The Influence of Service

8/10/2019 The Influence of Service

1/14

THE INFLUENCE OF SERVICELEARNING O N STUDENTS

PERSONAL A N D SOC IALDEVELOPMENT

Lori S imons and Beverly C leary

b s t r a c t An explanatory methods design was usedto evaluate the influence of a service learning courseon learning, personal, and social outcomes for servicelearning n = 142) students. These students showedimprovements in diversity and political awareness,community self-efficacy, and civic engagement scoresfrom the beginning to the end of the sem ester. In addi-tion, the students academic learning, personal andinterpersonal development, and community engage-ment were detected as the major benefits from engag-ing in service learning. The findings of this study sug-gest that service learning contributes to studentsacademic learning and personal and social develop-ment through social-emotional processes.

here has been an increase in the num-ber of investigations into service learn-ing over the past few years (Eyler 2000;Harkavy et al. 2000; M oore 2000). Servicelearning refers to a method under whichstudents apply particular course conceptsto real-life situations (Furco 2003). Ser-vice-learning programs are distinguishedfrom other forms of experiential learning

Lori Simons is an assistant professor of psychology inthe Social Science Division at Widener University inChester, P ennsylvania. Beverly Cleary is a researchassistant at Widener University.Copyright 2006 Heldref Publications

(i.e., community service, volunteerism) bytheir intention to benefit students and recip-ients of service equally (Sigmon and Pel-letier 1996). The majority of previousinvestigations have measured service learn-ing outcomes for students using eitherquantitative or qualitative methodologies.The quantitative studies have measuredchanges in students personal and interper-sonal development (Eyler and Giles 1999;Eyler et al. 2003; Moely, Mercer et al.2002); academic learning (Eyler 2000;Vogelgesang and Astin 2000); and civicengagement (Eyler et al. 2003; Gallini andMoely 2003; Moely, Mercer et al.), while

the qualitative research has explored th

processes linked with students reducestereotyping (Howard-Hamilton 2000Rockquemore and Shaffer 2000; Root et al2002) and increased community involvement (Eyler et al.; Reinke 2003). Severaresearchers suggest that service learninresearch is fairly rudimentary and oucomes need to be further examined witmore rigorous methods (Eyler; Moor2000; Ramaley 2000).

The present study addresses methodological limitations by evaluating an acdemic service learning model on learning, personal, and social outcomes usina dominant-less-dominant quantitativequalitative explanatory methods desigAn explanatory methods design refers ta sequential phase of data collection anan integrative analysis of quantitativequalitative data where quan titative resulare used to generate questions and provide a context for the qualitative analys(Creswell 1994; 2005).

The first section of this article definewhat an academic service learnin

model is, and reviews previous researcon service learning. Next, an explanatory methods design is described in termof both the quantitative analysis and thqualitative analysis. Einally, the two seof findings are synthesized through single discussion.

Service Learning Model

Eyler and Giles (1999) and Furc(2003) describe Sigmon and Pelletier

Vol 54/No 4 307


2/14

(1996) typology of service learning as abalance between community service andacademic learning where service andlearning goals are explicitly integrated. Inthis article, the term service learningrefers to reciprocal learning in that stu-dents apply theoretical knowledge to realworld situations, and, at the same time,

they connect the service experience to thecourse content (Ramaley 2000; Vogelge-sang and Astin 2000) through goals andobjectives, activities and assignments, andrefiections and discussions.

Service Learning ResearchService learning practitioners agree

that this style of learning provides stu-dents with an opportunity to leam beyondthe bounds of the traditional classroom(Enos and Trope 1996; Harkavy 2000);however, research on service learning andlearning outcomes is mixed. For example,Litke (2002) found that low- and high-achieving students demonstrated a betterability to apply and conceptualize courseconcepts after the service experience aftersystematically analyzing reflectionpapers of sixty students who participatedin service learning. Similarly, Strage(2000) found that service learning stu-dents did not outperform non-service-leaming students on initial examinations,after comparing 311 non-service-leaming

students to 166 service learning studentsenrolled in a child development coursewith a service learning option. However,service learners gained more points onmidterm and final exams and courseessays compared to non-service learners.Vogelgesang and Astin (2000) also foundthat service learners had better writingskills and higher grade point averages(GPAs) than nonservice learners afterconducting a national longitudinal studywith 22,236 undergraduate studentsenrolled at 177 institutions.

Several studies have found that servicelearning had a positive effect on students'interpersonal and personal development(Eyler and Giles 1999; Moely, Mercer etal. 2002). For example, Moely, Mercer etal. conducted a pre- and post-test study onan interest in civic and community issues,problem solving, political awareness,leadership skills, social justice attitudes,and diversity attitudes between 217 ser-vice learners and 324 nonservice learners

enrolled in the College of Arts and Sci-ences at a large liberal arts university.These researchers found that students hadsimilar scores at the beginning of thesemester, but by the end of the semesterservice learners scored higher on civicaction, social justice attitudes, leadershipskills, and problem-solving skills thannon-service learners. In addition, Moelyet al. assessed service-learning and non-service-learning students' appreciation ofthe course and their interest in learningabout the course and the field, as well asthe differences between these two groupsbefore and after the service. Members ofneither group maintained their initial opti-mism by the end of the semester, but ser-vice learners maintained their positiveview of the course and increased their rat-ings for learning about the community.Similarly, Boyle-Baise and Kilbane

(2000) conducted an ethnographic studywith twenty-five preservice teaching stu-dents and found that students changedtheir attitudes toward themselves and thecommunity after a semester of tutoringneighborhood children. In this study, stu-dents were interviewed before, during,and after their service, and their observa-tions and experiences were audiotapedand recorded through field notes andreflective papers. These researchers ana-lyzed the data with a triangulation methodand concluded that the students developedan understanding of the families that theyworked with and were able to identifycommunity assets through bonding withcommunity recipients. Eyler and Giles(1999) suggest that students in servicelearning courses gain a greater level ofself-knowledge and change their beliefsabout the comm unity.

Previous research on social outcomeshas found that service learning had afavorable effect on students' multicultural

competencies and community involve-ment (Root et al. 2002; Moely, Mercer etal . 2002; Rockquemore and Schaffer2000). For instance, Payne (2000) con-ducted a pre-post study on exploration,affiliation, experimentation, and assimila-tion preferences for community involve-ment for eighty-three students enrolled infour sections of a service learning course.In this study, students changed theirexploration and assimilation preferencesfor community service by the end of the

semester. Service learners reduced thapprehension levels (exploration prefence) for community involvement, athey increased their lifelong commitme(assimilation preference) to communservice. Gallini and Moely (200assessed community engagement, acamic engagement, and interpersoengagement for 142 service-learning aseventy-one non-service-leaming studeat the end of the semester and found tservice leamers reported greater levelsengagement than nonservice leamers.

