Pedagogical Variations in Service-Learning and Student Outcomes
Sociodemographic Characteristics'
Gender and frequency of prior volunteering are
included as independent variables because servicelearners are more likely to be female and have prior
community service experience (Sax & Astin, 1997),
characteristics that may play a role in students' outcomes. For analysis, gender is coded zero for males
and one for females. Frequency of prior community
service is based on students' responses to a precourse survey item that asks how frequently in the
past they have volunteered or done community service work. It is measured on a four-point scale: "less
than once a year or never done service or volunteered" (1), "a few times a year" (2), "a few times a
month" (3), and "weekly" (4). Although a somewhat
ethnically homogeneous group of service-learners,
there are enough students who are "non-white" to
permit comparisons. Among those who are nonwhite, 50 percent are Asian/Asian American, 14 percent are African American, 18 percent are Hispanic,
10 percent are "multiracial," and 10 percent are
"other." For this study, ethnicity is coded zero for
"white" and one for "non-white."
Dependent Variables
Personal Social Values and Civic Attitudes
Twelve Likert-scaled items concerning students'
personal social values and civic attitudes2 toward
community service are included on both the pre- and
post-course surveys. These items were coded to
reflect positive, neutral, and negative responses. For
instance, items with a five-point "agree/disagree"
response scale were coded so that strongly agree
equals two, neither agree nor disagree equals zero,
and strongly disagree equals minus two. Using standardized scores for the twelve items, factor analyses
(varimax rotations) revealed two factors on both the
pre- and post-course questionnaires that comprise
the two scales described below. Two items did not
load on either factor and therefore were not retained.
The first factor (see Appendix A) consists of five
items such as the personal importance of "influencing social values" and "helping others who are in
difficulty," and one's self-rated "commitment to
serving your community." The unstandardized
scores of these items are summed to comprise the
personal social values scale score with a possible
range of minus two to fourteen (pre-course alpha =.63, post-course alpha =.78). The second factor
includes five "agree/disagree" items such as "individuals have a responsibility to help solve our social
problems" and "people, regardless of whether
they've been successful or not, ought to help others." The unstandardized scores of the second set of
items are summed into the civic attitudes scale that
has a possible range of minus ten to ten (pre-course
alpha =.80, post-course alpha =.81). Students' precourse scores on these scales are independent variables.
Course Impact on Civic Attitudes
The post-course survey also includes four questions about students' perception of the impact the
service-learning course had on their civic attitudes.3
For example, students are asked to indicate how
much their participation in the course strengthened
their "intention to serve others" and "belief that
helping others is one's social responsibility." While
these items are skewed positively and do not measure the extent to which a course may have
decreased or weakened students' civic attitudes, the
response options do include a neutral choice, "not at
all." The four-point Likert response scale ranges
from "not at all," coded zero to "a great deal," coded
three. In factor analyses (varimax rotation) using
standardized scores, these four items did not load
with the items in the civic attitudes scale. Therefore,
we can assume that they capture a dimension distinct from that reflected in the civic attitudes scale.
The unstandardized scores of the four items are
summed into the course impact on civic attitudes
scale (alpha =.92) which has a possible range from
zero to twelve.
Academic Benefit of Service-Learning
Five questions in the post-course questionnaire
elicit students' perceptions of the academic benefit
of participating in service-learning. One question
asks students, "did you learn more as a result of your
service-learning than you would have otherwise,"
and offers a dichotomous "yes/no" response option,
coded one and zero respectively. Another item asks,
"compared with traditional academic assignments,
such as research papers and studying for exams, how
useful was participating in service-learning to helping you understand the material in this course?" The
five-point response scale ranges from "much less
useful," coded minus two, through "about the
same," coded zero, to "far more useful," coded two.
Three items ask students the extent to which they
agree or disagree with statements such as, "participating in service-learning deepened my interest in
the subject matter of this course." These three items
offer the same response categories as other
"agree/disagree" items and are coded in the same
way. The standardized scores of the five items
regarding the learning-related benefits of servicelearning factor (varimax rotation) together into a
unidimensional construct. The unstandardized
scores are summed into an academic benefit of ser
35
