Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of South Carolina ]On: 05 October 2014, At: 04:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Community PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20
An Assessment of Service Learning in aUniversity Living-Learning Community:Implications for Community EngagementHelen E. Petracchi a , Addie Weaver a , Rafael J. Engel a , Karen M.Kolivoski a & Rachelle Das aa School of Social Work , University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, USAPublished online: 23 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Helen E. Petracchi , Addie Weaver , Rafael J. Engel , Karen M. Kolivoski &Rachelle Das (2010) An Assessment of Service Learning in a University Living-Learning Community:Implications for Community Engagement, Journal of Community Practice, 18:2-3, 252-266, DOI:10.1080/10705422.2010.490743
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2010.490743
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Community Practice, 18:252–266, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1070-5422 print/1543-3706 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10705422.2010.490743
An Assessment of Service Learning in aUniversity Living-Learning Community:
Implications for Community Engagement
HELEN E. PETRACCHI, ADDIE WEAVER, RAFAEL J. ENGEL,KAREN M. KOLIVOSKI, and RACHELLE DAS
School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
This article describes a civic engagement and service learningliving-learning community on a dedicated floor in a universityresidence hall. Students volunteered to live with one another whileconcurrently enrolled in social work service-learning courses.Student assessment of the combined affect service learning and res-idence hall living-learning experience on community engagementis presented for three cohorts of participants.
KEYWORDS Service learning, living-learning, communityengagement
INTRODUCTION
Existing literature describes service learning as a successful pedagogicalapproach to enhance student learning about a topic by reinforcing didac-tic classroom content with service to the community designed to underscorethemes being taught in the course (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). The literatureon residential learning communities suggests that such communities not onlyenhance student learning, but also connect students to the broader institu-tion (Inkelas et al., 2004; Inkelas, Johnson, et al., 2006; Rowan-Kenyon,Soldner & Inkelas, 2007). An educational model that combines the attributesof service learning with residential living has the potential to achieve avariety of educational and institutional goals.
Since academic year 2006, three cohorts of students have lived togetheron the Civic Engagement and Service-Learning (CESL) floor of a residence
Address correspondence to Helen E. Petracchi, School of Social Work, University ofPittsburgh, 2117 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15217. E-mail: [email protected]
252
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Service Learning in a University Living-Learning Community 253
hall at a large mid-Atlantic university. Students volunteered to live withone another (the living component) while concurrently enrolling in socialwork service-learning courses and an integrative seminar coordinated bythe university’s School of Social Work (the formal learning component).Living and learning (or living-learning) CESL floor residents enroll in socialwork courses requiring a minimum of 45 hours of individual service learn-ing and must enroll in an integrative seminar that meets on the CESL floorand requires two to three group service-learning activities each term. Thesegroup activities are coordinated by the CESL integrative seminar instructor,who was chosen for his strong ties to the broader community.
In this article, we begin by describing the development and imple-mentation of the CESL floor. This is followed by an assessment of theimpact of the CESL on both student development and institutional goals.Utilizing focus groups and a pretest-posttest design, we examined the impactof the CESL residential learning experience on CESL students’ perceptionsabout academics and career preparation, sense of self-efficacy, interest incivic engagement, perceptions about the broader community, and generalattitudes about service learning as a pedagogical approach.
BACKGROUND
Service Learning
Academic service learning is a pedagogical strategy combining classroominstruction with opportunities for community work that emphasize themesbeing taught in the courses for which it is required. Didactic class con-tent, service to the community, and the development of collaborative andmutually respectful relationships between students and members of the com-munity with whom they are engaged have equal importance in the course(Harkavy, 2004). Service-learning requirements are considered a componentof the educational experience and weighted into the final course grade. Theenhanced educational value of service learning is that it “promote[s] studentreflection, critical thinking, and creative problem solving” (Lemieux & Allen,2007, p. 309).
Clearly, service-learning pedagogy is consistent with the goals for pro-fessional social work education. Essential to social work education as wellas to service learning are the needs of the community. Lemieux and Allen(2007) suggested that service-learning activities are different from requiredfield practica because the student’s role is “determined by the needs ofthe community . . . not by the learning goals of the student or institution”(p. 312).
Although discussions of service learning began to appear in the socialwork education literature in the mid-1990s, this literature is sparse. Phillips(2007), reviewing service-learning activities in social work education, calledthe response “sluggish” (p. 8) despite the fact that service learning represents
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
254 H. E. Petracchi et al.
an opportunity for social work to reinforce its mission to the community ineach class in which it is a required component.