Investigations on service leaming pvide important documentation on sdents' learning, social, and persochanges between pre-post service; hower, national surveys are usually limitedthe amount of data (retrospective prospective) obtained from each subjcompared to the extensive data gatwith single samples (Eyler and Gi1999; Vogelgesang and Astin 2000). Fexample, students may divulge minformation on an anonymous survey thduring an interview. Additionally, it impossible to detect if the reported attdinal changes in pre-post surveys wsingle samples is a result from the servexperience when these studies had smsamples and lacked randomization meods (Payne 2000; Reinke 2003; Root et 2002), measured attitudes instead

behaviors (Gallini and Moely 200Moely, McFarland et al. 2002; MoeMercer et al. 2002), and assessed attituwith either single-item surveys (Rock qmore and Schaffer 2000), reflective ess(Green 2001), or ethnographic techniq(Boyle-Base and Kilbane 2000). Whsome are concemed about the reliabiland validity of qualitative research, have addressed those concems by usreflection questions to explain the misslinks in students' attitudes and behavifrom pre-service to post-service.

To date, there is a lack of investigaton service leaming and leaming, socand personal outcomes using an explatory methods design. We used quantitatmethods to test two hypotheses: Are thsignificant changes in leaming, social, personal outcomes post-service for svice leaming students? And are there dferences in service learning outcomaccording to the placement site and plament activity? We used qualitative me

3 8 COLLEGE TEACHI


3/14

ods to identify and explore the majorthemes of service learning guided by tworesearch questions: What do students getout of service learning? What are theprocesses through which service leamingoccurs?

Method

Participants

College students enrolled in under-graduate psychology courses at a privateteaching university in an eastem metro-politan area during the fall of 2002through the spring of 2004 served as thesample for this study. As shown in table1, 142 students enrolled in educationalpsychology courses completed the pre-test at the beginning of the semester, and140 students completed the post-test at

the end of the semester, so the retentionfrom pre-test to post-test was 98 percent.The majority of students were Caucasian(78 percent), female (79 percent), andeither psychology or education majors(82 percent); the average age was nine-teen. Less than half the students (37 per-cent) were freshmen, and about one-thirdof them (38 percent) had volunteer expe-rience prior to the course. Although ser-vice leaming was optional, 95 percent ofthe students self-selected to participate.Service was carried out at three sites; themajority of service leaming students (62percent) were placed in an elementaryschool, while the remaining studentswere placed in an after-school program(25 percent) or a community leamingprogram (11 percent). Almost half of allstudents (48 percent) continued in service

TABLE 1. Descript ive Data

Variables

GenderMaleFemale

EthnicityCaucasianAfrican American

HispanicOther

MajorPsychologyEducationNursingHumanitiesSciences

Year in schoolEreshmanSophmoreJuniorSenior

Volunteer experienceService leaming placement

Elementary schoolAfter-schoolLeaming program

Service leaming activityTutorMentor

Service leaming continued

Service leaming future

for Service Learning Students

Service Leaming(n = 142)

2179

7820

11

2854

2106

3744127

38

622511

6136

48

75

activities after the required hours, andmore than half (75 percent) reported thathey would engage in future servicleaming activities.

ourse ontent

The in-class time (three fifty-minutsessions per week) for the educationapsychology course was taught by oninstmctor and began with a lecture on service leaming. The instructor explained tthe students that the class w as a part of aevaluation on service learning and thatheir participation in this study was voluntary. Then a code was assigned to thstudents to use on surveys instead of providing their names. The instructor furtheexplained to the students that their individual responses would be kept confidential and only group data would be used ithe evaluation. Informed consent and sur

veys were administered to students at thend of the first class.

The next two classes consisted of two-hour orientation on mentoring and tutorinby guest speakers representing one of ththree placement sites. The guest speakerexplained to the students the delicatnature of working with at-risk childrenand how they would work with children igroups of four for sixteen hours at a publielementary school (grades K-6), publiafter-school program (grades K-8) or

community learning program (gradeK-6). Guest speakers trained the studentin either a mentor or tutor role. Mentorwere trained to read to children using district-approved curriculum that consisted of structured and nonstructured activities. Tutors were trained in a districtapproved tutorial curriculum thaconsisted of semi-structured reading anmath exercises, as well as a research-basedcurriculum that emphasized behaviomodification techniques, such as appliebehavioral analysis and token economyfor the comm unity learning program.

The rest of the course con sisted of lecture, activities, and discussion. Five clasperiods were devoted to an introductorysegment covering the general history oeducational psychology, theory and purpose, and research methods, and then proceeded through an arrangement of lessonon psychological theories for tw enty-threclass periods. Each section of the courshad three examinations, twelve refiection

Vol. 54/No 4 9


4/14

activities, sixteen journal entries, andthree written assignm ents.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire. A self-report survey was used to collect descrip-tive information on gender, race, age,year in school, and volunteer experience

before taking the course. ivi Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire

CASQ). D eveloped by Moely, M cFarlandet al. (2002), the questionnaire was used toassess students self-evaluation on civicattitudes and skills that are useful in civicendeavors, values related to civic eng age-ment, and the likelihood of action andinvolvement in community issues. TheCASQ is an 84-item self-report question-naire that was modeled on previousresearch on service learning outcomes(Moely, McFarland et aL). It yields scoreson six scales for each respondent: civicaction (intentions to become involved inthe future in some community service oraction), interpersonal and problem-solvingskills (ability to listen, work cooperatively,communicate, make friends, take the roleof another, think logically and analytically,and solve problems), political awareness(of local and national events and politicalissues), leadership skills (ability to leadand effectiveness as a leader), social jus-tice attitudes (conceming the causes of

poverty and misfortune and how socialproblems can be solved ), and diversity atti-tudes (toward diversity and the respon-dent s interest in relating to culturally dif-ferent people). Items are presented asstatements, and respondents express theirlevels of agreement with each statement bymarking a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to 5 (strongly agree). Intemal consisten-cies for each scale range from .69 to .88,and test-retest reliabilities for each scalerange from .56 to 81 (Moely, Mercer et al.2002).

The CASQ also measures students viewof their courses on four scales: cou rse value(how important or useful material coveredin the academic course had been), leamingabout academic field/academic application(content of the respond ent s academiccourse such as understanding and applica-tion of the course concepts, interest in thefield, and understanding a professional srole in the field of study), leaming aboutthe community/community application

(how much the respondent leamed aboutthe commun ity, different cu ltures, workingwith others effectively, and seeing socialproblems in a new way), and contributionto the community (perceptions of how use-ful their service activities had been in thecommunity). Items are presented as state-ments and respondents endorse their level

of agreement by circling a score on a scalefrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Intemal consistency for each scaleranges from .81 to .82 (Moely, M cFarlandet al. 2002 ). Twelve items from Crandallm,Crandallm, and Katovsky 1965 qtd. inMoely, McFarland et al.) were used tomeasure the extent to which the respondentattempted to present himself or herself in afavorable manner. Intemal consistency forsocial desirability ranges from .70 to .72(Moely, McFarland et al.).

