman & McDonald (2009) describe a study

developed in a small sample of Science and Mathematics courses at a small

undergraduate university. Their study found low SL participation in post-secondary

education science and mathematics courses due to: insufficient time to commit to the

project, difficulties arising from lack of experience with the needs of the community

population, disinterest due to perceived mismatch between community learning goals and

personal career goals.

Canada & Speck (2001) also list some objections made by scholars about service

learning: (1) It can be time consuming and take too many resources. (2) It should not be

required (if included as a course requirement, it should be considered as mandatory, not

optional). (3) It is a form of indoctrination; that is, students frequently learn about

particular political views, and these usually include social activism.

Jones, Stein & Kiser (2008) discuss challenges of transitioning to a cooperative

to a collaborative model of service learning and they take as an example the process

13

faced by the Elon University. They affirm that a successful service learning approach

requires the equal involvement of academic affairs, student affairs, and community

partners. This is a great challenge since all these three elements need to be both

connected and motivated to construct a good interaction in the service learning activities.

They specifically address the lack of clarity regarding ways to construct a more

collaborative and egalitarian relationship between the multiple service learning

stakeholders.

There are potential conflicts in faculty and community needs and priorities. For

example, a publication in a peer- reviewed journal may be a highly desirable outcome for

a faculty member but will likely mean little to a community organizer (Gelmon & Billig,

2007). O'Meara (2008) presents another issue in service learning programs: The lack of

national attention to prepare future faculty for their roles as citizen-scholars. Graduate

students who are not encouraged to see the relevance of their disciplines to local

community are significantly less likely as faculty to become engaged scholars.

Another issue is that when service learning is imposed, students sometimes do

not feel motivated (Cress, et al., 2005). Diversity and cultural differences sometimes

carry misunderstanding and affect the good development a service learning project

((Wade, 2000), (Boyle-Baise, 2001), (Cress et alt, 2005). When planning a service

learning program, it is necessary to be aware of the nature of the student climate and

culture (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Elements of cultural competence are required for S/L

to succeed. That involvement has to start with "cultural humility", where the students

and faculty members come to recognize and value the strengths of the community. Cress,

et al., (2005) claim that there are three elements of that competence: (1) mindset (the

analytical framework to understand culture); (2) skillset (interpersonal and group skills

14

for bridging cultural differences); and (3) headset (motivation and curiosity to explore the

cultures involved).

In general, from the perspective of these authors, service learning has more

benefit to offer to students and faculty, and less to the community, than it is usually

assumed to have. Community organizations- as service receivers- also face some

problems with students- as providers-, such as lack of commitment and professionalism

(Stoeker & Tryon, 2009). In many cases, students are unwilling to commit sufficient

time to service learning projects, and are reluctant to work outside their own college

calendar. Student calendars and short time attention offers little to the community. Brief

periods of commitment are not proportionate to most direct service assignments, as it

takes time to build trust with clients. A lack of professionalism (in dress, punctuality, and

sophistication of performance) is common in service learning projects. Faculty have to

teach the mindset of the community as the service learning project proceeds. When they

do not attend to these factors, the contribution of the service may be minimal. There is

some evidence that many community people participate in service learning with the

motive of contributing to the university and its programs, not in getting much of value in

return.

Conclusion

Service learning has been implemented in higher education programs with the intention

of enhancing learning in students beyond the typical classroom setting to the outside

world, so that they can apply their knowledge, help others and develop their skills. Many

service-learning programs have been successful in both K-12 and colleges, and in diverse

disciplines. Although scholars differ in its definition, they all have in common that

15

service learning’s purpose is to help students learn in a more meaningful way while

working for a community (or an organization representing it). Beside students, faculty

can also profit from the benefits of service learning, in professional and personal aspects.

However, despite the success of many service learning programs, some authors

have presented challenges and issues faced in their development or implementation. Not

all courses where service learning is used will give positive results, but at least,

professors and students should work together to minimize possible difficulties. Faculty

should encourage students, but they also need some boost from the institutions they work

at. The purpose of this literature review was to gather information presented by different

authors about what service learning is and its importance, especially in higher education.

It is our expectation that this information will be useful for the pilot research project

about service learning at Utah State University carried out by Dr. Nick Eastmond’s

“Research & Evaluation” class during Spring 2010 and to inform the final project, to be

completed by students in the same class in spring 2011.

METHODOLOGY

Working within the context of an Instructional Technology university classroom

project, master’s level students with their instructor as guide collaborated with a client to

conceptualize, prepare data collection measures, and conduct a research project about SL

at the university. Beginning with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), (see

Appendix A) which established the agreed-upon timeline for each step of the research

process, the students could move through the steps toward their goal of collecting data

and creating a report of results for their client. The purpose of this pilot research project

was to collect data to better understand two questions: In what ways can service learning

16

be made more feasible and attractive for both faculty and students at USU, leading to

wider implementation on campus? What are the impacts of service learning on students,

community, faculty and the curriculum?

