Printer Friendly

Developing a faculty inventory measuring perceived service-learning benefits and barriers.

Despite the extensive research regarding student involvement with service-learning (SL), there is limited research in the area of faculty participation with this pedagogical approach. Studies have shown student benefits through reciprocal community-campus partnerships that offer an innovative pedagogical approach to engage student learning, strengthen openness to diversity, and encourage civic responsibility (Bringle, Hatcher, & Games, 1997; Butin, 2006). To encourage faculty service-learning involvement, it is necessary to have a better understanding and assessment of the benefits and barriers perceived by faculty.

Currently, there is limited information about faculty involvement and use of the service-learning approach. One of the principal sources of information is the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE, 2007). This survey is a project coordinated by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) at Indiana University and is designed to assess faculty member's expectations of student engagement in those educational practices empirically associated with high degrees of student learning and advancement (NSSE, 2009). Although the FSSE includes questions about service activities, internships, and community involvement, it does not explicitly examine faculty perceptions toward the integration of service-learning into their teaching.

While limited research exists about faculty perceptions of SL, existing studies have pointed to some general motivating factors. Abes, Jackson, and Jones (2002) examined factors motivating and deterring faculty use of service-learning among 500 faculty members from 29 higher education institutions affiliated with Ohio Campus Compact. They identified five factors most strongly motivating the use of service-learning, including increased student understanding of course material, increased student personal development, increased student understanding of social problems as systemic, provision of useful service in the community, and creation of university-community partnerships. Another study surveyed project directors of 66 institutions of higher education participating in the Association for Gerontology in Higher Education / Generations Together grants, and discovered similar perceived benefits (Bulot & Johnson, 2006). Salient motivating factors were the greater relevance of course material with the service-learning approach as well as the enhanced connections among faculty, community, and students. In addition, increased awareness of community issues, opportunities to develop closer working relationships with communities, improved student learning outcomes, and more meaningful engagement and commitment to teaching have been identified as faculty-perceived benefits of such pedagogy (Bulot & Johnson; Hammond, 1994; Pribbenow, 2005).

Research has been limited regarding barriers faculty encounter when integrating service-learning into instruction. Some common challenges reported include time constraints leading to difficulty balancing professional responsibilities and coordination of the service component, challenges of adjusting for different levels of student readiness, and challenges in assessing student work (Abes et al., 2002; Hammond, 1994). Other barriers include logistical challenges, insufficient relationships with community partners, or inadequate knowledge of ways to use the SL approach effectively (Bulot & Johnson, 2006; Driscoll, 2000; Hammond). Finally, the lack of institutional recognition of service-learning as scholarship has been recognized as an important issue that needs to be further examined (Hammond; Morton & Troppe, 1996).

Although existing studies have pointed to some general factors encouraging or discouraging faculty SL participation, currently there is no systematically developed measurement tool available to examine factors influencing faculty SL participation. While some belief or perception scales are being used (Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), 2001; Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) Faculty Fellows Survey, 2007; Loyola University Office of Service Learning Faculty Post-Survey, 2004; Shinnamon, Gelmon, & Holland, 1999), the psychometrics of these scales are often not available. In addition, no systematically developed instrument is currently available to assess service-learning perceptions among faculty who vary in service-learning experience. To better develop resources and to encourage faculty participation in service-learning pedagogy, it is essential to understand benefits and barriers that faculty members across different service-learning involvement statuses perceive. Through such efforts, we can identify key beliefs that can encourage, motivate, and sustain faculty involvement in service-learning.

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a Web-based Faculty Service-Learning Belief Inventory to assess faculty perceived benefits and barriers toward service-learning adoption. The overall guiding theoretical framework for survey development was the Transtheoretical Model (TTM; Prochaska, Redding, & Evers, 2002). TTM is a model of intentional change which focuses on the individual decision-making process. Individuals weigh pros and cons before adopting a new behavior. According to the TTM, behavior change is gradual and viewed as a process rather than an all-or-none event. Items for the wFSLBI were developed and organized utilizing key constructs on perceived benefits and barriers from the TTM's decision balance scale, which are important factors influencing stages of behavioral adoption. The innovation and key contribution of this study was the development in the wFSLBI of corresponding measurement items to be used with faculty who have taught service-learning courses and those who have not had experience with service-learning. The wFSLBI could then be used to assess and compare faculty groups varying in SL involvement.