Community Service Involvement Pref

erence Inventory CSIPI). Developed byPayne (2000), the inventory was used toassess how students become involved incommunity service. The CSIPI is a 48-item paper and pencil inventory based onexperiential learning (Payne 1998) andassesses four preferences for communityinvolvement: exploration involvement(reflecting the affective nature of appre-hension comm on in new experiences, andthe behavioral perspective that commit-ment is short term and is usually at the

convenience of the help er), affiliationinvolvement (reflecting that behaviormotivation of recognition and commit-ments tend to be infrequent and shorter induration), experimentation involvement(reflecting the desire to make a differencein the lives of others and to leam moreabout the community), and assimilationinvolvement (reflecting cognitiveprocesses with career and lifestyle deci-sions based on the service experience as away to understand what it means to be a

responsible citizen). Items are presentedas statements, and respondents indicatetheir level of agreement by circling ascore on a five-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Scores for each involvement pref-erence range from twelve to sixty, and thetotal score for each preference serves asan indicator of how the student prefers tobecome involved in community service.Intemal consistencies for exploration r =.63), affiliation r .70), experimentation

(r = .74), and assimilation r = .70) pref-erences are modest.

Civic/Community Behaviors. This tmn-cated version of the Civic EngagemeInventory developed by Reinke (2003) is 20-item Likert-type questionnaire tmeasures different types of engagemenItems were presented as statements, and

students circled either a yes 1) or no 0)dichotomized response to indicate thedegree of engagement. Items were addtogether to produce the four subscalmeasuring social, religious, cultural, andpolitical engagement, and a total scascore measuring civic engagement sc(Reinke 2003). The civic engagemescale was also used for this study. In addtion, thirty items were developed by theresearcher to measure community engagment and were analyzed separately. Newitems asked about community involment and types of volunteer activitieCronbach s alpha for the original and newitems was modest a = .83).

The Community Service Self-EfficScale CSSES). Developed by Reeb andcolleagues (1998), this scale measured students confidence in making a clinicalsignificant contribution to the communithrough service. The CSSES scale pre-sents ten items and respons es rang e from (quite uncertain) to 10 (certain). Scores aradded together to produce a full scascore. Test-retest reliability for this scawas modest r = .62).

Learning outcomes were assessusing individual student self-reporGPAs and application ability as demostrated in reflection questions.

Open-ended and Closed-ended Quetions. Twelve open- and closed-endquestions were designed to explore thextent, nature, and quality of studentthoughts and feelings about academservice learning. Nine open-ended qu

tions directly assessed the service experence, and three closed-ended questioinquired about community engagemeThe open-ended questions led to topicareas associated with the course contenwhile the closed-ended questions led torelevant areas associated with communpartnerships. A copy of the open-endeand closed-ended questions is shown ithe appendix.

The Texas Social Behavior InventorShort Form TSBI). Developed by Helm

3 1 COLLEGE TEACHING


5/14

reich and Strapp (1974) as cited inBringle, Phillips, and Hudson (2004), thisinventory was used to measure self-esteem and social competence. The TSBIis composed of thirty-two items and usesa five-category response format rangingfrom 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to5 (very much characteristic of me). Itemsare added together to produce a full-scalescore. Reliability coefficients were mod-est (r= 85).

Procedure

Service leaming students were evaluat-ed before and after service. They complet-ed a consent form and a survey packetconsisting of questionnaires measuringdemographics, learning, and social andpersonal outcomes during the first weekof the course, and then again after theycompleted service (the sixteen-hourrequirement). Students completed eachsurvey at their own pace, placed it in acoded, confidential envelope, and gave itdirectly to the researcher. Each surveytook about forty-five minutes to comp lete.

Analysis

A paired f-test was conducted to exam-ine if there were significant changes inlearning, social, and personal outcomespost-service for service leaming students,and a one-way ANQVA was conducted to

examine differences in service leamingoutcomes according to the placement siteand placement activity. In addition, weanalyzed the nine open-ended and threeclosed-ended questions with a purposefulsample of seventy-five service learningstudents enrolled in educational psychol-ogy courses from the fall of 2 3 throughthe spring of 2004 (reflection questionswere added to the survey during the sec-ond year of the study, and for this reasonwe are reporting on seventy-five stu-dents). We identified major themes thatwere generated from the systematicallyobtained data and analyzed using the con-stant comparative method (Creswell1994; 1998). Our analyses focused on ourresearch questions: What do students getout of service learning? What are theprocesses through which academic ser-vice leaming occurs?

Open- and closed-ended questions thatinquired about what students' get out ofparticipating in service learning were

analyzed to categorize responses. Twoindependent coders read the responses,then met and identified the units ofanalysis; these were the isolated thoughtsexpressed by students. Typically, thethought units were found within a para-graph, but there were also instances inwhich a student expressed multiplethought units found in a sentence. Dis-crepancies between how coders identi-fied discrete units were discussed untilthe coders agreed on units. The coding ofthe nine open-ended questions resulted in1,123 units, and the coding of the threeclosed-ended questions resulted in 183units.

These 1,306 individual thought unitsunderwent an item-level analysis so thatsimilar thoughts were combined to con-struct a common framework. Open cod-ing of the individual thought units con-sisted of naming and categorizing thedata. The categories were arranged andrearranged until saturated ; that is, untilthe coders and the researcher agreed theconcepts were similar and should begrouped together. Then the units werecoded in the service leaming frameworkof Eyler and Giles (1999). Fifteen majorcategories emerged in the open codingprocess: service learning added value tothe course, course/field understanding,course/field application, career benefits,

personal efficacy, self-knowledge, spiri-tual growth and reward of helping others,diversity, work well with others, commu-nity connections, stereotyping/tolerance,appreciating other cultures, understand-ing social problems, solutions to socialproblems, and reflection. Coders countedthe number of responses that occurred ineach category to obtain the frequency ofresponses and then divided the frequen-cies by the number of participants toidentify the percentages for each catego-ry. The percentages were used to rank themajor categories that resulted in eightdominant themes as illustrated in table 2.

Once the eight dominant themes wereidentified, an axial coding procedure wasconducted to describe the learningprocesses that occur while students areengaged in service learning. The axialcoding connected students' learningprocesses to the central concepts ofsocial, emotional, cognitive, and multi-cultural leaming (Gardner 1993; 1999;

Howard-Hamilton 2000; Salovey et al2004), as shown in table 3. Social learning was defined as students' ability tidentify, monitor, and discriminate feelings, and to draw on them as means oguiding one's behavior (Gardner 19931999, and 2004). Social leaming waidentified and coded when the coderread either an interpersonal or an intrapersonal reflection. Interpersonal learninwas coded when the students' reflectionindicated knowledge about oneself andintrapersonal leaming was coded whethe students' reflections indicated knowledge about others. In addition, studentsstatements were coded as emotionaleaming when they reflected an expression of feeling, and statements wercoded as cognitive learning when theyreflected thoughts, judgments, or reasoning ability (Salovey, Brackett, and Maye

2004; Slavin 2003). Students' reactionwere coded as multicultural learninwhen they reflected knowledge of cultural identity for themselves and othersunderstanding of cultural differences, anappreciation of different cultural group(How ard-Ham ilton). We used a reliabilitycheck for the qualitative data by comparing the dominant themes and major learning processes to students' self-reports osurveys and placement site coordinatorsreports. The discussion section addressethe discrepancies between qualitative anquantitative results.