Participants

For recruitment purposes potential participants from USU were conceptually

grouped into four categories, two for faculty and two for students. A portion of the

faculty members recruited for this project were chosen due to their experience using SL

at the university and partially chosen at random from a list of teaching faculty. One

student category surveyed electronically consisted of all students enrolled for the spring

2010 semester, while the second for the focus group was more specific, drawing from

students who had officially chosen to pursue a service learning certification.

There were three data collection segments of this research project, one directed

toward faculty who teach classes and two directed toward students. Each segment had

different recruitment approaches and different response rates.

Faculty in-person interviews: Using a list of teaching faculty provided by the

instructor of this class pilot research project students contacted faculty by email or

telephone to request a short interview. The names on the list were labeled as “SL

professors,” “non-SL professors,” or “random” which indicated whether their relationship

to service learning was known or not. Response rate for the faculty interviews was nine

interviews conducted for 24 who received recruitment emails. Four were male and five

were female.

Anonymous online student survey: Participants were recruited for the online

surveys at random using 100 student emails from a list of all enrolled students. Students

17

could access the questionnaire using a link to the Google form. To better ensure

participation, a follow-up email was sent out five days after the original recruitment

email. Response rate for the online surveys was 51 students, or 51%. These questions did

not include questions about demographics such as gender or academic standing of the

participant.

Focus group of service learning scholars: The second student facet of this project

was a focus-group made up of students who had taken a minimum of two service learning

courses. The focus group was held directly after the service-learning scholars’ banquet.

Participants at the banquet consisted of two male service-learning scholars and no foreign

or multicultural scholars in a room full of women. After the banquet when the scholars

were personally invited, there was a 50% response—10 people were invited which

produced 5 participants. Of all the participants in the focus group four were female, one

was male. All the students from the focus group were female, a fair representation of the

service learning program members, since only 2 males and 18 females are listed on the

SL program website.

Procedure and Time Frame

As a part of this project the students in the Evaluation and Research class created

their own interview and survey measures, guided by the research questions provided by

the client, Dr. Michelle Baron. Using an iterative process and pilot-testing with one

faculty member and one service learning student, the students were able to continually

refine their questions to better ensure they were collecting useful data. Additionally, each

subsequent version of the measures was submitted to USU’s Institutional Review Board

(IRB) for feedback and final approval. These measures are included in the Appendix.

18

The creation of the measures and approval of the application to the IRB, took longer than

expected leaving a shorter time period for recruitment and conducting interviews.

Faculty in-person interviews: The faculty agreed to meet for about 15 minutes for

a short semi-structured interview. Student-interviewers in groups of two met with faculty

in person at a time and place convenient for the faculty member. Generally one member

of the interview team would be the leader, providing the IRB approval document,

obtaining a model release form if the faculty agreed to be videotaped, offering and

collecting the short-answer pen-and-paper questions, asking questions from the sheet.

The other student would type answers on a laptop computer. If the interview was

videotaped then there was also a videographer present.

Anonymous online student survey: This ten-item measure is made up of nine

multiple choice questions and one open-ended question. Half of the questions are yes or

no questions regarding the student’s plans to take service learning classes. One question

used a four part likert scale. Other questions offered choices and accepted only one

answer. The survey closed with an open-ended question about the respondent’s

perception of benefits of service opportunities learning at the school.

Service learning scholars focus group questions: There was a series of questions

asked of these students who answered them more in panel format with each SL scholar

responding in turn, rather than traditional focus group discussion manner. There was a

mix of quantitative and qualitative questions including “What service learning courses

have you taken?” and “What are your perceived benefits of service learning for scholars,

professors, USU and the community?”

Whereas the student survey was conducted online and required no personal

contact aside from sending the invitation for participation and a follow up email, the

19

faculty interview and the focus group required meeting the participants in person. In

order to prepare for the faculty interview and student focus group leading class members

practiced interviewing with each other and with guest mock participants. A unique part

of this project was the high ratio of international to US citizen students. With student

representation from Brazil, China, and the Dominican Republic (5 international of 17

students, 29%), the professor saw this as a special opportunity to create multiethnic

interviewing teams. This increased the level of understanding for both students with

regards to how to conduct and support an interview with a partner who has a different set

of cultural experiences. For many in the class, the value of reflection increased when the

students from international and domestic sectors shared their perspective of the interview

process.

Analysis Plan

The analysis of data gathered with the above instruments was designed to answer

the research questions, draw useful conclusions, and make productive recommendations.