Method

Research Participants

A representative sample of 1200 faculty members from each college/school at a major research university in the Southeastern U.S. was invited to participate in the study. Faculty members who have instructional responsibility or who had taught a course in the previous academic year were eligible to participate. An administrative memo was first sent out in spring 2008 to deans, directors, and chairs informing them of the upcoming survey, followed by an invitation email sent directly to faculty members. Participants were informed that they were selected to provide the university with a better understanding of current SL practice among faculty and identify perceived challenges and barriers for future faculty development and support. Participation was voluntary and confidential. The invitation also noted that even if they might have no experience with service-learning, their responses would still be valuable for planning faculty development opportunities. As our appreciation for their time, participants were given the option of entering a drawing of SL publications or teaching resources. Participants had a three-and-a-half-week window to respond to the online survey. The first email reminder was sent out a week after the invitation email, and the second email reminder was sent out a week before the survey was due. Participants needed to click through the consent page before taking the survey. The survey took about 12-15 minutes to complete. All phases of the research were conducted with the approval of the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects at the principal investigator's university.

A total of 449 faculty members participated in the study, a response rate of 37.4%. Excluding 87 faculty members who indicated that they didn't know what service-learning is, the current analysis included 362 participants (102 with service-learning experience and 260 without). Faculty with SL experience referred to those who had taught at least one course with an SL component or were teaching SL for the first time at the time of the survey (n = 102). Faculty without SL experience referred to those who were aware of SL pedagogy but had not yet taught a course with an SL component at the time of the survey. This group included faculty who were either interested or not interested in using SL, as well as those exploring ways to incorporate SL into their teaching but had not yet taught such courses (n = 260). The proportions of faculty from each college/school participating in the survey were representative of the overall institutional sample and of faculty with instruction responsibilities at the institution. Table 1 describes demographic and background information of those who completed the survey including the SL faculty, non-SL faculty, and unaware faculty groups. As shown there, members of the service-learning faculty group were more likely to be females; less likely to be younger than 40 years; more likely to be at associate professor rank; less likely to come from art and science college, pharmacy, or veterinary schools; and more likely to be faculty from education or social science related colleges. Faculty of the arts and sciences, as well as pharmacy/veterinary schools, were more likely to be unaware of service-learning pedagogy. Overall, respondents from the current study were similar to those participated in the FSSE studies conducted among faculty at higher education institutions: both the current and FSSE samples consisted of higher proportions of males, full-time faculty members, and faculty in the arts and humanities (FSSE, 2007).

Measurement

The research instrument was an online survey developed through a review of existing assessment tools on service-learning (CCPH, 2001; CNCS Faculty Survey, 2007; Loyola University OSL Faculty Post-Survey, 2004; Shinnamon et al., 1999), adapting and modifying items relevant to perceptions related to benefits or barriers toward SL pedagogy, and developing new items including creating corresponding items to assess perceptions among faculty with or without prior service-learning experience. Based upon lessons learned from existing literature, we grouped common motivating and barrier factors into four areas that could be relevant for assessment regardless of prior SL experience among faculty. Two corresponding levels of perceived benefits were developed: Perceived benefits of SL at classroom (PROS_CLS: 7 items) and community (PROS_COM: 6 items) levels. Similarly, two levels of perceived barriers to SL were developed: Perceived barriers at classroom (CONS_CLS: 5 items) and institutional (CONS_INST: 3 items) levels. The sub-scales included institutional barriers rather than benefits, reflecting existing evidence that participants tend to view institutional level factors as barriers (Hammond, 1994; Morton & Troppe, 1996). The wFSLBI did not query barriers at the community level, as the majority of faculty without prior service-learning experience likely would have had a hard time responding to statements concerning such barriers.

The definition of service-learning that the university adopted was provided for all faculty for reporting their service-learning involvement statuses. The survey stated: "For the purpose of this survey, service-learning (SL) is defined as 'an experiential education method which integrates academic instruction, meaningful community service, and reflection to enhance the learning experience'." Analyses of wFSLBI items excluded faculty who indicated they were not aware of what service-learning was, as service-learning perception statements would not be applicable to this group.

All of the scale items used 5-point Likert scales to assign meaningful values to an underlying continuum of ratings (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006). Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Values were later recoded to maintain consistency with the hypotheses, with higher scores indicating more positive views for the PROS items, and higher scores representing more negative responses for the CONS items. Detailed item descriptions can be found in Table 2.

The wording of each item was chosen accordingly for the experienced vs. no experienced group to measure the same concept or perception among faculty in various stages of SL involvement. For example, the statement, "The service my students completed was beneficial to the community" written for experienced service-learning faculty, was reworded as "I believe the service my students will complete will be beneficial to the community," to measure comparable perceptions of faculty without prior SL experience.