Results

Pre Post est Analyses for ServiceLearning Students

To determine if there were significanchanges in social and personal outcomefor service learning students, a paired ttest was conducted on six dependenmeasures: GPAs, CASQ, CSIPI, TSBICSE, and civic engagement scores beforand after service. We were able todemonstrate that service learnerincrease their political awareness, diversity attitudes, civic engagement, community self-efficacy, and affiliation preferences for community involvement, buthey decrease their interests in the coursand field and social competence from thbeginning to the end of the course, ashown in table 4. The first hypothesiwas partially supported.

Vol 54/No 4


6/14

TABLE 2 Dominant Them es

Themes

Academic leaming

PersonalCareerdevelopment

PersonalSelf-knowledge

Impact of the programon personal

Interpersonaldevelopment

Developing connectionswith others

Reduced stereotypingand tolerance

of Academic Service

Categories

Service leamingadded value to thecourse

Better understanding

Better application

Career benefits

Personal efficacy

Self-knowledge

Spiritual growth

Reward of helpingothers

Application

Reflection

Diversity

Working well withothers

Diversity

Communityconnections

Reward in helpingothers

Diversity

Stereotypes/developing tolerance

Learning

Units

This course would have been difficult without the service; I couldnot have understood the concepts if it were not for service; I needreal life examples to understand the material

Understood the field and how it relates to the concepts and theories;I truly understood the terms at-risk characteristics, protectivestrategies, and educational resilience ; I leamed how being a rolemodel can serve as a form of an intervention; I get what is meant by hasic needs ; I understand the challenges associated w ith studentcharacteristics

I was able to apply concepts and theories; I was able to useclassroom management techniques; I was able to practice test-takingmethods and m emory aids w ith the students that I worked w ith; Ipracticed extrinsic motivation strategies; behavioral strategies workwell with children with emotional and leaming problems; I coulddistinguish between the different types of disorders

Hands-on experience; understanding of teachers' role; knowledge ofwhat is required; respect for teachersconfirmed or disconfirmedcareer choice; changed major/career aspiration; contemplated careerchange

Impact as teaching assistant; self-understanding; competence

Real world experience; understanding of the field and course

Spiritually and emotionally benefited me; self-esteem and selfconfidence; social confidence

Impacted others; a better understanding of other cultures; anappreciation for different cultures; relationships with children andteachers; felt appreciated by children/teachers

Reciprocal leaming; motivational; knowledge of theories andtechniques; teaching methods; classroom management skills

Role model; extra hands in the classroom; school improvement;relationships with others; felt good; giving back; comm unity impact

Social/racial/culture identification; social/racial/cultural differences;worked well with others who are different; tolerant attitudes;teacher/role identification; others are like me; appreciating culturaldifferences

Others are like me; shared beliefs; mutual goals; genuine; concem

School culture identification; staff/role/children identification;socioeconomic/culture identification; tolerant attitudes

Enhanced my beliefs in the good of others; continued aftercompleted my hours; changed my beliefs about the community;developed partnerships/relationships; community engagement; civicengagement; I go into Chester now; Chester is a part of my community

It was better than what I expected; I enjoyed being there; I felt like Iwas needed; the children w ould smile every time I w as there; I likedthat I helped them with their skillsit made me feel good

Appreciation for other cultures; leamed not to stereotype; changedmy thoughts and feelings; understood student characteristics;developed empathy/passion for w orking in this type of school

I blamed the parents for the children's behaviors and problems untilnow; I didn't realize how involved the parents areI thought the

latite coniinues)



7/14

TABLE 2 ontinued

Themes Categories Units

Reduced stereotypingand tolerance

Appreciating othercultures

Problem solving Understanding socialproblems

Solutions to social

Reflection

children were unsupervised; they have a lot of obstacles to overcome;I leamed that these kids have potential; these kids are that differentfrom other kids; they want to succeed; it opened my eyes to realityI leamed how economics affects leaming; I want to help more; I sawa different type of life; the school is a substitute for home and I wantto be a part of that type of school; I learned that basic needs must bemet before leaming can proceed and this made me appreciate myfamily and life's opportunities; these children need more attentionand you must be extra sensitive so that they stay on taskI neverthought I would want to work in special education but I realized thatthis is so different than regular education and I want to be a part ofthis culture

At-risk children need extra attention and guidance; the financesimpact the school resources; I would have been unable to tmlyunderstand the social problems addressed in this course if it were notfor service-leaming; an understanding of different cultures and socialissues linked with poverty

Making an impact by giving your time; role modeling for students;building esteem in the children; using motivational approaches toengage them in class and to stay in school; providing alternatives to street activities; providing resources that are needed; being thereand caring; giving up a few hours a week is worth helping students'improve their test scores and making a difference to a child

Feeling of making a difference; creating opportunities; adding value;I would never have leamed about myself and ability to work inimpoverished environments if it were not for this school; it openedmy eyes to a reality that I didn't even know existed

TABLE 3 The lUlajor Processes Associated With Academic

% Processes Themes

100 SocialInterpersonal Academic leaming

Career development

Self-knowledge

Impact of the program

Interpersonal skills

Community connections

Stereotyping/tolerance

Problem solving

83 SocialIntrapersonal Academic learning

Career development

Self-knowledge


Service Learning

Patterns

Better understanding or application ability

Hands on experience; confirmation of career choice; competence

Self-confidence, social competence, self-efficacy

An appreciation of different cultures

Sociocultural identification; role identification

Enhanced my beliefs in the good of others

Enhanced my beliefs in the good of others; developedpartnerships/relationships

Giving up your time can make a difference to a child

Understanding of the field; teacher's role

Impact as teaching assistant

Understanding of the field/course

Helped the children; made a difference

lable continues)

Vol 5 4 / N o 4 3 1 3


8/14

TABLE

%

83

81

52

33

33

ontinued

Processes

S ocial-Intrapersonal

Emotional

Cognitive

Multicultural

Multicultural

Themes




Problem solving

Academic leaming

Career development

Self-knowledge





Problem solving

Academic leaming

Career development

Self-knowledge





Problem solving

Academic leaming

Career developmentSelf-knowledge





Problem solving

Pattems

Share beliefs/mutual goals regardless of differences

Developed partnerships/relationships; civic engagement

Changed my beliefs about the community

At-risk characteristics/social problem s; proving altem atives to street activities

Empathy; compassion

Passionate about being a teacher

Felt good about myself

Felt good to be appreciated; concem for the children

I felt helpless; the children would smile every time I was there;the children would get excited

It was a surreal experience; I am thankful for this experience

I felt like I was needed

I am grateful for how much I have, but we need to createopportunities/resources for them

Evaluation of skills and impact

Respect for teachers; student characteristics

Realized the type of person that I am; personal values

I can work in a diverse atmosphere/individuals

I have leamed that I can work anywhere/anyone

Leamed how to relate to the students and deal with theircharacteristics and behaviors

It opened my eyes to a reality that I did not know existed; Ileamed not to stereotype

Service leaming creates opporunities for the children

Application of school culture to course concepts

Experience of teaching in urban schoolsDesire to work in an urban env ironment

Learned that I can work anywhere and with anyone

Leamed of different cultures/how others are like me

Appreciation for different cultures

Leamed racial/economic disparities affect leaming and that thechildren are more capable than thought

Methods to overcome barriers linked with disparities

Placement Site and Service-Activity

Analyses

To evaluate placement site effects onstudents' social and personal outcomes, aone-way ANOVA was repeated withscores on five dependent measures:

CASQ, CSIPI, TSBI, CSE, and civicengagement. There were no significantdifferences in personal and social out-comes according to the type of placement(school, after-school, and communityprogram), but there were differences insocial outcomes between service activi-

ties. Mentors ( - 26.93) had highersocial justice scores (F (1, 125) = 6.92, p< .01) compared to tutors ( - 25.25)Mentors { = 20.10) also had higher com-munity interests scores (F ( 1 , 127) - 5.22p < .05) than tutors { = 18.75). The sec-ond hypothesis was partially supported.



