Kendrick
in need, intention to donate to charity, orientation
toward others and away from self) and personal
efficacy (sense of purpose and direction in life,
belief that one can make a difference in the world).
Service-learning students showed differences in
the expected direction on every single indicator.
They were more likely than non-service-learning
students to respond favorably to social responsibility indicators (like those mentioned above along
with intention to work on behalf of social justice
and also tolerance and appreciation for others) and
personal efficacy indicators. These findings are
consistent with those of the Michigan study, as are
the effects coefficients computed for each of the
indicators. Table 2 compares the results of this
study with the scores of the Michigan students.
Learning Outcomes
Learning outcomes were evaluated using selfreports of students and analysis of test results.
Students responded to a battery of questions at the
end of the semester to evaluate the courses and
their learning. Some of the questions asked students to react to statements like, "I learned to apply
principles from this course to new situations," "I
developed a greater sense of personal responsibility," and "I deepened my interest in the subject mat
ter of this course." For all but one of the learning
indicators in Table 3, the means of service-learning
students were higher than those of non-servicelearning students. The only three indicators for
which the differences were statistically significant,
however, concerned sense of personal responsibility, interest in the subject matter of the course, and
the extent to which students reconsidered their attitudes. On one indicator ("I feel I am performing to
my potential"), non-service-learning students had a
higher mean, but it wasn't statistically significant.
In contrast, the Michigan study found servicelearning students to have higher means on every
indicator and to have statistically significant differences on 6 of the 8 measures. In addition, students
in the Michigan study had higher means on every
indicator, suggesting higher levels of satisfaction
with the course than that experienced by my students. Table 3 compares the results of my study
with those of the Michigan study.
Student perceptions of their learning are consistent with my analysis. Students in the servicelearning section of my course had a mean score of
74.67 (a C), while students in the non-servicelearning section did slightly better, 75.14 - not a
meaningful difference nor a statistically significant
one. Breaking the grade down into its components
TABLE 3
Mean ratings of students in service-learning and non-service-learning sections to items in the Michigan CRLT course
evaluation battery
Item Non- Service- Effects Michigan
Service- Learning Coeff." ServiceLearning Learning
Effectsb
I learned to apply principles from
this course to new situations 3.31 3.62.32.66*
I developed a set of overall values
in the field 3.08 3.26.19.43*
I developed a greater awareness of
societal problems 3.69 3.95.29.40*
I reconsidered many of my former
attitudes 2.84 3.33*.48.84*
I developed a greater sense of
personal responsibility 3.02 3.52*.45.56*
I feel that I am performing up to my
potential in this course 3.08 3.02.05.48*
I deepened my interest in the subject
matter of this course 2.96 3.40*.41.13
I learned a great deal from this course 3.19 3.48.28.16
NOTE: Response options consisted of a 5-point scale ranging from (1) "strongly disagree" to (5) "strongly agree." One-tailed prob-values for the differences between the means are reported.
a The "effects" coefficient is the difference between the two means divided by the (pooled) standard deviation.
hEffects coefficients from the Michigan study of political science undergraduates
* p<.05 that differences in means for service-learning and non-service-learning groups do not reflect the populations from which they were drawn.
78