Feedback for an initial version of the measure was sought from three key stakeholder groups: (1) the Office of Service Leadership (OSL) leadership team, including higher administrators for instruction and public service outreach and the Office for Institutional Research; (2) the SL Curriculum Committee--a campus-wide committee consisting of 18 faculty members across disciplines interested in SL; and (3) SL Interest Group--a campus-wide network consisting of faculty, staff, and community partners who meet monthly discussing issues related to SL. Suggestions were incorporated into a revision, and the resulting survey instrument was pilot tested with a small sample of faculty members before it was finalized and converted into the online format. The final survey consisted of 5 main sections: Demographics, current SL practice, perceived benefits of SL, perceived barriers of SL, and directions for planning future SL training opportunities. Data from the last section were open-ended responses concerning faculty interests and needs for future SL training opportunities and are not included in the analyses presented here.

Data Analysis

Before data were analyzed, some items were reverse-coded to reflect positive expressions in their corresponding scales (see Table 2). Descriptive statistics, item-total correlation, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated for each scale to evaluate internal consistencies among faculty with and without prior SL experience.

Confirmatory factor analysis was then applied to examine the proposed four-factor model among each group (faculty with or without SL experience). The purpose of this process was to determine whether or not there was sufficient empirical evidence that the model, as specified, was a viable representation of the true relationships between observed and latent variables (Mueller, 1996). Judgments about model fit were made jointly by assessing the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom ([X.sup.2]/cf), root mean square error of approximate (RMSEA), incremental fit index (IFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). The criteria used to determine if the model fits the data were the [X.sup.2]/df less than three (Bollen, 1989), RMSEA no more than .08 (Raykov, 2001), and values of IFI, and CFI at least .90 (Byrne, 1998). Factor loadings were considered statistically significant if the ratio of the factor loading to its standard error was greater than 1.96 or less than -1.96 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The structure of factor loadings is provided in Figure 1.

Finally, item-discrimination analysis was conducted to examine whether the scores of the inventory discriminated faculty with favorable beliefs toward SL from faculty with less favorable beliefs (Hou, 2009). This analysis was also done separately for faculty with or without SL experience. Each sample was divided into two groups based on the scores on each scale. Faculty members scoring in the top one-third of each scale were compared with those scoring in the bottom one-third of that scale. Independent t test was used to compare item means between these two groups for each scale.

Results

Reliabilities

Table 2 provides psychometric information for the wFSLBI items. The analysis of the reliability coefficients from the online survey showed that Cronbach alphas ranged from .65 to .85 among faculty with prior SL experience (n = 102), and ranged from .74 to .91 among faculty without SL experience (n = 260). The corrected item-total correlations (CITC) of the wFSLBI items in the respective four sub-scales were all greater than .20, ranging from .34 to .73 for the SL experienced faculty and from .29 to .81 for the no SL experience faculty, indicating sufficient item corrections among both faculty groups. The correlation matrix among items is available upon request. Statistics for both faculty groups are provided, with statistics for the group without SL experience highlighted in italic. Item descriptions in Table 2 represented statements used for faculty with prior SL experience.

Validity Evidence: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) then was done to test the wFSLBI four-factor model: perceived benefits at classroom (PRCS_CLS; 7-item) and community levels (PRCS_CCM; 6-item), and perceived barriers at classroom (CCNS_CLS; 5-item) and institutional levels (CCNS_INST; 3-item). CFA showed that all of the wFSLBI items were loaded significantly and in a way consistent with the four specified constructs for each faculty group, except that one item (CCNSICLSI5) did not load significantly to any of the four factors. After removing this item, CFA then was done again to confirm the 20-item wFSLBI with four-factor model.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Model fit index obtained from Amos output showed that, among faculty with prior SL experience group (n = 102), the values of the Incremental Fit Index (IFI) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were .86 and .85, respectively, with [X.sup.2]/df of 1.60, indicating satisfactory fit (Bollen, 1989). Furthermore, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA=.077) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR=.069) were both small, which also indicated a good fit (Raykov, 2001). Among faculty without SL experience (n = 260), model fit index also showed satisfactory fit index, with [X.sup.2]/df of 2.64, and IFI, CFI, RMEA as .91, .91, and .079 respectively. Figure 1 summarized the interrelations among the four constructs (latent variables, identified using circles) and the relations between each latent variable and observed indicators (i.e., individual belief items identified using rectangles) among faculty without prior SL experience. (The same figural summary for the SL experienced faculty group is available upon request.) Examination of the factor loadings for both the SL experienced and no experienced groups revealed that all of the 20 items in wFSLBI loaded significantly to their corresponding factor or construct (p <.001).