9/14

TABLE 4. Learning, Personal, and .Social Outcomes for ServiceStud ents A/= 142) Before and After Serv ice

Service Leaming Outcomes

CASQ Subscales

Course ValueCivic ActionProblem SolvingPolitical AwarenessLeadershipSocial JusticeDiversity AttitudesSocial DesirabilityAcademic ApplicationCommunity Application

CISPI SubscalesExperimentationExplorationAssimilation

AffiliationCommunity Self-efficacy

Texas Social BehaviorInventory

Civic Engagement

Note. A negative t indicates

Pre-service

M

37.8726.6141.0714.1313.2625.9412.0736.7720.8020.14

45.1431.7944.22

30.2438.66

61.13

3.92

hat the area

SD

4.274.404.722.521.713.561.923.973.563.79

5.523.606.91

4.644.93

10.80

2.72

Post-service

M

34.2226.1140.7117.3213.6126.1013.9136.6219.7019.34

45.4631.1544.55

36.5843.33

57.97

5.41

SD

4.293.415.573.261.713.402.645.443.703.28

5.303.704.80

7.555.22

6.75

3.04

Learning

t

10.04***1.72.78

-12.60***-1.67

-.32-5.54***

.783 24***2.30*

-.601.68-.55

-5.09***-10.04***

2.08*

-6 .11***

in the distribution where the score falls that isnecessary to reject the null hypothesis. p < .001, *p < .05.

What Did Students Get Out of ServiceLearning?

Eyler and Giles (1999) suggest thatservice learning enhances students'understanding and application of coursematerial. Almost all (96 percent) of thecoded data identified academic learningas a benefit of service leamin g. For exam-ple, one student commented on theimpact the service had on applicationability: I was able to apply the lessonsfrom class into a real classroom . . .stereotyping and diversity, Piaget's

stages, operant and classical condition-ing, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,developmental disorders, and classroommanagement techniques.

More than three-quarters (82 percent) ofthe coded data identified career develop-ment as a second benefit of the course,consistent with previous research (Eylerand Giles 1999; Payne 2000) that suggestsservice leaming is a vehicle for confinningand modifying students' career decisions.Two observations conveyed the impact the

course had relative to career development: Before participating in service leaming, Ithought I wanted to w ork with pro athletes.Now I've realized that I want to work withchildren, and I am confused . . . I nowwant to work with children in an urban,impoverished environment as a teacher. Idid not realize the impact that one personcan make on a child's life and teachershave this profound ability.

Eyler and Giles (1999) found that ser-vice leaming contributes to students' per-sonal development in that they acquiregreater self-efficacy and self-knowledge.

Almost all (97 percent) of the coded dataidentified self-efficacy or self-knowledgeas a third service learning benefit. As onestudent wrote, I was worried that mytutoring would have a negative effect... Iworried so much about what I was goingto say and how I was going to say it. I wasafraid that the kids wouldn't accept meand the parents would resent me. Thisexperience was wonderful . . . I realizedthat I didn't have to worry about what Isaid or the manner in which I spoke.

Eyler and Giles (1999) and Jacoby(1996) suggest that program characteristics such as placement quality, reflectionactivities, and application of service further impact students' personal development. More than three-quarters (80 percent) of the coded data identified theimpact of the program on personal devel

opment as a fourth benefit of servicelearning. One student's reflection conveyed the impact that the placement hadon fostering diversity: Service leamingmade me understand that I can work withpeople from different backgrounds andsaw with my own eyes the impact I hadon the children by spending only a fewhours a week.

Service leaming researchers proposethat service leaming contributes to students' ability to work well with others and

an appreciation for other cultures (Eyleand Giles 1999; Moely, Mercer et al2002; Moely, McFarland et al. 200 2). Themajority (84 percent) of the coded dataidentified interpersonal development as fifth service learning benefit. Studentreported that service learning allowedthem to work well with others and identify with the teachers and children. One student wrote, I could relate to the childrenand the school, because I am from a similar neighborhood. I could identify with ththings that they were going through . . some of the children do not get the helpthat they need at home and others aremuch 'older' and 'wiser' for their age. was glad to be there, to encourage andreinforce them to stay in school, since really know what it takes to be resilient.

Gallini and Moely (2003) and Reink(2003) suggest that service leamers takownership for community problems afteestablishing relationships with community recipients, and more than three quarter(78 percent) of the data coded from open

ended and closed-ended questions identified developing co nnections to others as sixth service leaming outcome. One student's comment conveyed the impact thcourse had relevant to community conn ection: Before this class I might not havthought of Chester as part of my community but now I do . . . we live in a community that suffers from extreme economicand racial differences . . . My friend washot dead a year ago on campus for nreason so I stopped going into Cheste

Vol 5 4 / N o 4 3 15


10/14

until now. The majority (76 percent) ofthe students reported that they participatein community service activities such asvolunteering and coaching, and half alsoreported that they registered for eitheranother service leaming or multiculturalcourse next semester. Service leaming notonly contributes to community relation-

ships and engagemen t, but it also providesstudents with an opportunity to observethe benefits of helping others. A secondstudent's observation demonstrated find-ing a reward in helping others. I noticethat I take things for granted and thesechildren do not take anything for granted. . . I have learned that I can make a dif-ference . . . we need to create opportuni-ties for these children and service leamingis only the beginning to reach that end.

More than half (61 percent) of the

data coded identified reduced stereotyp-ing and the development of tolerant atti-tudes as a seventh benefit of servicelearning. This finding is consistent withservice learning multicultural research(Boyle-Baise and Kilbane 2000) thatsuggests students modify their precon-ceived notions about communitythrough social bonding and interperson-al interactions with community recipi-ents. For example, one student's com-ment spoke to the impact the course hadon stereotyping : I have learned not tostereotype. . . I saw a different life thatpeople live and it changed my views . . .I have learned that the children are morecapable than I thought and by gettinginvolved with them makes a difference .. . I need to give more of my time. Afinal comment conveyed the impact ofthe course relative to developing tolerantattitudes. The se children are poor andhave a lot of barriers to overcomebecause people stereotype them andthink that they won't make it in life . . .

now I want to work in an impoverishedurban school . . . I am thankful for thisexperience.