With the research questions in mind, the research and analysis team reviewed the data to

look for patterns or emerging themes. They began by reading the compiled data twice;

once for meanings and once to identify themes. Once those themes were identified,

analysis techniques were selected and the themes were related back to the original

research questions. Following discussions with four team members, four themes emerged

from the results:

First, the majority of faculty and students perceived themselves to be the major

benefactors of service-learning. Second, both faculty and students valued the authentic,

real-world experiences they gained through SL. Third, SL infuses a highly motivating

20

and engaging element into the curriculum of courses incorporating SL. Both the second

and third themes of motivation and engagement seemed to be at the core of faculty and

students’ perceived benefits to themselves. The final theme which emerged is that a lack

of information poses a serious barrier to student participation and faculty implementation.

These themes are examined in turn below.

Faculty and Students as the Major Benefactors

Review of the faculty and student quantitative surveys appeared to indicate that

the majority of faculty and students perceived themselves as the major benefactors of SL.

If this indeed is the case, it raises the question, is service-learning participation tied to a

perception of self-benefit? Answering this question also answers our research questions

in part by explaining the attractiveness of SL and its impacts on participation. In order to

answer this question, we planned to look at frequency distributions of students who have

(or plan to) participate in SL courses as well as frequency distributions of students who

perceive SL to directly benefit them. Likewise, we planned to look at frequency

distributions of faculty who incorporate SL into their curriculum as well as frequency

distributions of faculty who perceive SL first as a direct benefit to themselves or their

students. We then planned to examine if there a correlation between students who have

(or plan to) participate in SL and students who perceive service-learning as a direct

benefit to them (answer that students benefit most from SL on the student survey).

Finally, we planned to examine the correlation between faculty who incorporate SL into

their curriculum and faculty who perceive service-learning as a direct benefit to either

themselves or their students. This data was derived from the quantitative surveys and

supported with qualitative responses in the interviews.

21

Authentic Problems, Inherent Motivation, and Information Sharing

The analysis plan for the final three categories is grouped since the results of the

qualitative portion of the student survey, faculty interviews and focus groups were the

source for all three. As we read through responses, themes were summarized with key

quotes extracted. The themes were then tied back to our original research questions. The

benefits of an authentic problem and associated motivations helped further explain how

to make SL more attractive and its impacts more substantial on participants. Some of the

information-sharing problems which emerged shed light on the feasibility of SL for

faculty and students and ways to improve impacts for students, community, faculty and

the curriculum.

Remaining Insights and Recommendations from Survey Participants

Analysis will include one final paragraph in order to summarize many of the

insightful suggestions given by students and faculty not addressed in the previous

analysis. This should more thoroughly address issues of feasibility and impact in SL.

Validity and Reliability

To find out about the impact of service learning, teaching faculty with and

without direct experience with service learning were interviewed and given a short

quantitative survey. The survey and interview questions asked about their experience

with service learning and their opinion about the impact of service learning in schools

and the surrounding community.

To increase the validity of the research in finding out about the overall impact

of service learning at USU, professors and students outside of service learning were

chosen at random and were also interviewed and surveyed. These interviews and surveys

22

aimed at revealing how much the general USU population understood about service

learning and how service learning could be better incorporated on campus.

Validity of this research study could be increased by revising the interview and

survey questions so that they solicit a more open dialog from participants outside of

service learning. This would be important since the research aims at finding out the

rationale of professors and students inside and outside of service learning.

Responses in faculty interviews were at times quite varied. The variances in

responses weakens the reliability of the project. The cause of variance in faculty

responses could be attributed to their varied understandings of what service learning is.

One way to increase the reliability of the interview questions is to clarify the definition of

service learning.

Assumptions

This research study assumes that professors and students in service learning

will be open to sharing experiences they have had with service learning. Participants’

personal experiences will be used to illustrate the impact of service learning. It was also

assumed that professors and students will have useful feedback on how to make SL more

feasible and attractive. A qualitative research design, including interviews and focus

groups, was pursued as a result of these assumptions.

Another assumption is that many service learning projects are occurring around

campus unknown to the service learning center. Surveying a random sample of students

and professors could bring the unknown service learning projects to light. Knowing about

the varieties of service learning projects on campus can inform the service learning center

on the true impacts of service learning at USU.

23

The last assumption deals with the positive or negative effects of service

learning. Although our research instruments were designed to look objectively at the

impacts of service learning at USU, we were working under the assumption that positive

effects can result from the increase of service learning courses and projects at USU.

Scope and Limitations

The scope of this research study was to learn about the impact of service

learning at USU and how service learning could be better incorporated. All interviews,

surveys, and focus groups were conducted on campus with participants coming from on

campus. The results of this study are meant to inform the service learning center on the

impacts of service learning and how to encourage the use of service learning on campus.

Some of the data such as the impact of service on students' attitudes could translate to

other institutions, but the aim is to examine service learning specifically at USU.