Validity Evidence: Item Discriminate Validity

Analyses showed significant discriminate validities for all of the items in the PRCSICLS, PRCS_CCM, CCNS_CLS, and CCNS_INST scales (all p < .001), indicating that the wFSLBI successfully discriminated faculty with favorable beliefs toward SL pedagogy (i.e., those scored in the top one-third of the scale) from those with less favorable SL beliefs (i.e., those scored in the bottom one-third of the scale).

Validity Evidence: Group Comparison

Preliminary analyses showed that, except for the perceived barriers at the institutional level, service-learning faculty scored higher on perceived SL benefits and lower on SL barriers compared with non-SL faculty. The perceived institutional barriers were similar in both faculty groups. Table 3 provides summary statistics of the group comparison.

The final validated wFSLBI, consisting of 20 items in 4 sub-scales, with separate forms for SL and non-SL faculty, is given in Table 4.

Discussion

The study showed satisfactory evidence for the reliability of each scale in the wFLSBI as well as preliminary evidence for the validity of the instrument among faculty with and without service-learning experience. The wFSLBI assesses beliefs about perceived benefits and barriers toward service-learning that are salient among faculty (Abes et al., 2002; Bulot & Johnson, 2006; Driscoll, 2000; Hammond, 1994; Pribbenow, 2005). The new contribution of this instrument lies in its ability to systematically examine perceived service-learning benefits and barriers at different levels, as opposed to general encouraging or discouraging variables. In addition, this validated instrument provides corresponding measurement items to assess and compare these service-learning perceptions across faculty at different service-learning involvement statuses.

The perceived SL benefits measured by the wFSLBI include those at the classroom levels such as enriching classroom discussions, enhancing teaching and learning experience, relationship building with students, etc. Benefits were also measured at the community level, such as the purpose and meaning found in interaction with and service to the community. Key barriers to SL included those at the class room levels, such as time constraints in coordination of the service-learning experiences, balancing classroom instruction, and challenges in student assessment. In addition, institutional barriers to SL were measured, including recognition of service-learning during the promotion and tenure process as well as support from colleagues and administrative leaders

One limitation of the study is the relatively small size of the service-learning faculty sample (n = 102), so that CFA model fits, although considered to be good, were a little below ideal. Researchers are encouraged to test the instrument with larger samples to confirm the scale structure. It should also be noted that results from the current study came from a majority tenured or tenure track faculty sample. Additional studies are encouraged to apply the wFSLBI among faculty with different characteristics to further confirm the generalized utility and psychometrics of the instrument. Nevertheless, the current study reports substantial evidence for reliability and validity of each subscale, among both service-learning faculty and those without prior service-learning experience.

Preliminary comparison of scale means between SL faculty and non-SL faculty groups showed that SL faculty perceived higher benefits both at the classroom and community levels, where non-SL faculty tended to perceive higher barriers at the classroom level. It was interesting to note that both SL and non-SL faculty groups showed similar high levels of perceived institutional barriers. Future studies should further investigate motivations of SL faculty who still engage in the service-learning approach even though they perceive similar high level of institutional barriers compared with non-SL faculty. Reasons and motivations encouraging these SL faculty members warrant further examination.

Future study also could expand the use of the wFSLBI to other types of institutions to examine similarities and differences of service-learning perceptions among faculty across institutions. In addition, studies could utilize the wFSLBI to examine motivations for and barriers to service-learning adoption among faculty at different SL involvement stages, in different disciplines, or in varied career tracks. Studies are also needed to examine whether negative beliefs or attitudes are a consequence of unfamiliarity, lack of direct contact, misinformation, preconceptions, or the results of failed experimentation with SL. This research tool has implications for evaluating the effectiveness of tailored faculty development programs via assessing changes in SL-related beliefs, attitudes, and adoption behaviors.

In sum, the current study is the first to develop and validate a research instrument of this kind on service-learning-related beliefs and perceptions. Data were obtained via online survey responses, so the instrument can be easily adopted for other service-learning research projects. Reliable and validated measurement tools are urgently needed, not only to help researchers and administrative leaders better assess and understand faculty motivators and barriers, but also to provide information for developing tailored resources and infrastructure to support faculty SL involvement. The importance of understanding faculty beliefs related to the SL approach is evident for developing needed support and training programs. The two forms of the wFSLBI will allow researchers to assess, compare, and evaluate service-learning program effects for faculty members at various stages of SL involvement.