Eyler and Giles (1999) suggest thatservice leaming fosters students' abilityto understand social problems and identi-fy solutions to resolve social problems.More than half (61 percent) of the datacoded identified problem-solving skillsas an eighth service leaming outcome.One student comm ented, This was a sur-real experience . . . the situations and

lifestyles of people are scary and sad. Ifelt helpless at times, but I learned thatevery person needs to have someone whocares . . . someone who is rooting forthem. It is easy to recognize those lessfortunate and to feel sorry for them, but tomake a difference is what is important. Ihave learned to reframe from judgment

and adjust my behavior to make a differ-ence in their lives.

h t Are the Processes through WhichService Learning Occurs

To understand how students leam whileengaged in service, the coders indepen-dently identified social, emotional, cogni-tive, and multicultural leaming as process-es through which academic serviceleaming occurs. Gardner sugg ests that per-sonal leaming (interpersonal and intraper-sonal) is an individual's capacity to assessone's feelings and the ability to notice andmake distinctions among other individuals(2004, 239). All of the coded data identi-fied interpersonal learning as a majorprocess of academic service leaming. Inaddition, more than three quarters (83 per-cent) of the coded data identified intraper-sonal leaming as a second major processassociated with academic service leaming.As one student asserted, I have impacteda child's life and helped the teacher... myinvolvement w ith this school effected [sic]

the culture of the classroom and the leam-ing environment in general.

Salovey et al. suggest that emotionalleaming is an individ ual's ability to per-ceive, appraise and express em otions accu-rately (2004 , 25). The majority (81 per-cent) of coded data identified emotionalleaming as a third and final major processlinked with academic service leaming. Asone student stated, I felt empathy for thestudents because they have so many o bsta-cles to overcome . . . I have developed a

passion for working with those less fortu-nate. High frequencies were found forinterpersonal leaming, and moderate fre-quencies were found for intrapersonal andemotional leaming as leaming processes.Cognitive and multicultural leaming werealso identified as leaming processes, butcited less often.

Discussion

There has been a tremendous amountof research on the impact of service learn-

ing. Despite these developments, studies have used rigorous research mods to evaluate leaming, social, and psonal outcomes. This is one of the fstudies to use an exploratory methdesign to demonstrate that participatin service learning affects academlearning and personal and social deve

ment. Incorporating qualitative and qutitative metho ds allowed us to test for pservice and post-service differences assured us the reliability of findibeyond those possible if only a sinmethod had been considered.

Service learning students showexpected changes in political awarendiversity attitudes, community selfefficacy, affiliation preferences for comunity service, and community engament from the beginning to the end ofsemester. Service leamers acquired knoedge about local and national politdeveloped an appreciation of the divbackgrounds and characteristics of cmunity recipients, and increased their cfidenc e in their ability to make a differein the community. Service leam ers' preence for short-term community invoment and levels of civic engagemincreased throughout the semester andpartially congment with the findingsPayne (2000), who found that servleaming students make short-term c

mitments and then transition to long-tcommitments to community service.

A possible explanation for inconsisfindings between previous and curresearch are methods and measuremePrevious research assessed studecommunity involvement with a sinmeasure (Payne 2000), and in this stwe evaluated students' attitudes behaviors with multiple methods. study controlled for good-subject effand halo effects (Rosenthal and Rosn

1991) associated with previous reseaIn addition, service leaming provided dents with opportunities to work groups with peers and engage in interpsonal interactions with culturally divchildren at a school and a program loed in the poorest neighborhood in community. Unfortunately, this projalso exposed the students to some ofworst aspects of the local politiprocess, including the closing of school where they were placed and



11/14

misuse of funds and supplies by leadersin the after-school program. Such expo-sure may have influenced studentsawareness of local politics, civic engage-ment, and preference for short-term com-munity involvement.

The placement site activity influencedstudents personal and social develop-

ment. Mentors acquired a deeper under-standing of social institutions and theirinfluence on community recipients, andthe act of mentoring gave students anopportunity to develop relationships withchildren and administrators of differentraces, social classes, and family dynam-ics, thus increasing the students interestin learning about the community andtheir comprehension of institutionalinequities and injustices. It is possible,then, that the nature of the service activi-ty may change student attitudes in waysthat are unforeseen and desirable. This isan avenue that demands further research.

Another objective of this study was touse the qualitative data to explain themissing links in students attitudes andbehaviors before and after service.Almost all of the students described adeeper understanding and application oftheoretical concepts in their reflections.However, students grade point averagesdid not change as expected and are par-tially consistent with previous studies

(Fredericksen 2000; Strage 2000; Voge-lesgang and Astin 2000), Inconsistentfmdings in qualitative and quantitativedata may be attributed to the differentassessment methods that were used tomeasure academic learning, and academ-ic learning may be better assessed withqualitative methods. In addition, morethan half of the students reflections illus-trated their comprehension of the socialproblems that plague the community anddescribed solutions for community prob-

lems is inconsistent with studentsself

reports on surveys of problem-solvingskills, A possible explanation for thisinconsistent finding is that the problem-solving subscale measured students abil-ity to communicate and work well withothers, rather than finding solutions tocommunity problems (Moely, McFarlandet al, 2002), Almost half of the studentsreported that they continued to volunteerat the placement after required hours andbefore the school was closed as a method

to solve the problem of overcrowdedclassrooms. The students ability to takeownership for social problems may bemore indicative of their problem-solvingability than their problem-solving skillson self-reported surveys.

Students reflections indicate that theylearned about themselves, acquired

knowledge about the demands of teach-ing, and learned to make objective careerdecisions. In addition, their reflectionsindicate that they changed their precon-ceived notions about the community,learned to interact with people who areculturally different and discovered com-monalities, and developed tolerant atti-tudes toward cultural differences. Stu-dents formed relationships withcommunity recipients and sustained theserelationships and their involvementbeyond the initial service. The consistentdata on students surveys and reflectionsmake us feel confident asserting that stu-dents benefit from engaging in this formof pedagogy,

A final objective of this study was toinquire into the leaming processes thatoccur while students engage in servicelearning. The majority of studentsdescribe understanding the course contentand acquiring self-knowledge and socialcompetencies through social-emotionalleaming. This kind of leaming is a processthrough which people leam to recognizeand manage emotions, care about others,and make responsible decisions to solveproblems (Fredericks 2003; Wang andGordon 1994; Zins et al, 2001), Social-emotional leaming contributes to serviceleaming and, at the same time, serviceleaming provides students with an oppor-tunity to demonstrate values and skillsderived from social-emotional leaming(such as respect and responsibility). Thequalitative data provides a procedural

framework of service leaming throughsocial-emotional leaming, and the integra-tion of both qualitative and quantitativedata furthers our conceptual framework ofa service leaming model and its influenceon learning, personal, and social out-comes.

Implications for CourseDevetopment

Our findings may be of particularinterest for faculty developing service

learning courses. First, faculty shouldhave a working knowledge of the localpolitics surrounding educational institu-tions and community agencies, becausethe organizational politics are likely toinfluence the students level of communi-ty and civic engagement. Faculty shouldprepare students to deal with local poli-

tics in a way that prevents students fromending their service.