Living-Learning Communities
The emergence of living-and-learning communities dates back to theProgressive Era and the establishment, by Alexander Meiklejohn in 1927,of the Experimental College at the University of Wisconsin (Smith, 2003).The original learning communities restructured curriculum and approachesto teaching, as well as the roles and relationships between faculty membersand students, to create an academic community addressing interdisciplinaryissues. Today, living-learning communities range from thematically similarclasses to fully-integrated team-taught programs (Smith, 2003) to studentsliving in dedicated residence halls for the purposes of addressing a themedacademic topic.
Universities have also found that living-learning communities canaddress issues of student retention. Many ex-students have reported thatthey left college because of difficulties making the transition from highschool to college (Astin, 1993, cited in Lichtenstein, 2005). The character-istics of living-learning communities were attractive, given their small size,efforts at building a community among students, and emphasis on personalinteractions with faculty (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
The research evidence suggests that living–learning communities effec-tively achieve both academic and institutional goals (Inkelas et al., 2004;Inkelas, Johnson, et al., 2006). In an exhaustive review of the literature,Lichtenstein (2005) concluded that students residing in living-learning com-munities, in contrast to students living in traditional university housing, wereless likely to leave the university, had better academic skills, broader socialnetworks, and higher rates of campus involvement.
Developing a Civic Engagement and Service-Learning ResidentialLiving-Learning Community
This particular university has encouraged the expansion of service learn-ing through a variety of mechanisms as part of its commitment to thebroader community. Concomitantly, administrators have been concernedabout retention rates and, in particular, losing students after their freshmanyear. The question posed by the university was what might the experi-ences be for students if service-learning activities were integrated with aliving-learning residential community? Would it impact on their academicand civic development? Would it enhance retention? Would students in theliving-learning community alter their perceptions about the city in which theuniversity is located?
In fall 2005, the university’s Office of Residence Life approached facultyat the School of Social Work to discuss collaborating in creating a residential
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Service Learning in a University Living-Learning Community 255
living-learning community. The Office of Residence Life, headed by a Vice-Chancellor within the Office of the Provost, was looking for an academiccenter to coordinate service learning and academic integration within a resi-dential living-learning community. The collaboration resulted in the creationof a CESL residential floor located in a new student residence hall.
Coordinating the service-learning component fit nicely with the Schoolof Social Work’s goals. The school designed the academic component toenable students to develop a better understanding of the local community,apply classroom knowledge and skills to work in the community, enhancetheir marketability, and gain access to community leaders. It also fit theschool’s plan to reach more first- and second-year undergraduate students.
One challenge the school faced was developing the academic com-ponent. The university wanted the CESL floor to target sophomores, butsocial work is an upper division major at the university, available only tojunior- and senior-level students who apply after their sophomore year andare accepted into the program. Consequently, social work courses were notgenerally available to first- and second-year students, even to those whohad indicated on their university applications that they were pre-social workmajors. To make social work courses with a service-learning componentmore easily accessible, the school, in collaboration with the College of Artsand Sciences, jointly developed a formal plan to establish a social workminor; this proposal was ultimately approved by the Office of the Provost.Even if students living on the CESL floor did not opt for the social workminor, they could enroll in nonpractice social work courses, including thosewith a service-learning component.
The Office of Residence Life has taken the lead in recruiting CESL floorresidents. Potential CESL floor residents indicate their interest in living onthe floor as part of their application for university housing. Students whochoose to reside on the floor know at application they are agreeing to enrollin social work courses and participate in service learning required by eachcourse. In addition, they are required to participate in a two-term CESLintegrative seminar that also includes service learning as a requirement andis taught on the residential floor by a social work faculty member with acommunity organizing and social administration background.