This research project was limited by time, and number of participants. The time

was limited to less than a semester. The research project started a few weeks into the

semester because the first few weeks were essential for introducing the research topic and

the topic of evaluation. The number of participants was limited and done in pilot test

fashion, because of the short amount of time between soliciting for participants and

gathering data.

The literature review was limited to a month's time during which the student

researchers read books and articles on service learning. Sources were found at the USU

library and on other internet searches. Each source was summarized and the relevant

topics were applied to this research project and this article.

24

ANALYSIS

The analysis sought to answer the research questions and to draw useful

conclusions in order to make productive recommendations. After reviewing data from

the student surveys, student focus group, and faculty interviews, researchers identified

four themes which emerged. First, the majority of faculty and students perceived

themselves to be the major benefactors of service-learning. Second, both faculty and

students valued the authentic, real-world experiences they gained through SL. Third, SL

infuses a highly motivating and engaging element into the curriculum of courses

incorporating SL. Both the second and third themes of motivation and engagement

seemed to be at the core of faculty and students’ perceived benefits to themselves. The

final theme which emerged is that a lack of information poses a serious barrier to student

participation and faculty implementation. After summarizing these themes both

quantitatively and qualitatively, we addressed remaining insights and recommendations

from survey participants in order to more thoroughly address issues of feasibility and

impact in SL.

Faculty and Students as the Major Benefactors

In order to explore this issue, we looked at frequency distributions of students who have

(or plan to) participate

in SL courses as well as

frequency distributions

of students who perceive

SL to directly benefit

them. Likewise, we

25

looked at frequency distributions of faculty who incorporate SL into their

curriculum as well as frequency

distributions of faculty who

perceive SL first as a direct

benefit to themselves or their

students.

Out of 51 student respondents,

31 have, are, or intend to take a SL course. There 17 have taken or are currently taking a

SL course, 34 have not yet taken a SL course of which 20 never intend to enroll in a SL

course and 14 do. Of the 51 respondents, 30 also believed that they were the major

benefactors of SL followed by 16 who thought the community benefited the most, 3 who

thought USU was the largest benefactor and only 2 who thought faculty benefited.

We used the chi-squared test to

determine if students’ participation in SL can

be correlated with the perception that

service-learning benefits them (answer that

students benefit most from SL on the student

survey). The chi-square test yielded a value

of 0.717 with 3 degrees of freedom and a p-

value of 0.869. This is not statistically significant relationship between students’ choice

to participate in SL and their perception of benefit. However, the significance of this

Correlation  of  Student  Participation  and  Perception  of  Benefit  

Benefactors of SL Yes No Totals Students 18 13 31 Community 11 5 16 Faculty 1 1 2 USU 1 1 2 Totals 31 20 51 chi-square 0.717 degrees of freedom 3 P value 0.869

26

correlation is somewhat unreliable since the

expected frequency is below 5 in more than 20% of our

outcomes and our sample is barely over 50, both standards

required to consider statistical significance reliable.

Students’ perception that they were the major

benefactors of SL was also reflected in their response to the question “What benefits, if

any, do you see in SL opportunities here at USU?” Overall, students felt that service-

learning gave them opportunities to experience authentic learning in context. Their

comments are noted in the themes below.

We then looked for a correlation between faculty who incorporate SL into their

curriculum and faculty who perceive service-learning as a direct benefit to either

themselves or their students. It was assumed that most faculty would perceive a benefit to

their students to be a benefit to themselves and their teaching. This data was derived from

the quantitative surveys distributed to faculty before their interviews.

Out of nine faculty respondents,

five currently incorporate some form of

service-learning into their curriculum

and four do not. Of the nine

respondents, five also believed

their

Benefactors of SL

Yes

No

Totals

Students 4 1 5 Community 1 1 Faculty 1 0 1 USU 0 0 Totals 5 2 7 Yates chi-square

0.455

degrees of freedom 2 Yates P value 0.797

27

students were the major benefactors of SL, one felt that that faculty were the major benefactors, one felt the

community was, and two did not understand what service-learning is well enough to respond.

We used the Yates chi-squared test to determine if faculty participation in SL can

be correlated with the perception that service-learning benefits either themselves or their

students. The Yates chi-square test is more appropriate when more than 20% of the

frequencies are less than five. The Yates chi-square test yielded a value of 0.455 with 2

degrees of freedom and a p-value of 0.797. There appears to be no statistically

significant relationship between faculty’s choice to participate in SL and their perception

of benefit. Again, as noted above, the significance of this correlation is somewhat

unreliable since the expected frequency is below 5 in more than 20% of our outcomes

and our sample is well under 50, both standards required to consider statistical

significance reliable.

Faculty perceptions that they (and their students) were the major benefactors of

service learning was also reflected in their responses to the interview questions. Their

comments are also noted in the themes below.