Notes

This study was supported by the Office of Service-Learning at UGA. The PI is grateful to all faculty participants for their time and support of this institutional-wide benchmark study. Special thanks to Dr. Shannon Wilder for her strong support of the overall project, Dr. Denise Gardner for participant sampling, and research assistants Erin Adams for literature and assessment tool review and Joel Scott for technology support. In addition, sincere thanks go to the offices of VPs for Public Service Outreach and Instruction for the endorsement and support of this project.

References

Abes, E.S., Jackson, G., & Jones, S.R. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of service-learning.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 5-17.

Bollen KA. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bringle, R.G., Hatcher, J.A., & Games, R. (1997). Engaging and supporting faculty in service learning.

Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 2(1), 43-51.

Bulot, J.J., & Johnson, C.J. (2006). Rewards and costs of faculty involvement in intergenerational service-learning. Educational Gerontology, 32, 633-645.

Butin, D.W. (2006). Special Issue: Introduction to future directions for service learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 1-4.

Byrne B.M. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (2001). Self-assessment tool for service-learning sustainability. Retrieved November 30, 2009 from http://www.tufts.edu/talloiresnetwork/downloads/servic elearningsustainabilitytool.pdf

Corporation for National and Community Service (2007). Institutionalizing Service Learning and Empowering Stakeholders, Faculty Fellows Post-Survey. Washington, D.C.

Driscoll, A. (2000). Studying faculty and service-learning directions for inquiry and development. [Special Issue]. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 35-41.

Faculty Survey of Student Engagement--2007 FSSE Overview (2007). Indiana University Bloomington. Retrieved April 3, 2008 from http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/ 2007_Institutional_Report/FSSE%202007%20Overvie w.pdf

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

Hou, S. (2009). Extending the use of the web-based HIV Testing Belief Inventory (wHITBI) to students attending Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): An examination of reliability and validity. AIDS Education & Prevention, 21(1), 80-90.

Joreskog K.G., & Sorbom D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Loyola University Office of Service-Learning Faculty Post-Survey (2004). Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.loyno.edu/~srvlearn/facsatisfactionsurvey.htm.

Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Morton, K., & Troppe, M. (1996). From margin to the mainstream: Campus Compact's project on integrating service with academic study. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 21-32.

Mueller R.O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: An introduction to LISREL and EQS. New York: Springer.

National Survey of Student Engagement (2009). Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington. Retrieved November 30, 2009 from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm

Pribbenow, D.A. (2005). The impact of service-learning pedagogy on faculty teaching and learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(2), 25-38.

Prochaska, J.O, Redding, C.A, & Evers, K.E. (2002). The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In K. Glanz, F.M. Lewis, & B. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 99-120). (3rd Ed.) San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Raykov T. (2001). Approximation confidence interval for difference in fit to structural equation model. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 458-469.

Shinnamon, A., Gelmon, S., & Holland, B. (1999).

HPSISN faculty service-learning-program directors/faculty survey. Methods and strategies for assessing service-learning in the health professions. San Francisco, CA: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. Retrieved January 16, 2010 from http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/toolsfaculty.pdf

Su-I Hou (shou@uga.edu) is an associate professor in the Department of Health Promotion and Behavior at the College of Public Health at the University of Georgia (UGa). She currently serves as an associate editor for the Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education and for Health Promotion Practice, the Society of Public Health Education's official journal devoted to the practical application of health promotion and education. She is a recognized scholar of service-learning by the Community-Campus Partnership for Health, and an inaugural service-learning senior scholar for UGA's Office of Service-Learning. Most of her research involves working with community partners in developing and validating the study instrument, assessing psycho-social factors that influence health behaviors, developing and implementing theory-based health programs, and evaluating the effectiveness of program interventions. Hou has extensive experience integrating service-learning components into her teaching of core or required MPH and DrPH courses. She repeatedly receives grants to work with the communities in Georgia and successfully developed a service-learning model to build and sustain engaged community-campus partnerships while providing valuable real-world experiential learning opportunities for her graduate students.
Table 1
Demographic and Background Information for Participants

                                       Current Analyses Sample

                                   Experienced          Non-
                                                     Experienced

Overall                               N=102             N=260

Gender
  Women                            56 (54.9%)        92 (35.4%)