During the fall term, CESL students enroll in Introduction to the Fieldof Social Work and the CESL integrative seminar.1 The instructor for the for-mer course (with assistance from the campus’ Volunteer Service Coordinator)
1 Although all courses in the social work program are offered for three credits, the CESL living–learning students may enroll in the CESL integrative seminar for a range of one to three credits. Thisapproach is used because living–learning residents come from programs across the university, someof which have dictated enrollment requirements. The variable credit enrollment approach preventsCESL living–learning residents from enrolling in more than 18 credits, which would increase tuitioncosts. Regardless of enrollment credit, CESL residents agree to complete all CESL integrative seminarrequirements (including service learning) as a condition for participating in the experience.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
256 H. E. Petracchi et al.
links students to agencies where their service-learning activities will meet theneeds of the local community, as well as underscore themes being taught inthe course. Learning modules in the CESL integrative seminar focus on differ-ent approaches to address the social problems students are studying in theIntroduction course. As part of the CESL seminar, living-learning residentsengage as a group in two to three community service-learning projects; thesegroup activities are held on Saturdays, with each activity lasting between 4and 6 hours.
As previously noted, the CESL integrative seminar instructor is a socialwork professor with strong community ties and an extensive organizingbackground. He is also co-director of the University’s Community OutreachPartnership Center (COPC). Funded by the US Department of Housing andUrban Development, COPC is designed to address issues and needs identi-fied by local community partners through applied research, capacity build-ing, and comprehensive community building and service learning. Hence,the social work faculty member is able to connect CESL living-learning res-idents to service-learning activities identified by the local community toaddress the range of social problems students are studying. For example,a local agency identified the need for an empty lot to be cleaned as part ofrebuilding a community playground. Therefore, as part of a learning moduleon urban neighborhood revitalization, the service-learning component forthe CESL living-learning students included organizing the rebuilding effortswith community volunteers and cleaning the lot. CESL living-learning stu-dents were able to bring the depth of their experiences to the discussion ofboth the needs and challenges facing urban revitalization efforts.
During the spring term, students enroll in Social Welfare Policy; thiscourse also requires students to engage in a minimum of 45 hours of servicelearning. They also register for the second term of the CESL integrative sem-inar course, which extends the opportunity for students to discuss, reflectupon, and analyze critically their experiences with service learning focus-ing on the implications for social policy. For example, CESL living-learningresidents engage in activities building citizenship skills and responsibili-ties through service-learning that included voter registration outreach duringvarious campaigns.
Thus, the CESL floor combines the experience of a living-learning com-munity with micro, mezzo, and macro service-learning activities designed toachieve both academic and civic engagement goals for students and broaderinstitutional goals. This process is depicted in Figure 1.
METHODS
To assess the experiences of the three cohorts of students who have lived onthe CESL floor during academic years 2006–2007, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Service Learning in a University Living-Learning Community 257
FIGURE 1 Civic engagement and service-learning floor coordinated by the school of socialwork, with recruitment from the office of residence life and support from the office of theprovost.
CESL students volunteered to participate in focus groups and complete apretest/posttest instrument. All CESL living-learning residents were askedto participate in these assessments, and were allowed to withdraw fromparticipation at any time.
CESL Floor Residents
Sixty-five living-learning students have lived on the CESL floor during thecourse of three academic years. All of the residents were classified as sopho-mores and were overwhelmingly women (86%) and Caucasian (88%; seeTable 1). Living-learning residents were attracted from a wide variety ofdeclared or expected majors, including anthropology, biology, business,communications, engineering, finance, neuroscience, nursing, physical ther-apy, political science, pre-med, and psychology. Three residents (4.6%)identified as pre-social work majors.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
258 H. E. Petracchi et al.
TABLE 1 Background Information on All Cohorts of Civic Engagement and Service-LearningResidents
AY 2006–2007(N = 26)
AY 2007–2008(N = 23)
AY 2008–2009(N = 16)
Total(N = 65)
Registered year inschool
100%Sophomore
100%Sophomore
100%Sophomore
100%Sophomore
Mean age (Years) 19.38 19.39 20.37 19.79 yearsWomen (number) 69.23% (18) 95.65% (22) 100% (16) 86.15% (56)Caucasian (number) 76.92% (20) 95.65% (22) 93.75% (15) 87.69% (57)Presocial work
majors7.69% (2) 4.35% (1) 0 4.6% (3)
Later enrolled insocial workprogram
11.5 (3) 4.35 (1) 0 6.2% (4)
Later registered forsocial work minor
19.23 (5) 0 12.5 (2) 10.8% (7)
Focus Groups
During spring term 2007–2008, students from cohort one and cohort twowere recruited for separate focus groups. Another focus group was heldduring spring term 2008–2009, with CESL volunteers from cohort three.Overall, 32 CESL students (49%) participated in these focus groups. Thegroups were facilitated by a doctoral student, and a second doctoral studenttook notes; these two students had not taught nor had any contact withthe CESL students prior to the focus groups. The interview guide addressedliving-learning residents’ experiences with service learning and the develop-ment of a community on the CESL floor. Each focus group was audio-tapedand the tapes were transcribed by doctoral students and then integrated withthe observational notes. Themes were identified using content analysis.