Authentic Real-World Experience

Upon reviewing qualitative responses to survey, interview, and focus group

questions the second recurring theme was that both faculty and staff felt that service-

learning provided them with authentic, real-world experiences. This highlights a partial

answer to our first research question of how SL benefits can be made more attractive to

faculty and students, as well as the question of what are the impacts of SL on students,

faculty, the community and USU. Research in problem-based learning has consistently

28

demonstrated that authentic, experiential learning prepares students with the critical

thinking and teamwork skills necessary to tackle complex, real-world challenges they

will confront in their work, family, and community. When learning objectives are placed

within the context of real-world concerns, students learn the why's along with the how's

of their coursework (Barron et al., 1998). Overall, students felt that service-learning gave

them opportunities to experience authentic learning in context. They gained experience

in their field of study, enabling them to make better decisions about future careers.

Students also felt that SL gave them broader perspectives and built character. As one

student stated, “There are many things that you can't learn in a classroom. I believe that

SL opportunities can provide an essential opportunity for everyone involved to gain

something, but students in particular can gain that out-of-classroom education.” Another

student explained how authentic classroom experiences help make cognitive connections,

stating, “having these SL opportunities helps to solidify and apply the information that

we are learning in class.”

Faculty also felt that the element of authenticity infused by SL afforded both they

and their students opportunities to network and meet new people, enrich their lives,

generate new ideas and have more complete experiences. This was demonstrated by

comments such as "SL allows students to do more than just reading and writing, it

involves action,” and “SL makes real, your learning, in the community.” Another faculty

member added that service-learning stimulated conversations with his students that

otherwise would not have occurred. Faculty also spoke of the benefits of cognitive

connections their students made, stating, stating, “It (SL) involves thinking about our

29

theoretical curriculum and applying it in a real way in the community. There should not

be a huge gap between ‘town and gown.’”

Motivating

A third common theme which emerged from the survey and interview data was

that SL infused a highly motivating and engaging element into the curriculum of courses

incorporating SL. Faculty and student comments related to motivational issues add

breadth and depth to the answers to the first research question of how SL benefits can be

made more attractive to faculty and students, as well as the question of what are the

impacts of SL on students, faculty, the community and USU. Motivating elements

seemed to stem from three sources. First, motivation was inherently associated with

working with real-world problems as previously mentioned; second, motivations were

philanthropically driven; and finally, faculty and students were institutionally motivated.

Research in the problem-based learning field finds that authentic, real-world projects are

inherently motivating to learners by stimulating and sustaining their interest. For

example, when one faculty member was asked what SL’s impact on students is, she

emphatically replied, "STUDENT ENGAGEMENT! Thanks to service learning, my

students are much more involved in the material." Another faculty member commented

that SL is an interesting teaching challenge that helps her think of her teaching objectives

differently. A lecturer specifically noted the added variety and teaching methodology that

kept both she and her students engaged. She stated that SL “energizes your class.”

Likewise, a student expressed one of the benefits of SL as giving them the “needed

motivation” to get out and help the community. Philanthropic motivations to make the

world a better place through SL were expressed by both students and faculty. Students

30

were motivated to "help others," be "more involved with the community" and felt SL"

benefits the way we go about our everyday lives." Faculty concurred with similar

altruistic motivations, stating that SL "helps people to see that it's a part of the human

condition to serve" and gives students experiences that lead to greater compassion and

helps them overcome barriers to understanding. Finally, both faculty and students were

institutionally motivated. Several students felt that SL would improve USU's public

image and relationship with the community. Faculty commented on the benefits of

fulfilling USU's mission as a land grand university to give back to the community.

However, concern was expressed by both faculty and students that making SL a

requirement may reduce its motivational factor and effectiveness. One faculty member

worried that the students will be less effective volunteers if they are essentially forced

into required SL. A student expressed a similar sentiment saying, "When classes require

community outreach, it nullifies the good that could be done...offering extra credit,

recognition, or creating it as a requirement is contrary to the spirit of service."

Lack of information

The fourth common theme that arose was that inadequate information posed a

serious barrier to student participation and faculty implementation. Better understanding

and subsequent correction the information-sharing problems will make SL more feasible

for faculty and students and maximize positive impacts for students, community, faculty

and the curriculum. Students appeared to lack adequate understanding of what SL is and

how it can benefit them. For example, almost 60% of the students listed themselves as the

major benefactors of SL yet the majority of their responses to the question about the

31

benefits they see in SL were community related. This disconnect in perception of self-

benefit but inability to articulate those benefits indicates that students do not understand

the ways in which service-learning benefits them. One faculty response indicated, "They

(the students) need to see how it directly connects with the classroom readings and

discussion. Once they see the connection, it becomes a valuable experience for them."

Benefits omitted by the students but perceived by faculty included professional and

institutional contacts, job references, recommendations and resume building. Another

faculty member with more experience in SL explained how she "sells" service learning so

that the students buy into it. She gives them help with ideas, talks about what they are

interested in, emphasizes resume building and the importance of service when applying

for graduate school.