Second, faculty should select short-termrather than long-term projects because stu-dents will be able to view their impact oncommunity recipients. It appears thatwhen students are able to view theiraccomplishments, they gain greater levelsof satisfaction with the service experi-ences. The faculty will also need to nego-tiate activities with placement sites thatallow students to work in groups and fos-ter relationships with community recipi-ents. Specifically, faculty should selectactivities that balance the students level ofautonomy with supervision to promotecommunity and civic engagement.

Finally, faculty should avoid givingcredit for time spent at the placement site.Students are likely to develop a deeperunderstanding of the course content, mod-ify their thoughts about the community,and take responsibility for social problemsin the community through their relation-ships with community recipients. This typeof academic leaming and student develop-ment cannot be assessed through a setamount of time, but rather through social-emotional leaming that is fostered by theservice activity and course assignments.Faculty must collaborate with agencies andorganizations to design assignments thatfoster this kind of leaming, thus allowingstudents to apply the course material,acquire persona l growth and self-efficacy,and develop an understanding of theirinfluence on community recipients.

The current study adds to the researchon service learning by evaluating learn-ing, personal, and social outcomes withan explanatory methods design. Thereare probably homogeneity and sample-selection limitations associated with thestudents who volunteered for this study.Students from public institutions arelikely to have different views of servicelearning because of their personal char-acteristics, educational experiences,and service opportunities. Participants

Vol 54/No 4 317


12/14

reported on their attitudes and behaviorswith multiple questionnaires and open-and closed-ended questions, and thereare likely social desirability and selfreport biases associated with our results.More research is needed to identify aclear and consistent pattern of servicelearning outcomes with a triangulation

mixed methods design. This would makean interesting future study.

Key words: personal and social out-comes, service learning, social-emotionallearning

R E F E R E N C E S

Boyle-Baise, M., and J. Kilbane. 2000. Whatreally happen s? A look inside service-learn-ing for multicultural teacher education.Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLeaming 7:54-64.

Bringle, R. G., M. A. Phillips, and M. Hu dson.2004. The measure of service learning.Washington, DC: American PsychologicalPress.

Creswell, J. W. 1994. Research design: Qual-itative and quantitative approaches. Thou-sand Oaks, C;A: Sage.

. 1998. Qualitative inquiry andresearch design: Choosing among five tra-ditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

. 2005. Educational research. 2nd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson PrenticeHall.

Enos, S., and M. Troppe. 1996. Curricular

models for service learning. MetropolitanUniversities 7 (1) : 71-84 .Eyler, J. S. 2000. What do we most need to

know about the impact of service learningon student leaming? Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning, SpecialIssue, 11-17.

Eyler, J. S., and D. E. Giles. 1999. W here s theleaming in service leaming? San Francis-co : Jossey-Bass.

Eyler, J. S., D. E. Giles, C. M. Stenson, and C.J. Gray. 2003. What we know about theeffects of service leaming on college stu-dents, faculty, institutions and communi-ties, 1993-2000, 3rd ed. In Introduction to

service leaming toolkit, 15-22. Providence,RI : Campus Com pact.Federicks, L. 2003. Making the case for social

and emotional leaming and service-learn-ing. Denver: Collaborative for Academic,

Social and Emotional Leaming, EducationCommission ofthe States.

Fredericksen, P. J. 2000. Does service learn-ing make a difference in student perfor-mance? Joumal of Experiential Education23 (2): 64-74.

Furco, A. 2003. Service leaming: A balancedapproach to experiential education. InIntroduction to service-learning toolkit,11-14. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.

Gallini, S. M., and B. E. Moely. 2003. Serviceleaming and engagement, academic chal-lenge, and retention. Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning 10 (1): 1-14.

Gardner, H. 1993. Multiple intelligences: Thetheory in practice. New York: Basic.

. 1999. Intelligence reframed NewYork: Basic.

-. 2004. Erames of mind: The theory ofmultiple intelligences. New York: Basic.

Green, A. E. 200 1. But you aren't white? :Racial perspectives and service learning.Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLearning 8 (1): 18-26.

Harkavy, I., J. Puckett, and D. Romer. 2000.Action research: Bridging service andresearch. Michigan Journal of CommunityService Learning, Special Issue, 113-19.

How ard, J. P. F. 2003. Academ ic service leam-ing: A counternormative pedagogy. InIntroduction to service learning toolkit,57-62 . Providence, RI: Campus Com pact.

Howard-Hamilton, M. 2000. Programmingfor multicultural competencies. New Direc-tions for Student Services 90:67-78.

Jacoby, B. 1996. Service learning in highereducation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Litke, R. A. 2002. Do all students get it?Comparing students' reflections to course

performance. Michigan Joumal of Commu-nity Service Leaming 8 (2): 27-3 4.Moely, B. E., M. McFarland, D. Miron, D.

Mercer, and V. Illustre. 2002. Changes incollege students' attitudes and intentions forcivic involvement as a function of serviceleaming experiences. Michigan Joumal ofCommunity Service Leaming 9(1): 18-26.

Moely, B. E., S. H. Mercer, D. Ilustre, D.Miron, and M. McFarland. 2002. Psycho-metric properties and correlates of the civicattitudes and skills questionnaire (CASQ):A measure of student's attitudes related toservice leaming. Michigan Joumal of Com-munity Service Leaming 8 (2): 15-26.

Moore, D. T. 2000. The relationship betweenexperimental leaming research and servicelearning research. Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning, SpecialIssue, 124-28.

Payne, C. A. 1998. Community servinvolvement preference inventory: Techcal specifications manual. Unpublishmanuscript.

. 2000. Changes in involvement preences as measured by the community vice involvement preference inventoMichigan Joumal of Community ServLearning 7:41-53.

Ramaley, J. A. 2000. Strategic directions service leaming research: A presidenperspective. Michigan Joumal of Commnity Service Learning 91-97 .

Reinke, S. J. 2003. Making a difference: Dservice-leaming promote civic engagemin MPA students? Joumal of Public AffaEducation 9 (2): 129-37.

Rockquemore, K. A., and R. H. Schaf2000. Toward a theory of engagementcognitive mapping of service learnMichigan Journal of Community ServLeaming 7:14-23.

Root, S., J. Callahan, and J. Sepanski. 20Building teaching dispositions and servleaming practice: A multi-site study. Michgan Journal of Community Service Leaing 8 (2): 50-5 9.

Rosenthal, R., and R. L. Rosnow. 19Essentials of behavioral research: Methoand data analysis. 2nd ed. New YoMcGraw-Hill.

Salovey, P., M. A. Brackett, and J. D. May2004. Emotional intelligence: Key readinon the Mayer and Salovey model. PoChester, NY: Dude Publishing.

Sigmon, R. L., and S. G. Pelletier, eds. 19Journey to service-learning: Experienfrom independent liberal arts colleges auniversities. Washington, DC: Council

Independent Colleges.Stanton, T. K., D. E. Giles, and N. I. Cr1999. Service learning. San FrancisJossey-Bass.