Pretest/Posttest
To assess the impact of the CESL living-learning experience on academics,student and career development, and civic engagement, members of cohorttwo and three were asked to volunteer to complete the University ofCalifornia–Berkeley Service-Learning Research and Development CenterSurvey (SLRDCS) in September of the academic year and again in April.Of the 39 CESL students in cohort 2 and cohort 3, 22 (56%) completed thisinstrument at both points in time.
The SLRDCS is a 29-item instrument designed to assess students’ percep-tions and beliefs in relation to service-learning in four domains: academics,career development, self-efficacy, and civic engagement. The academic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Service Learning in a University Living-Learning Community 259
subscale captures student attitudes about the relevance of academic coursesto real life; the career development subscale identifies the degree to whichrespondents feel comfortable in their career plans and preparation; theself-efficacy subscale assesses confidence in one’s abilities; and the civicengagement subscale measures interest in volunteerism and helping others.Respondents use a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) tostrongly disagree (4); scores closer to 1 reflect more positive perceptions orbeliefs and scores closer to 4 reflect more negative perceptions or beliefs.Average subscale scores were calculated by summing the items (and in thecase of career development, reverse coding one item) then dividing by thenumber of valid responses to the subscale items. Developers of the SLRDCSreport the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test–retest correlationfor each subscale as: academics (.66; .58), career development (.63; .75), selfefficacy (.61; .62) and civic engagement (.79; .71; University of California -Berkeley: Service-Learning Research and Development Center., 2000).
The project coordinator added an additional 15 questions to the SLRDCSquestionnaire. These questions assessed students’ perceptions of the hostcommunity (6 items), perceptions about service-learning as a pedagogicalstrategy (4 items), and a course evaluation. Participants responded to thequestions using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) tostrongly disagree (4). We limit our analysis to the first two domains andreport the average scores on each of the two domains. Changes in averagescores for the SLRDCS and project coordinator subscales were evaluatedusing paired t-tests.
RESULTS
The following sections summarize the study findings, integrating the sub-scale assessments and focus group responses within each section. Theanalysis of the pretest/posttest domains is summarized on Table 2
TABLE 2 Results of Pre-/Posttest Analysis Utilizing UC-Berkeley Service Learning Researchand Development Center Survey (SLRDCS)
T1 T2
Subscale Mean Range Mean Range t-score
Academics (n = 18) 1.73 1.17–2.33 1.79 1.00–2.33 −.753Career (n = 18) 1.88 1.33–2.40 1.80 1.33–2.40 1.001Self-efficacy (n = 18) 1.74 1.13–2.25 1.76 1.38–2.25 −.426Civic engagement (n = 18) 1.80 1.00–2.33 1.72 1.11–2.56 1.328Perceptions of city (n = 18) 2.16 1.67–2.67 1.98 1.33–2.50 2.587∗
Perceptions of service learning (n = 18) 2.03 1.00–2.50 1.75 1.00–2.75 3.272∗
Note. ∗p ≤ .05.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
260 H. E. Petracchi et al.
Retention and Recruitment
Consistent with the University’s purposes, no CESL student has left theUniversity. Although we do not know the role the CESL floor played inthis outcome, the strength of the ties and feeling part of an intimate living–learning community was consistent with the University’s expectations. Thissentiment was expressed by several students when they compared theirliving–learning residence hall experience with their first-year living arrange-ments. Typical of this sentiment was the student who remarked: “[WhenI compare this year in the residence hall to my freshman year,] there’s a def-inite floor community.” Several respondents appreciated the bonding thatresulted, as typified by: “[This floor] provides more bonding than going outand drinking together” and “[The floor has a] feeling of community apartfrom [the university.] . . . My freshman year floor was not that close as thisfloor is now; there is more of a community [here].”
One goal of the School of Social Work was to attract CESL stu-dents to both the social work major and to the newly established socialwork minor. The three CESL residents who identified as pre-social workmajors did apply to and enroll in the School as BSW students; they werejoined by a fourth student who switched her major to social work. Sevenother residents chose to complete the requirements for the social workminor.
Themes emerging from the focus groups illustrated the impact of theCESL living–learning and service-learning experience on residents’ percep-tions of social work and their career goals. Typical of this sentiment was thestudent who commented, “I had preconceived notions about social workthat changed. . . . Now I have a greater appreciation for people going intothe field of social work.” A second student shared, “[My career] goals shiftedpartly because of my connection to the floor. I came [to college] wanting togo to medical school, but I learned a lot about social work and now I wantto pursue a joint degree in social work and public health.” Another studentintending to pursue a medical career added, “I didn’t think social work fitinto a career in medicine and I didn’t think [social workers] did as much asthey do. [My service learning] was with a doctor who works with women indisease prevention. Now I see how . . . doctors and nurses and . . . socialworkers can all work together.”
Self-Efficacy
CESL involvement did not change residents’ average scores on the SLRDCSself-efficacy subscale (see Table 2). The students entered into the CESL withconfidence about their ability to succeed and make a difference that wasalso reflected in the posttest scores. Nor did living on the CESL floor changeresidents’ scores on the SLRDCS career subscale. The students were quite
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Service Learning in a University Living-Learning Community 261
confident in their ability to achieve their career goals both at the beginningand the end of academic year.
Civic Engagement
A key goal for both the School of Social Work and the Office of the Provostwas that the CESL experience would increase students’ interest in con-tributing to the well-being of their communities. Analysis of the SLRDCScivic engagement subscale average scores did not find statistically signifi-cant improvements; both the time 1 and time 2 mean scores reflected thehigh level of commitment held by these residents. However, this may haveresulted from a self-selection process attracting students to the CESL experi-ence. Support for this speculation is evident in the comments from the focusgroups, as well as from studies of other living-learning programs (Rowan-Kenyon, Soldner, & Inkelas, 2007). Students indicated their decision to residein this specific residential learning community was based on previous vol-unteer experiences or an existing commitment to civic engagement. Typicalwas one student’s comment, “I had been involved in community servicethrough my church [back home] and wanted to get back into communityservice to make connections with a group of friends.” Another student, rep-resenting her roommates said, “Last year we lived in [dorm name] and wedecided to come to this floor together because this gets you involved.”
Many residents spoke about a commitment to continuing communityengagement. For example, one student responded: “[I] didn’t volunteer at alllast year, but I [found] I really liked volunteering and will definitely continuenext year. [Now,] I want to continue to volunteer even when I leave collegeand get a job.” A CESL student from cohort one reflecting on her experiencewith the distance of a year commented, “I’m more comfortable finding timeto volunteer now. . . . I’m still volunteering this semester and I don’t thinkI would have done that without the floor.”
Perceptions of the City
CESL living-learning residents’ perceptions about the city improved overtime, as indicated by a statistically significant improvement in the per-ceptions of the city subscale. Several residents from small communitiesencountered a very different environment; one student expressed this dif-ference noting, “I came from a rural area and having to walk through metaldetectors to get into a school really opened my eyes to a different lifestylethese kids go through—it was almost culture shock.” Other students sawthe potential opportunities available in the city, as typified by the followingcomment: “It was eye-opening to come to a big city; to see how much youcan help out with; all the projects were in so many different areas. Therewere so many opportunities to volunteer and help out in the community.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
262 H. E. Petracchi et al.
There were also students for whom the CESL living-learning experienceprovided greater comfort with urban life. As typified by the comment ofone student, “I came from a small town and saw the diversity of [the hostcity]; [I] got to interact with people unlike [myself] not only at school but inthe community. It’s impacted my thoughts career-wise and also about life ingeneral.” Other students added comments such as, “I feel more comfortabletaking the bus” and “I feel more comfortable in a city atmosphere.”
The opportunity to learn about the city was one motivation for studentsto choose the CESL living-learning floor in this residence hall. For example,one student noted: “I wanted to learn about [the host city]. I didn’t knowthe community surrounding [the university] and wanted to know about it.”Typical was the reflection,
Being a student, we’re kind of in a bubble; we really don’t know whathappens past Atwood Street [a street separating university buildings fromthe surrounding residential community]. Everything’s just here for us, ourrestaurants, our housing. I wouldn’t have known about the other areasin [the host city] if I [hadn’t been living on] the service-learning floor. Itopened my eyes—[potential] projects are everywhere.
Another responded,
Being from a small town, not [the host city], I knew my home town’sneeds and volunteer opportunities, but a lot of the projects I went onconnected me to community organizers that would tell me about specificproblems in a certain neighborhood; this connected me to [the host city]and reminded me I wasn’t just in [the host city] to be on a campus. [Thehost city] has specific needs, too, and we can help that.
Service Learning
The influence of service-learning experiences on the general academic pro-cess and residents’ appreciation for service-learning was evaluated using theSLRDCS academic subscale and the project coordinator’s service-learningsubscale. There was no statistically significant change in the average scoreson the academic subscale; at both the start of their CESL experience and atits conclusion these students preferred courses they found to be relevant totheir lives.
On the other hand, their appreciation for service-learning did increasefrom pre- to posttest. Although this underscores the importance of service-learning, this result may also be due to the integration of residential life withservice-learning. The group bonding resulting from living together enhancedthe service-learning projects. In fact, focus group participants indicated apreference for the group service-learning activities attached to the CESL
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Service Learning in a University Living-Learning Community 263
integrative seminar over their individual service-learning activities requiredin their other classes. Typical were comments such as, “We saw the fruitsof our floor’s labor when doing things as a group.” Another student noted,“With individual [service-learning projects] I never felt a sense of accom-plishment as I did with the community projects.” A third statement expandson the sense of group accomplishment, “When we went as a floor to thefood bank it was cool—cool to see what could be done in that many hoursand how many boxes we could fill to help people.”
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Residential learning communities are intended to provide an environmentwhere students with similar goals live, study, and work together in a support-ive environment, facilitating both social and academic success. In addition,by creating smaller communities, students are more likely to remain enrolledat their respective schools. This University decided to focus one of its resi-dential learning communities on the emerging emphasis on service-learningand civic engagement. The School of Social Work provided a good fit forcourse delivery of the academic component given both its mission and theexistence of service-learning requirements.
The design of this assessment makes it difficult to attribute the findingssimply to residence on the CESL floor. Without a comparison group, we can-not answer whether service-learning experiences may have achieved similaroutcomes for students living elsewhere, or some other form of consistentgroup interaction would have provided the same retention results. Further,the results are based on small numbers of students who self-selected both tothe floor and to participate in the data collection efforts. The findings shouldbe seen in that light and our conclusions considered tentative.
Yet, the CESL has met the University’s goal for retaining students; con-sistent with the existing literature, we speculate this is at least partially dueto the bonding and sense of community reported by residents. In addi-tion, CESL living-learning residents report feeling more connected and morecomfortable with the host city, which may contribute to their retention atthis urban campus. The CESL floor has also benefitted the School of SocialWork’s enrollment and has changed student perceptions about the profes-sion. It is likely that none of these students would have chosen to minor insocial work if they had not lived on the floor.
The CESL floor appears to have attracted students predisposed to engag-ing in some form of community service, an issue that Rowan-Kenyon et al.(2007) underscored in their assessment of the impacet of living-learningcommunities on civic engagement. Therefore, it is not surprising there wereno changes in the subscale scores. The average SLRDCS subscale scoresat time 1 were positive and fell within a narrow range. Further, the story
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
264 H. E. Petracchi et al.
gleaned from the focus groups provides additional support that students’decisions to live on the floor (thus committing themselves to the coursesand requisite service-learning requirements) were based on previous vol-unteer experiences and/or an existing commitment to civic engagement ingeneral.
CESL living-learning residents achieved a better understanding andappreciation for the broader urban community in which the University islocated. They reported feeling more comfortable in the urban communityand more connected to the broader community beyond the boundaries ofthe university; they reported being exposed to community leaders and com-munity organizers who expanded their understanding of the host communityat large, as well as the needs of individual neighborhoods within the city.An improved image of the community is beneficial both to the communityand the University (Maurrasse, 2001); however, the literature on living-learning program has not significantly explored this larger environmentalcampus in community context. This living-learning community supportsan institutional goal aimed at making the city our campus. Students notedthat they will continue to contribute to the community. In addition, beinglocated in a desirable city enhances the University’s “attractiveness to otherstudents.”
The findings are relevant to the design of service-learning initiatives.Participants noted their preference for participating in service-learning activ-ities as a group (as part of the CESL floor integrative seminar) as opposed toindependent service-learning projects required in other social work classes.There may be something desirable about participating in such experiencesas part of a group with whom one has bonded. In this case, living togetherand learning together created this bond. Alternatively, it may be that, despitetheir commitment to community service, these students (as college sopho-mores) were not yet sufficiently secure to engage in community activities inan urban setting without the support of a peer group. It may be that studentsfelt safer doing such activities alongside peers with whom they have rela-tionships as opposed to venturing alone into the community. In instances ofservice-learning linked to a class, there may be added value to doing such“activities as a group rather than individual projects.”
We have already noted that future studies should be designed to disen-tangle the impact of living-learning residence on service-learning outcomes.This requires different kinds of studies with comparisons to other groupsof students who are (and are not) engaged in service-learning, as well asto other residential communities. Such studies should utilize both quantita-tive and qualitative methods. Moreover, although the CESL living-learningresidents have been studied through their participation in focus groupsand completion of the Berkeley SLRDCS, the community has not beenqueried regarding their perceptions of the impact of service-learning oncommunity-identified needs.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Service Learning in a University Living-Learning Community 265
Future research should assess community perceptions of the CESL stu-dents and their perceived benefits to the community partners with whomthey engaged in community service activities. Although this was not afocus of this living-learning program assessment, it is important to notethat many community service projects were replicated in subsequent CESLcohorts because of the positive experience students had had with thesecommunity partners, as well as the continued requests from the communitypartners to work with CESL students because of the benefits they per-ceived. Similarly, many community partners recruited actively from CESLstudents for course-related, individual service-learning volunteer activities.In one case, a community partner produced a YouTube video capturingthe CESL students engaged their service-learning project. This was a thankyou gesture to the living-learning community that also allowed the com-munity partner to recruit subsequent students. Moreover, future research,including national living-learning program studies, should assess morefully the larger environmental context of student connections to their hostcommunity.
There are a lot of colleges in [the host city], and a lot of students come inwith the mentality that the city is only a temporary home for four years;[service-learning experiences] opens your eyes. . . . While you’re here,you can make a difference and you realize you may want to stay herepermanently after college.
For students who want the experience of attending a university with estab-lished service-learning partners, a service-learning-focused residential livingcommunity is one vehicle to meet this goal. Institutions can fulfill theireducational goals while achieving the practical goal of enhancing retention.
REFERENCES
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service-learning in highereducation. Journal of Higher Education, 67 , 221–239.
Harkavy, I. (2004). Service-learning and the development of democratic universi-ties, democratic schools, and democratic good societies in the 21st century. InM. Welch & S.H. Billig (Eds.), New perspectives in service-learning: Research toadvance the field (pp. 3–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Inkelas, K. K., Brower, A. M., Crawford, S., Hummel, M., Pope, D., & Zeller,W. J. (2004). National study of living–learning programs: 2004 reportof findings. Retrieved, April 25, 2010, from http://www.livelearnstudy.net/additionalresources/reports.html
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
266 H. E. Petracchi et al.
Inkelas, K. K., Johnson, D., Lee, Z., Daver, Z., Longerbeam, S., Vogt, K., et al. (2006).The role of living–learning programs in students’ perceptions of intellectualgrowth at three large universities. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 115–143. RetrievedApril 24, 2010, from http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp.
Lemieux, C. M., & Allen, P.D. (2007). Service learning in social work education:The state of knowledge, pedagogical practicalities, and practice conundrums.Journal of Social Work Education, 43, 309–325.
Lichtenstein, M. (2005). The importance of classroom environments in the assess-ment of learning community outcomes. Journal of College Student Development,46 , 341–356.
Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities formpartnerships with their communities. New York: Routledge.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings andinsights from 20 years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Phillips, A. (2007). Service learning and social work education: A natural but tenu-ous connection. In M. Nadel, V. Majewski, & M. Sullivan-Cosetti (Eds.), Socialwork and service learning: Partnerships for social justice. New York: Rowman &Littlefield.
Rowan-Kenyon, H., Soldner, M., & Inkelas, K. K. (2007). The contributions ofliving–learning programs on developing sense of civic engagement in under-graduate students. NASPA Journal, 44(4), 750–778. Retrieved April 24, 2010,from http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp.
Smith, B. L. (2003). Learning communities and liberal education. Academe: LiberalLearning, 89. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2003/JF/Feat/Smit.htm.
University of California—Berkeley: Service-Learning Research and DevelopmentCenter. (2000). Higher Education Service-Learning Survey. Retrieved March 6,2008, from http://www-gse.berkeley.edu/research/slc/evaluation.html.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a ]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