Faculty reported a similar lack of adequate information about what service-

learning is and the support available to implement it. When responding to the question

about what would make implementation easier, many requested resources that are

currently available through the Val R. Christensen Service Center, such as instruction in

how to implement SL, sample syllabi, and community partners. One faculty member

even suggested that USU needs a coordinating center, indicating a lack of awareness of

the center's existence. Other faculty members explicitly suggested marketing to faculty

and better communication with SL partners. Panels and seminars hosted by SL faculty

would be helpful for novice faculty who want input on what works and does not.

Emphasizing the effectiveness of improved communication about SL, one faculty

member noted that talking about SL "breeds enthusiasm among colleagues."

32

Remaining Insights and Recommendations from Survey Participants

Faculty offered specific and insightful suggestions on how they felt SL would be

more feasible for themselves and their students, thus increasing the impact of SL for all

participants. Their suggestions included assistance for faculty, suggestions for

curriculum, and suggestions for student support. Suggestions for faculty support

included instructional design assistance, peer mentoring, and online curriculum resources,

to be cautious about overloading non-tenured faculty with SL obligations, and to

acknowledge faculty work with awards and recognition. One of the experienced SL

faculty interviewees gave three specific suggestions for USU. They are as follows:

1. “Continue hosting 'Interest-raising' meetings locally on the USU campus. 2. USU should continue funding teachers to attend regional SL workshops. 3. The Service Learning Department should travel to various colleges on campus to

speak at Brown bag [lunch events]."

Suggestions for better integration of SL into the curriculum included reducing class

sizes for SL courses, reducing the service-learning hourly component within the class,

and to reduce other course assignments or class time required of students in order to

reduce the overall workload associated with SL.

Faculty also gave specific recommendations as to how to better support students,

including making sure there are ample local service opportunities, attach the service to

grades or credit, spend time prepping students so they take the time to figure out how to

best serve their clients, and be sensitive to individual student needs when a student may

truly be overloaded by outside class requirements. The previously noted SL faculty

member also listed suggestions for successful SL with USU students. She included:

1. “Students struggle to pick a topic. This is resolved by having a list of possible volunteer opportunities ready as part of the syllabus.

33

2. Students are late to their volunteer locations. Teachers can avoid this by reminding students to "pick something that you can be on time for, especially if you don’t have a car.”

3. Students are slow to get started. In this case, teachers need to be "cheerleaders" for their students.

4. With experience, teachers get very good at helping students resolve their typical concerns and let students go out and be active while they remain "cheerleaders." Teachers may feel awkward and strange their first year. It gets easier, especially once the teacher begins to create ties to volunteer organizations in the community.”

Conclusions and Recommendations In addition to answering the stated research questions about the role of service

learning for university students and faculty as well as the surrounding community this in-

depth approach allowed a class of students to experience the process of researching,

creating, and conducting a research project. Although it was originally expected to be a

shorter process, as often happens with research involving human subjects, the class

underestimated the amount of time it would take to become familiar with the

interviewing and survey processes that are best practice for the participants. However,

learning through experience as we worked to improve understanding about the role of

service learning in our university and surrounding community embodied the essence of

service learning – application of concepts through practice while working for the

betterment of our community. In the end, the students were able to conduct a pilot

version of the original plan, scaled back to a portion of the originally intended number of

participants.

Through this invaluable learning process the students learned to appreciate the

strengths of their project and offer suggestions for future students who will carry this

project forward. Recommendations include:

• Be open-minded to the interviewee's opinions about SL.

34

• Future researchers should: have a solid definition that everyone uses and have previously read about SL in order to catch a vision of the benefits of SL.

• In the future, it will be important to perform these surveys are done with larger sample populations of at least 50 or more.

• Our instruments did not adequately explain/measure impacts for community or for USU—is it because there aren’t or do the questions need to be re-tooled.

• Some subject matters seem to lend themselves to better to SL than others. Would it be helpful to list the courses that SL is/isn’t working in?

Recommendations for faculty survey • Provide a better introduction paragraph to help remove some of the defensiveness

that the instructor may be feeling. • Make sure one person is responsible for having a single packet of prepared

materials ready at the start of the interview. • Be prepared to take longer if videotaping the interview. • Get the appointment a little early. • Thank the person you are interviewing for sharing their experience and their time. • The interview questions need a lot of retooling. I would revise and reorder the

questions to help non-SL teachers better understand our purpose. we need to give them more information in the questions.

• We may want to change the way some of the questions are worded. There was one question that asked the instructor to comment on the student perspective of service learning. The instructor commented that he had no idea what the student perspective was because he was not the student.

• Make sure you are prepared with some good probes so that you get the information that you need because they might not be grasping the concepts just yet so they're not quite answering the questions the way you want.