Strage, A. A. 2000. Service leaming: Enhing leaming outcomes in a college-llecture course. Michigan Joumal of Comunity Service Leaming 7 :5 -13 .

Vogelgesang, L. J., and A. W. Astin. 20Comparing the effects of community vice and service leaming. Michigan Journof Comm unity Service Learning 7:25-34

Wang, M. C , and E. W. Gordon. 1994. Edcational resilience in inner-city AmeriChallenges and prospects. Hillsdale, N

Lawrence Erlbaum.Zins, J. E., R. P W eissberg, M. C. Wang, H. J. Walberg. 2001. Social-emotioleaming and school success. CEIC Revi10 (6): 1-3.



13/14

APPENDIXReflection Questions

Open-etided Questions

1, What did you gain from your service leaming experience ?2, Did service leaming influence your career choice? If so, explain,3, Did service leaming help you understand the course content? If so, explain,

4, Identify benefits and limitations to the service leaming experience,5, Identify how service leaming contributed to the community/children/school orprogram,

6, What similarities and differences did you detect hetween you and the children/staffwh o you worked with?

7, Did your perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and levels of empathy change through yourservice leaming experience?

8, What did you leam about children placed at-risk and how have your views changedsince the beginning of the semester?

9, What did you get out of this course by participating in service leam ing?

Closed-ended Questions

10, Do you consider Chester a part of your community?

11 , Do you participate in any other leadership or civic endeavors such as voting, student organizations, or neighborhood groups)?12, Have you enrolled in a service leaming, multicultural, or experiential leaming

course next semester?

U n n d S H I M P o t u i S wv c a

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation

COLLEGE TEACHINGISSN: I7 i i -7M5 2

6 0 2 0 0

7, Convlat* luUl ng AdOr** ol Known Ofllc* ol Publcation rNef pitmr; fS M*(, at*', ocuny, MSM, and 2P>4;

1319 Eighieemh S tm i NW. VVWiitigion DC 2OO36-igO2

6- Annual SubaoiptiQn Prlca

instilulionsSI23

Individuali Si 5

1319 Eighteenth Street NW. Wuhiogton D C 20036-1 802

H. Ednor *ra) Mwiaglf Ed tof fDorK

Helen Dwight Reid Educationii Foundation

1319 Eighteenth Streel NW. Waihington DC 20O36-i8

Board of Executive Editors1319 Eighteenth Street NW. Wmhington D C 20036-1802

E,w f/ Mm* an) oompM* m

Kaly Lindcnmuth1319 Eighteenth Street ^fW. Waihington D C 20036-1802

n w mand ttUiMtM of al (lix;ikficMrt iMTiing or AoMng 1 pnaniM and aditvMaf ^ m* MdMdutf owrwi, ^ ow-iad tv Fvtnanfilp or cAar unJiiDponnd nm g M / t t n^ ^fcf> dVWtMr oimar, M puM:al M M pijMtfMi) br a rxyvnin Ofpanlalion, 0h a

FunNam*

Helen Dwighi Reid Educational Foundaiion

CwnptaM MlUno AddrMS

1319 BiBhteenih Sti tel NW . Washington D C 20036'1S02

Holding 1 Parc tnt or Mon ot Tolnl Amouni el Bondl, Mortgagai , of

Fu Nam* ComiMt* Mailing AddrMi

12. T M Slalu* (Kw to(ni* (n By nonpfoW ofpanttaftoni utfioriitf WTti*purpo** luncon andnonpo itatuso t^* organzaon andtha txampt tu

XEI Hu Not Changad inurng Pr*c*ding12 MonlhsD H a* O

PS Forni 35 26 , Ociobar 199S

1 3 P ub c a tk v T

COLLEGE TEACHING

'^ ' Eitant and Natur* iX Ctrculatlon

a. Total Numbar ot CopMa NM pnat wn)

b PadamVor

(1)

a)

0

(4)

Pdnqu*1>dOuH eCeun Uil SAurt on)Sa M en

Fonn 3541, ndudtaffuWMt pnotanOtxdtag*cofht}

Pad IrvCounySuMcr pWn*S aad On Form3S41

Salss Ttvough D*l*r* and Carrian, Sh*at Vandor*,Coune Satot andOh*rNonUSPSPad DWrbuon

OhwCtt nBa hUtodTvoucT th* USPS

< To a P a d a n t fo f F o q M M d O nu l al o n k

/Sem el 15b. 1). 2). 3).and 4}] r

D s MM o n

offMrftsa;

(U

a)

(3)

OutsdaCoutya* SUadonFonn3W1

InCounya* Saadon Fom3541

OmarC asaa ManadThought MUSPS

*' Ft** O ttrCutlon OutskM th* MalfCvr fn or otfwr mawuj

'' TottlFrMDi>0ttvIi0nrSum*laau*

1.714

1.239

0

S8

0

1.327

32

0

0

4

36

1.363

351

1.714

97

1S, PuMcaMno SMten*mo Ownwitip

vns p i i ^ ^ funrHnurad WdbAD nAdE tha F J 2006 iis ia ot Ih n DubHca D D P caUon no raou rad

17, Sgruur*and Td * o E d o r P u Uo na r B u s n * * * M an a g r o r O w n r

ji^i^^^tgr^^fO^^^^,^ Circuiaton Director

Dai*September 29. 2006

1 caUytha a Inormaon(umshadonthi form1> tn* andconpaa 1undvatandthaanyon*whotumsh** tall* ormMadngInormakmonItiiitorm

crwhoorna rnaera 01inornaUon r*qu*lfd onm*lornmayMau acID Qmnaunctkxi* (ncuOng tin** andlnfr*onr^

Instructions to Publishers

1 Compute and lila one copy ol this lortn wtth your postmastar annually on or Mfora October 1, Kaep a copy of tha complaled lormfor your records.

2, in cases whara thestockhoider Of security hokjar is a trustee, inciudein items 10 and 11 he rwma of Iha parson or corporation forwhom the trustee is acting, Aiso include Iha names an d addresses ol IndlvlduBis who are stockhoidars who owm or hold 1 parcentor more of ma total anxiunt of bonds, moitgagas, oio ihar s acuritiasof IheputiilsTtingcorporaUor). initart) 11 il nona, chack thabox. Use blank sheets if mora spaca Is required.

-a to fumish aii circuiation ir)formation caiied for n tam 15, Frae circuiation m in Hems 15d, o, and .

if tt>a pubiication had Partodicals auttxjitzation a s a ganarai or rsquatter pubiicatkin, Ihis Ststsmant of Ownarship. Mariagamant,and Circuiation must iM pubiisnad: l must ba printad In an y issue In Odober or, if the publication b nol pubiished during Ociobar,the tirst issue printad aftar October,In itam 16. IndKata the date of the Issua In which this Statement of Ownership vriii be pubiished,

m\um torn or publish a a la twnwif or owtMnhlp may d to auapwia/on ot Periodical* authorlzallon.

Vol. 54 /No. 4 319


14/14

The Influence of Service

Documents

Transcript of The Influence of Service