Age
  <40 years                        17 (16.3%)        73 (28.1%)
  40~50 yr                         37 (36.3%)        58 (22.3%)
  50~60 yrs                        37 (36.3%)        98 (37.7%)
  >60 years                        11 (10.8%)        31 (11.9%)
Tenure Status
  Tenured/Tenure track             77 (75.5%)        217 (83.5%)
  Non tenure track                 25 (24.5%)        43 (16.5%)
Rank
  Assistant                        18 (17.6%)        64 (24.6%)
  Associate                        42 (41.2%)        81 (31.2%)
  Full                             29 (28.4%)        90 (34.6%)
  Other                            13 (12.7%)         25 (9.6%)
College
  Art / Science                    15 (14.7%)        95 (36.5%)
  Ag / Environ (Forest / Eco)      14 (13.7%)        32 (12.3%)
  Pharmacy / Vet                    7 (6.9%)         31 (11.9%)
  Education                        28 (27.5%)        35 (13.5%)
  Law / Business                    7 (6.9%)          19 (7.3%)
  Social Science related           31 (30.4%)        48 (18.5%)

                                    Excluded             All

                                     Unaware             All

Overall                               N=87               449

Gender
  Women                            28 (32.2%)        176 (39.2%)

Age
  <40 years                        24 (27.5%)        114 (25.4%)
  40~50 yr                         22 (25.3)         117 (26.1%)
  50~60 yrs                        30 (34.5%)        165 (36.7%)
  >60 years                        11 (12.6%)         53 (11.8%)
Tenure Status
  Tenured/Tenure track             62 (71.3%)        356 (79.3%)
  Non tenure track                 25 (28.7%)         93 (20.7%)
Rank
  Assistant                        23 (26.4%)        105 (23.4%)
  Associate                        20 (23.0%)        143 (31.8%)
  Full                             31 (35.6%)        150 (33.4%)
  Other                            13 (14.9%)         51 (11.4%)
College
  Art / Science                    43 (49.4%)        153 (34.1%)
  Ag / Environ (Forest / Eco)       8 (9.2%)          54 (12.0%)
  Pharmacy / Vet                   22 (25.3%)         60 (13.3%)
  Education                         8 (9.2%)          71 (15.8%)
  Law / Business                    4 (4.6%)          30 (6.7%)
  Social Science related            2 (2.3%)          81 (18.4%)

Table 2
Psychometric Information for the wFSLBI

Scale0        Item description       Mean (SD)     CITC   Alpha
              With prior SL                               if item
              experience (a)                              deleted
              No prior SL
              experience
              (Italic) (b)

PROS-CLS      PROS-Classroom level
              (with experience)
              (Cronbach Alpha [7-
              item] = .85; n=102)
              PROS-Classroom level
              (no experience)
              (Cronbach Alpha [7-
              item] = .90; n=260)

PROS-CLS_1    Service-learning       4.50 (.70)    .48    .85
              enriches classroom     3.45 (1.06)   .72    .88
              discussions and
              lectures in my
              course.

PROS-CLS_2    I enjoy teaching       4.12 (.87)    .57    .84
              more when the class    3.29 (.92)    .74    .88
              involves
              service-learning.

PROS-CLS_3    Service-learning       3.66 (.97)    .73    .82
              helped me to           3.01 (.99)    .71    .88
              understand my
              professional
              strengths and
              weakness.

PROS-CLS_4    Participating in       3.41 (1.02)   .70    .82
              service-learning       2.79 (1.06)   .71    .88
              helped me clarify
              areas of focus for
              my scholarship.

PROS-CLS_5    Teaching               3.65 (.99)    .61    .83
              service-learning       3.50 (.94)    .54    .90
              courses has resulted
              in a change in my
              teaching style(s).

PROS-CLS_6    Participation in       3.79 (1.07)   .69    .82
              service-learning is    2.08(1.06)    .76    .87
              an important
              component of my
              professional
              portfolio.

PROS-CLS_7    I was able to          4.06 (.83)    .50    .85
              develop a good         3.50 (.90)    .73    .88
              relationship with
              the students in my
              service-learning
              course(s) because of
              the community work.

PROS-COM      PROS-Community level
              (with experience)
              (Cronbach Alpha
              [6-item] =.79;
              n=102)
              PROS-Community level
              (no experience)
              (Cronbach Alpha
              [6-item] =.91;
              n=260)

PROS-COM_1    The service my         4.47 (.61)    .46    .78
              students completed     3.85 (.83)    .74    .90
              was beneficial to
              the community.

PROS-COM_2    I value working with   4.45 (.71)    .60    .74
              community partners     3.62 (.95)    .81    .89
              to structure and
              deliver the
              service-learning
              experience for
              students.

PROS-COM_3    I learned something    4.33 (.69)    .64    .74
              new about the          3.92 (.78)    .79    .89
              community from my
              community partners.