Recommendations for student survey • Ask students on the student survey what would make SL more feasible and

attractive to them. Recommendations for Focus group

• Follow question protocol, spend more time organizing the participants so the discussion is not so off-the-cuff

REFERENCES:

35

1. Abes, E., Jackson, G., & Jones, S. (2002). Factors that Motivate and Deter Faculty Use of Service-Learning. Michigan Journal of Community SL, 9(1), 5-17. Retrieved from ERIC database.

2. Berman, S. SL A guide to Planning, Implementing and Assessing Student Projects. (2nd ed) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

3. Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural SL: Educating Teachers in Diverse Communities. New York, NY: Teacher College Press

4. Bringle, R. & Hatcher, J. (1996). Implementing SL in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education, 67 (2), 222-237.

5. Bringle, R. & Hatcher, J. (2009). Innovative Practices in Service-learning and Curricular Engagement. New Directions in Higher Education, 147, 37-46.

6. Bringle, R., Games, R., Foos, C., Osgood, R., & Osborne, R. (2000). Faculty Fellows Program. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 882. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

7. Canada, M & Speck, S.W. (Eds.). (2001). Developing and Implementing Service-Learning Programs. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

8. Carracelas-Juncal, C. et alt. Integrating Service-Learning Pedagogy: A Faculty Reflective Process

9. Cress, C.M & Collier, P.J. et alt. (2007). Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning across disciplines. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching,4,28-44.

10. Crews, R. (2002). Higher Education Service-Learning Sourcebook. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.

11. Eastmond, J. N., & Legler, N. (2009). Service learning in online education: Opportunities to promote meaning and harness student energy. Manuscript submitted for publication.

12. Eduardo J., P., & Miami-Dade Community Coll., F. (2000). Fulfilling Our Mission: Service-Learning at Miami-Dade Community College. Retrieved from ERIC database.

13. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2003). Program evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

14. Furco, A. & Billig, S. (2002). Service-Learning: The Essence of Pedagogy. Carlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

15. Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., Driscoll, A., Spring, A., & Kerrigan, S. (2006). Assessing Service-Learning and Civic Engagement: Principles and Techniques. Campus Compact.

16. Hadlock, C. R (Eds.). (2005) .Mathematics in Service to the community: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in the Mathematical Sciences.

17. Hinck, S., & Brandell, M. (2000). The Relationship Between Institutional Support and Campus Acceptance of Academic SL. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 868. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

18. Jacoby, B. (1996). Service –Learning in Higher Education Concepts and Practices: Jossey-Bass.

19. Jones, A. et alt. (2008). Making the Transition to Collaborative Service-Learning. Planning for Higher Education, 36 (4), 17-22.

20. Lewis, B.A.(2007) The Teen Guide to Global Action: How to Connect with Others (Near & Far) to Create Social Change. Minneapolis,MN: Free Spirit

36

Publishing. 21. Lukenchuck, A. (2009) Living the Ethics of Responsibility through University

Service and SL. Philosophical Studies in Education, 40, 246-257. 22. McIlrath, L., & MacLabhrainn, I. (2007). Higher education and civic

engagement. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 23. Mass Wigert, K.(1998). Academic SL: Its Meaning and Relevance. New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 3-10. 24. Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology:

Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. (3rd Ed.). Sage.

25. O'meara, K. (2008). Graduate Education and Community Engagement. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 113, 27-42.

26. Pierrette, H. 7 Raskoff, S. (1994) Community Service-Learning: Promises and Problems. Teaching Sociology, 22, 238-254.

27. Prentice M., & Robinson, G. (2010). Improving Student Learning Outcomes with Service Learning. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/horizons/Documents/slorb_jan2010.pdf

28. Pritchard, F. F., & Whitehead III, G. I. (2004). Serve and Learn: Implementing and Evaluating Service-learning in Middle and High Schools (illustrated edition.). Routledge.

29. Reimers, F. (2009). Educating for global competency. International perspectives on the goals of universal basic and secondary education. New York: Routledge.

30. Root, S. Callahan, J. et al. (2005). Improving SL Practice: Research on Models to Enhance Impacts. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

31. Schine Joan (1997) SL. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press 32. Selmon, S. & Billig S. (Eds.).(2007). From Passion to Objectivity: International

and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Service-Learning Research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

33. Selmon, S. & Billig S. (Eds.)(2007).Service-Learning Through a multidisciplinary Lens. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

34. Sherman, A. & Mcdonald, L. (2009). SL Experiences in University Science Degree Courses. Innovative Higher Education, 34 (4), 235-244.

35. Stevens, C. (2008) SL for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. Champaign, IL: Versa Press.

36. Stoeker, R. & Tryon E. (2009) The Unheard Voices: Community Organization and SL. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

37. Tashlik, P. & Tomaszewski, C. (2005) Serving the Community: Guidelines for Setting up a Service-learning Program. New York, NY.

