Morgan Lewing

1. The Institutionalization of Service-Learning in the Independent Colleges and Universities of the Gulf Coast Region Morgan Lewing

2. Introduction • Topic of choice • Alignment with personal beliefs • Alignment with current position • Alignment with career aspirations • Macro-level focus • Individual & Responsibility • Connectedness

3. Statement of Problem • The problem is that many experts have stated the service-learning movement has “stagnated” due to an extremely disjointed and fragmented level of institutionalization of service-learning. (Saltmarsh and Hartley, 2009)

4. Purpose of the Study • Therefore, it is the purpose of this study to determine the level of institutionalization of service-learning through Furco’s (2009) service-learning institutionalization rubric at Independent College and Universities of the Gulf Coast region.

5. Theoretical Framework • Service-learning, as in accordance with Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (1984), focuses on the learner as an activity source of inquiry and experimentation in which experience creates learning. • In addition, service-learning closely aligns with Dewey’s idea of a Democratic education, Lewin’slifespace and Piaget’s conflict between assimilation and accommodation.

6. Review of Literature • Service-learning can be defined as a “course-based, credit-bearing, educational experience in which students • (a) participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and • (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation for the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995, p. 112).

7. Review of Literature • Research has shown that practically every student outcome appears to be favorably impacted by participation in service-learning (Astin, 2003) • Service-learning implementation is also “an important aspect of students’ academic, and social adjustment while is fosters community engagement at the same time” (Stavrianopoulos, 2008, p. 703)

8. Review of Literature • However, many question higher education’s commitment to the institutionalization of service-learning despite demonstrated benefits to students, institutions and the community (Saltmarsh, Hartley & Clayton, 2009). • Therefore, service-learning often remains a marginalized practice if not embedded within the overarching framework of the universityas an institutionalized practice.

9. Review of Literature • According to Holland (2000), institutionalized engagement includes • 1) a mission that emphasizes a philosophical commitment to service, • 2) faculty support for service-fused research and teaching, • 3) a broad range of opportunities for students to become involved in service projects • 4) sustained community partnerships in which both sides find mutual benefit. • Different universities may place varying levels of emphasis on dimensions • But they are all vital to the integration of service to the framework of the university.

10. Review of Literature • The common problem is that most institutions fail thoroughly evaluate the progress of the service movement on that specific campus. • History has demonstrated that service-learning and campus engagement cannot persist without full institutional support. • The late 1960 and the early 1990’s both saw a rise in public service interest only to see such university-community partnerships deteriorate over time. • In essence, engagement and service-learning must become part of the institutional framework not merely a supplemental practice (Furco, 2010)

11. Participants • Participants for the study were the 74 institutions of the independent colleges and universities of the Gulf Coast regions. • 17 administrators responded • Data analysis will include institutional demographic data • such as student enrollment size and factors identifying their level of religious affiliation

12. Research Instrument • This study employed The Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Higher Education developed by Furco (2009). • The rubric provided an incremental approach to assessing the institutionalization of service-learning through the use of a rubric which gauges the progress of a university’s institutionalization efforts along a progressive continuum. • The developmental nature of the rubric refrained from negative judgment and approached the assessment in regards to observed progress.

13. Research Instrument • Framing the rubric are five research supported dimensions: • 1) philosophy and mission of service-learning, • 2) faculty support for and involvement in service-learning, • 3) student support for an involvement in service-learning, • 4) community participation and partnerships • 5) institutional support for service-learning

14. Research Instrument • Specifying each dimension are several identified components that quantify the degree of progress for each of the five dimensions. • A nine-point Likert-scale measures each component. S score of 1-3 falls in Level 1 “Mass Building”, a score of 4-6 falls in Level 2 “Quality Building” and 7-9 falls in Level 3 “Sustained Institutionalization”.

21. Data Collection • Electronic survey and cover letter were distributed through Qualtrics online survey platform to the university Chief Academic Officer’s email address. • In addition to the rubric, respondents indicated • Enrollment • Level of religious affiliation :1) non-affiliated, 2) faith affiliated or 3) faith-based (determined by the existence of non-optional courses or credits in the core curriculum that specifically aligns with the affiliated religion in addition to the inclusion of the specific faith in the mission statement).

22. Research Questions • R1: What is the overall and dimension specific level of institutionalization of service-learning at the independent colleges and universities of the Gulf Coast region? • R2: What is the difference among colleges of differing levels of religious affiliation and level of institutionalization of service-learning? • R3: What is the relationship between school enrollment and level of institutionalization of service-learning?

23. Research Question 1 • What is the overall and dimension specific level of institutionalization at the independent colleges and universities of the Gulf Coast region? • Method of analysis: descriptive statistics (mean, range, standard deviation)

24. Results: RQ1 • Average overall level of institutionalization for the 17 schools was 5.00 (SD + 1.99) on a 9 point scale • Equates to Quality Building (middle) stage of institutionalization • Dimension 1: Philosophy & Mission 5.88 (SD + 1.91) • Dimension 2: Faculty Support 4.75 (SD + 2.06) • Dimension 3: Student Support 5.01 (SD + 1.99) • Dimension 4: Community Partnerships 4.51 (SD + 2.24) • Dimension 5: Institutional Support 4.89 (SD + 2.34)

25. Results: RQ1 • Overall institutionalization (mean score of each dimension) • 5 institutions (29.4%) were in the critical mass building phase. • 9 institutions (52.9%) were in the quality building stage, • 3 institutions (17.7%) were in the sustained institutionalization stage.