PROS-COM_4    The community          3.65 (.97)    .38    .82
              members with whom I    3.42 (.94)    .65    .91
              partner play an
              active role in the
              planning or
              development of my
              service-learning
              course(s).

PROS-COM_5    The work my students   3.87 (.82)    .66    .73
              and I performed        3.58 (.88)    .76    .90
              enhanced my ability
              to communicate my
              ideas in the
              community.

PROS-COM_6    I can make a           4.41 (.60)    .61    .75
              difference in the      3.61 (.82)    .79    .89
              community

CONS-CLS      CONS-Classroom level
              (with experience)
              (Cronbach Alpha
              [4-item] = .65;
              n=102)
              CONS-Classroom level
              (no experience)
              (Cronbach Alpha
              [4-item] = .74;
              n=260)

CONS-CLS_1    Time constraints       3.60 (1.14)   .50    .58
              interfere with my      3 90 ( 90)    .48    .68
              ability to teach a
              service-learning
              course.

CONS-CLS_2    I feel that I am       2.00 (.96)    .39    .63
              giving up control of   2 69 ( 89)    .46    .68
              the learning
              experience when
              teaching a
              service-learning
              course.

CONS-CLS_3    I have a harder time   2.72 (1.15)   .34    .66
              assessing student      3 22 (1 03)   .57    .64
              learning and work in
              a service-learning
              course than in a
              traditional
              course.

CONS-CLS_4    I experience           2.70 (1.02)   .55    .57
              challenges with the    3 57 ( 97)    .61    .62
              reduced time for
              classroom
              instruction in my
              service-learning
              course.

CONS-CLS_5    Using                  4.01 (1.01)   .36    .65
              service-learning       3 87 ( 89)    .29    .74
              required more of my
              time as a teacher.
              (e)

CONS-INST     CONS-Institution
              level (with
              experience)
              (Cronbach Alpha
              [3-item] = .66;
              n=102)
              CONS-Institution
              level (no
              experience)
              (Cronbach Alpha
              [3-item] = 72;
              n=260)

CONS-INST_1   Faculty promotion      3.74 (1.13)   .44    .62
              and tenure policies    3 55 (1 07)   .52    .66
              do not support or
              encourage my
              service-

CONS-INST_2   Administrative         3.23 (1.00)   .39    .67
              leaders actively       3.11 (.94)    .46    .72
              work to make
              service-learning a
              visible and
              important part of
              institutional work.
              (d)

CONS-INST_3   My colleagues          3.57 (1.08)   .61    .37
              understand and value   3.43 (1.04)   .65    .48
              service-learning in
              promotion, tenure,
              and annual
              evaluation
              decisions. (d)

Notes:

(a) Faculty with SL experience referred to those who have
taught at least one course with SL component or were
teaching it for the first time at the time of the survey.
The sample size of this group was 102.

(b) Faculty without SL experience referred to those who were
aware of the SL pedagogy but had not yet taught a course
with SL at the time of the survey. The sample size of this
group was 260.

(c) "PROS" refers to "perceived benefits of
service-learning," "CONS" refers to "perceived barriers of
service-learning." The wording of each item in these scales
was chosen accordingly for the experienced vs. no SL
experienced group. For easier reading, item descriptions in
the table were statements used for participant who had prior
SL experience. Statistics for the no SL experience group
were indicated in italics.

(d) Items were reverse coded in the analysis.

(e) Item was excluded from the final scale due to non-
significant factor loading to the underlying construct.

Table 3
Perceived Benefits and Barriers among Faculty with
and without Service-Learning Experience.

                PROS_CLSM **                    PROSCOMM **

SL Experience   N                Mean (SD)      Mean (SD)

Faculty with
SL experience   102              27.19 (4.75)   25.19 (3.12)

Faculty
without SL
experience      260              22.23 (5.46)   22.00 (4.35)

T-Test                           [T.sub.        [T.sub.
                                 (360)]=8.05;   (256)]=7.78;
                                 p<.001         p<.001

                CONSCLS **       CONSINST

SL Experience   Mean (SD)        Mean (SD)

Faculty with
SL experience   15.02 (3.48)     10.53 (2.48)

Faculty
without SL
experience      17.26 (3.21)     10.09 (2.45)

T-Test          [T.sub.          [T.sub.
                (360)]=-5.82;    (360)]=1.54;
                p<.001           p=.126

Table 4
The Final Validated wFSLBI 20-item Forms for Faculty with
and without Prior SL Experience

Scale             Item description--          Item description--
                  With prior SL               No prior SL
                  experience                  experience

PROS-CLS

PROS-CLS_1        Service-learning            I believe service-
                  enriches classroom          learning will enrich
                  discussions and             classroom
                  lectures in my              discussions and
                  course.                     lectures in my
                                              course.