38. Wade, C. R. (2000). Building Bridges: Connecting Classroom and Community through SL in Social Studies.

39. Watkins, M. & Braun, L. (2005) SL from Classroom to Community to Career. Indianapolis, IN: JIST Publishing, Inc.

37

APPENDICES

A- Memorandum of Understanding B- IRB Applicaion C- Data Collection Instruments

38

2830 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322-2830, U.S.A. Nick.eastmond@usu.edu Telephone: (435) 797-2642

January 29, 2010 To: Michelle Baron, The Evaluation Baron, LLC Fr: Nick Eastmond Subject: Memo of understanding for Service Learning Study We appreciate the chance for the INST 6510 class to work with you to study Service Learning at USU. We feel that the experience will have value for our class, for the university, and for the larger academic community through the publication of one or more articles. The research questions are:

1. In what ways can service learning be made more feasible and attractive for both faculty and students at USU, leading to wider implementation on campus?

2. What are the impacts of service learning on students, community, faculty and the curriculum?

We understand that the answers uncovered for the second question can help answer the first question. The scope of our class’s involvement is detailed on the two attachments: (1) the logic model; and (2) the plan activity diagram (flowchart). Our intention is that the activities involved with our project will not involve travel beyond our campus area. Because of our intention to publish the findings we will be required to work with Utah State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to monitor this project to assure that it meets federal, state, and university regulatory requirements in regards to the ethical treatment of human participants in our research. At the completion of our work, we will produce a report of our findings. In addition, we will produce a draft of one or more articles for submission to conferences and, most likely, the Educational Media Yearbook, currently edited by Dr. Michael Orey at the University of Georgia. We intend to produce a visual media representation of the findings, possibly as an evaluation video or slide presentation suitable for explaining the findings to a variety of audiences. We plan to report our findings to you in the class period of April 22, 2010.

39

Appendix B

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Application

(Additional elements of this application are attached as a PDF file)

40

Appendix C

Instruments

The following was the material used to set up the survey on Survey Monkey. April Fawson Admissions Officer II Graduate Studies ph: 435-797-1190 ________________________________________ From: Bryan Tanner [bryantanner@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 3:12 PM To: April Fawson Subject: Student Survey April, Here's the basic info. Also see the attachment below. Student Questionnaire Purpose of the survey: This survey is designed to uncover new USU student's awareness and general attitudes towards service learning as part of their curriculum. Specifically, this survey seeks to uncover if new students know what service learning is, whether they had had any experience with service learning in their first year and how valuable they believe access to service learning opportunities are. Procedures: 1. Identify population - all current USU students as well as all potential USU students 2. Identify sample population - select random sample of current USU students Recommend one large freshman-level class (200-300 subjects) as well as one senior-level class from each USU college (about 210 subjects) for a total of 400-500. 3. Create survey and pilot questionnaire with representative sample population (20-50 students?) 4. Email survey to sample population. Emails will be sent through "Banner" by the professor of each class being surveyed. A cover letter will accompany the invitation, stating that participation in the survey is voluntary and that participation will have no impact on grading for the course 5. Survey participants will email completed surveys back to TBD email address 6. Tabulate survey results

41

Potential Cover Letter: Hello. Our class has been selected to participant in a USU-sponsored survey on service learning. Your participation is completely voluntary. Your participation or non-participation will have no affect on your grade for my class. The attached survey consists of 10 questions and should take five minutes or less to complete. Please complete the survey and return it to (email address). Thank You, Professor's Name Potential Questions (all quantitative): 1. From the student's perspective, what is Service Learning? (Select all that apply) * A learning experience that provides benefits to the campus or larger community * Receiving academic credit for providing labor to a given community project * Voluntarily helping the community as an academic exercise * I am unfamiliar with the concept of Service Learning 2. Have you taken (or are you currently taking) a USU course that has a service learning element? * Yes * No 3. If you answered "yes" to question 2, please provide the following information: * Course: _______________________ Instructor: _______________________________ * Course: _______________________ Instructor: _______________________________ 4. If you answered "no" to question 2, do you plan on taking a USU course with a service learning element in the future? * Yes * No 5. Based on your experience at USU, about what percentage of courses contain some aspect of service learning?

42

* 20 * 40 * 60 * 80 * 100 6. Do you believe more USU classes should contain service learning aspects? * Yes * No 7. Did the availability of service learning opportunities positively influence your decision to attend USU? * Yes * No * Not Applicable 8. If you have taken at least one course with a service learning element, how valuable would you rate the service learning portion of the course? * Waste of time * Marginal * Neutral * Good * Best part of the course 1. Who benefits the most from service learning? * Student * Professor teaching the course * USU * Community 2. What benefits, if any, do you see in service learning opportunities here at USU? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ End of Memo Addiitional instruments are found as attachments in separate files.