26. Results: RQ1

27. Research Question 2 • What is the difference among colleges of differing levels of religious affiliation and level of institutionalization? • Method of analysis: ANOVA • hypotheses (H02A -H02F) in the null in which no difference exists among schools of differing levels of religious affiliation and institutionalization level, overall or dimension-specific.

28. Results: RQ2 • 7 (41.2%) not religiously affiliated. • 3 (17.6%) faith affiliated, as there was a religious affiliation, but their students were not required to fulfill course requirements pertaining to the specific faith and or inclusion of the faith in the mission statement. • 7 (41.2%) colleges and universities were faith-based and required credits pertaining to the specific faith and included faith in the mission statement • No significant difference was demonstrated

30. Research Question 3 • What is the relationship between school enrollment and level of institutionalization? • Method of analysis: Pearson correlation. • the hypotheses (H03A -H03F) stated in the null as no relationship between enrollment size and institutionalization level, overall or dimension-specific, existed.

31. Results: RQ3 • Enrollment correlations: • Overall level of institutionalization: .304 • Dimension 1 (Institutional Mission and Philosophy of Service-Learning): .286. • Dimension 2 (Faculty Support and Involvement): .159 • Dimension 3 (Student Support and Involvement) : .408 • Dimension 4 (Community Participation and Partnerships): .333 • Dimension 5 (Institutional Support: .256 • No significant correlation was demonstrated • Fail to reject the null

32. Recommendations and Implications • Dimension 4: Community Organization presented the lowest institutionalization score, despite still being in the Quality Building stage. • This dimension of institutionalization refers the extent to community organizations and partners are empowered to be a major force in advancing service-learning on campus in addition to establishing partnership centered on reciprocity.

33. Recommendations and Implications • The Unheard Voices: Community Organizations and Service-learning,” • cited the community partnerships and involvement as they key area of concern in the service-learning movement. Slower progress in this realm was “a result of the biased focus on serving and changing students, which creates a self-perpetuating cycle” (p. 4; Stoecker & Tryon, 2009) • A strong focus on the community partnership dimension and tangible results could provide a drastic catalyst for maintaining initial momentum. • Therefore, it is the recommendation that, due to its complexity, community partnership creation and support receive a higher allocation of time and resources as the process moves forward.

34. Future Research • Comparative case studies in regards to institutionalization on different campuses may allow for additions to the existing body of literature which is heavily based in theory or singular best-practice. • A series of studies that utilize this approach could provide a qualitative approach to questions such as why larger campuses with more resources were not more or less successful that their smaller counterparts.

35. Future Research • Mixed method approach • Identify universities that demonstrate sustained institutionalization through quantitative approach • Qualitatively investigate community partnerships and their development at these institutions

36. Conclusion • As institutions continue to attempt to institutionalize service-learning, university administration and faculty will be charged with consistently assuring that it remains an educational experience that focuses on meeting an identified need through course content. • The point of emphasis though will be how needs are identified.

37. Conclusion • The results of this study depict there are many institutions with a strong infrastructure to support service-learning. • The same effort must now be turned to empowering and facilitating structures that exist outside of the university walls in order to bring reciprocity and the exchange of resources and benefit to the next phase. • In this light, colleges and universities must be of the community and not simply for the community.

38. References • Altbach, P. (1999). Private higher education: Themes and variations in comparative perspective. Prospects, 29(3), 310–323. doi:10.1007/BF02736957 • Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community service-learning, 2(1), 112–122. Retrieved from http://www.servicelearning.org/filemanager/download/206/Resources on SL and Faculty.pdf • Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Addison Wesley. • Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. Touchstone, New York, NY. • Furco, A. (2009). Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionization of Service-Learning in Higher Education. Berkeley: service-learning Research and Development Centre, University of California. • Furco, Andrew. (2010). The engaged campus: Toward a comprehensive approach to public engagement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(4), 375-390. doi:10.1080/00071005.2010.527656 • Holland, B. A. (2000). Institutional impacts and organizational issues related to service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community service-learning. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ620031&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ620031 • Kolb, D. A., & others. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Retrieved from http://academic.regis.edu/ed205/Kolb.pdf • Olson, M., & Hergenhahn, B. R. (2008). Introduction to the theories of learning (8th ed., p. 512). Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/dp/0136057721 • Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. (2009). Democratic engagement white paper. Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://americandemocracy.illinoisstate.edu/documents/democratic-engagement-white-paper-2_13_09.pdf • Stavrianopoulos, K. (2008). service-learning within the Freshman Year Experience. College Student Journal, 42(2), 10. • Stoecker, R., Tryon, E. A., & Hilgendorf, A. (Eds.). (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service-learning. Temple University Press.

39. Questions?