PROS-CLS_2        I enjoy teaching            I anticipate
                  more when the class         enjoying teaching
                  involves                    more when the class
                  service-learning.           involves service-
                                              learning.

PROS-CLS_3        Service-learning            I expect that
                  helped me to                service-learning
                  understand my               will help me to
                  professional                better understand my
                  strengths and               professional
                  weakness.                   strengths and
                                              weaknesses.

PROS-CLS_4        Participating in            I anticipate that
                  service-learning            participating in
                  helped me clarify           service-learning
                  areas of focus for          will help me to
                  my scholarship.             clarify areas of
                                              focus for my
                                              scholarship.

PROS-CLS_5        Teaching                    I believe teaching
                  service-learning            service-learning
                  courses has resulted        will result in
                  in a change in my           changes in my
                  teaching style(s).          teaching style(s).

PROS-CLS_6        Participation in            I foresee
                  service-learning is         participation in
                  an important                service-learning
                  component of my             will become an
                  professional                important component
                  portfolio.                  of my professional
                                              portfolio.

PROS-CLS_7        I was able to               I believe that I
                  develop a good              will be able to
                  relationship with           develop good
                  the students in my          relationships with
                  service- learning           the students in my
                  course(s) because of        service-learning
                  the community work.         course(s) because of
                                              the community work.

PROS-COM

PROS-COM_1        The service my              I believe the
                  students completed          service my students
                  was beneficial to           will complete will
                  the community.              be beneficial to the
                                              community.

PROS-COM_2a       I value working with        I believe I will
                  community partners          value working with
                  to structure and            community partners
                  deliver the                 to structure and
                  service-learning            deliver the
                  experience for              service-learning
                  students.                   experience for
                                              students.

PROS-COM_3        I learned something         I anticipate that I
                  new about the               will learn something
                  community from my           new about the
                  community partners.         community from my
                                              community partners.

PROS-COM_4        The community               I expect that the
                  members with whom I         community members
                  partner play an             with whom I partner
                  active role in the          will play an active
                  planning or                 role in the planning
                  development of my           or development of my
                  service-learning            service-learning
                  course(s).                  courses.

PROS-COM_5        The work my students        I expect that the
                  and I performed             work my students and
                  enhanced my ability         I perform will
                  to communicate my           enhance my ability
                  ideas in the                to communicate my
                  community.                  ideas in the
                                              community.

PROS-COM_6        I can make a                I believe I will be
                  difference in the           able to make a
                  community.                  difference in the
                                              community.

CONS-CLS

CONS-CLS_1        Time constraints            I expect time
                  interfere with my           constraints will
                  ability to teach a          interfere with my
                  service-learning            ability to teach a
                  course.                     service- learning
                                              course.

CONS-CLS_2        I feel that I am            I feel that I will
                  giving up control of        be giving up control
                  the learning                of the learning
                  experience when             experience when
                  teaching a                  teaching a
                  service-learning            service-learning
                  course.                     course.

CONS-CLS_3        I have a harder time        I anticipate having
                  assessing student           a harder time
                  learning and work in        assessing student
                  a service- learning         learning and work in
                  course than in a            a service-learning
                  traditional course.         course than in a
                                              traditional course.

CONS-CLS_4        I experience                I foresee challenges
                  challenges with the         with the reduced
                  reduced time for            time for classroom
                  classroom                   instruction in my
                  instruction in my           service-learning
                  service-learning            course.
                  course.

CONS-INST

CONS-INST_1       Faculty promotion           Faculty promotion
                  and tenure policies         and tenure policies
                  do not support or           do not support or
                  encourage my                encourage my
                  service-                    service-learning
                                              endeavors.

CONS-INST_2       Administrative              Administrative
                  leaders actively            leaders actively
                  work to make                work to make
                  service-learning a          service-learning a
                  visible and                 visible and
                  important part of           important part of
                  institutional work.         institutional work.

CONS-INST_3       My colleagues               My colleagues
                  understand and value        understand and value
                  service-learning in         service-learning in
                  promotion, tenure,          promotion, tenure,
                  and annual                  and annual
                  evaluation                  evaluation
                  decisions.                  decisions.
COPYRIGHT 2010 OCSL Press
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hou, Su-I
Publication:Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 22, 2010
Words:6265
Previous Article:Service-learning with the mentally ill: softening the stigma.
Next Article:The new American scholar.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters