1. A Collaborative Approach to Assessing the Impacts of Service-Learning on Retention and Success Charlotte Belezos (Roxbury CC) Ted Carlson (Bunker Hill CC) Joanna Gonsalves (Salem State) Cynthia Lynch (Middlesex CC) Tiffany Keyes (Salem State) Eric Metchik (Salem State)

2. Members of the Experiential Learning Research Collaborative Bunker Hill Community College Middlesex Community College Northern Essex Community College North Shore Community College Roxbury Community College Salem State University University of Massachusetts - Boston

3. Goals of the Collaborative To assess whether service-learning improves college success and retention at our institutions To assess whether service-learning improves college success and retention at our institutions To consider impacts for various student groups (minority students, 1 st generation college students, and economically disadvantaged students) To consider impacts for various student groups (minority students, 1 st generation college students, and economically disadvantaged students) To identify moderating variables related to success and retention (What works best?) To identify moderating variables related to success and retention (What works best?)

4. Service-Learning: service-learning is “a course-based, credit- bearing educational experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility” (Bringle and Hatcher, 2000). service-learning is “a course-based, credit- bearing educational experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility” (Bringle and Hatcher, 2000). Bringle, R.G., & Hatcher, J.A. (2000) A formula for success: Review of Successful Service-Learning Programs: New Models of Excellence in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education.

5. Service-Learning Criteria Service directly related to course content Service directly related to course content Course’s learning outcomes encompass the service project Course’s learning outcomes encompass the service project Reflection is utilized to deepen learning Reflection is utilized to deepen learning Credit is for learning outcomes, not good deeds Credit is for learning outcomes, not good deeds Student works with a community partner as a volunteer or on an assigned project Student works with a community partner as a volunteer or on an assigned project Service aligns with a need of the community Service aligns with a need of the community

6. Theoretical Considerations Student Subgroups Student Subgroups Moderating Variables: course and placement characteristics Moderating Variables: course and placement characteristics Personal Outcomes (change in learner efficacy; change in global self efficacy) Personal Outcomes (change in learner efficacy; change in global self efficacy) Academic Outcomes (course completion, grades, intent to continue, actual re- enrollment, degree completion) Academic Outcomes (course completion, grades, intent to continue, actual re- enrollment, degree completion)

7. Moderating Variables Duration of service project Service-Learning Course Design Placement Characteristics

8. Moderating Variables Placement Characteristics Skill Variety Skill Variety Having challenging tasks Having challenging tasks Having a variety of tasks to do Having a variety of tasks to do Task Identity Task Identity Having experiences that will help me to think about my career goals Having experiences that will help me to think about my career goals Performed tasks directly related to my career Performed tasks directly related to my career Autonomy Autonomy Making important decisions Making important decisions Doing things myself instead of observing Doing things myself instead of observing

9. Placement Characteristics Feedback and Support Being appreciated when I do a good job Having discussions with my instructor about my project Task Significance Having a substantial impact on the lives of other people Having experiences that may challenge my opinions

10. Spring 2012 Pilot Study 81 students took pre-test and post-test Five campuses Nine service-learning classes (7 disciplines) Survey measured self-efficacy, learner empowerment, and moderating variables

11. Race/Ethnicity 11

12. Household Income 12

13. Family Education Status 13

14. Study Outcomes Global Self- Efficacy increased for the group (p. <.001); the mean increase was 2.2 points on a 50 point scale. Learner Empowerment went down on all subscales for this group as a whole: Course Motivation, Impact and Confidence 14

15. What really matters: Characteristics of the Service-Learning Experience Skill Variety Task IdentityAutonomy Feedback & Support Task Significance Change in Learner IMPACT (LE subscale) Pearson Correlation.566 **.550 **.548 **.576 **.434 ** Change in MOTIVATION for course (LE subscale) Pearson Correlation.360 **.398 **.319 *.424 **.267 * Change in CONFIDENCE to succeed in course (LE subscale) Pearson Correlation.456 **.398 **.344 **.394 **.409 ** *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 15

16. Findings related to Student Characteristics There were no significant findings for gender, age, year in college, race, household income, or Pell grant eligibility. 16

17. Change in Learner Empowerment by First Generational Status 17 Mean Change Std. Deviation Mean DifferenceSignificance Change in IMPACT First Gen0.140.65-1.120.04 Non-First Gen-0.290.92 Change in MOTIVATION First Gen-0.080.550.280.09 Non-First Gen-0.370.73 Change in CONFIDENCE First Gen-0.080.460.190.28 Non-First Gen-0.280.77

18. Results from the Texting Data 18 SOURCEPERSONEVENTTASKOTHER JOURNAL4017601 TEXT6214385 Chi-Sq=12.64p-=.005

19. Results from the Texting Data 19 SOURCEEVALUATIVEFACTUAL JOURNAL6353 TEXT2296 Chi-Square=33.19,P<.001

20. Results from the Texting Data Task Variety Task Identity Task Autonomy Task Feedback Task Significance Survey Data4.724.674.394.444.50 Texting Data4.604.524.654.72 Difference in scores  -0.12  -0.14  0.26  0.22  0.19 20 Average Reported Scores for 9 Salem State Students who participated in texting (scale ranges from 1-5)

21. Results from the Texting Data Text Skill Variety Text Task ID Text Autonomy Text Feedback Text Task Sign Change in Global Efficacy Pearson Correlation.574.770 * -.019.285.556 N99999 21

22. Next Steps Broaden Sample Include Control Group Collect Enrollment and GPA data Collect Information about Course Design Look at Impacts Longitudinally 22