ProjectsThatWork 1

WHITEPAPERFindingsfromWave1

ProjectsThatWork

ResearchtoGuidetheImplementationofSchool-BasedServiceLearningProjects

EdwardMetz,Ph.D.,ResearchAssociate,CatholicUniversityofAmericaCorrespondencemaybeprovidedtoEdwardMetzatedmetz@hotmail.comAcknowledgement:TheauthorthanksScottGanskeofYouthServiceAmericaforcontributionstothisresearchproject.

ProjectsThatWork 2

SUMMARYServicelearningisaformofexperientialeducationwherestudentsparticipateinreal-worldprojectstoaddresscommunityneedsandpracticeactivecitizenshipwhilealsolearningacademiccontent.Whilethereisgeneralagreementonwhatconstitutesqualitypractice–thefieldofservicelearninglacksdata-driveninformationonwhatprojectsareactuallyfeasibleforteachersandstudentstoplananddo,aswellaswhatfactorssupportorinhibitimplementation.TheProjectsThatWorkstudytrackswhatservicelearningprojectsarebeingdoneacrossanationalsampleofmiddleandhighschoolsaswellashowtheseprojectsareimplemented.Byexaminingwhathappens,howwellithappens,andwhatfactorsinhibitoroptimizeithappening,thestudyseekstoidentify“whatworks”intheefficientandeffectivedesignandimplementationofnewprojects.ThisWhitePaperpresentsdescriptivefindingsfromWave1oftheProjectsThatWorkstudy,andincludesdataon41projectsfrom39teachers,873students,and20communitypartners.Allprojectshadreceived$5,000grantsfromYouthServiceAmerica(YSA)andStateFarm.Whileallprojectswereimplementedusingastage-basedmodel,eachproject(evenwhenthesametype)includeddifferentcomponentsandactivities.MainfindingsfromWave1revealedthatteacherandstudentratingsdifferedbyvariationsinthecomponentsandactivitiesusedtoimplementprojects.Forexample:• Projectsweremostfeasibletoplananddowhenteachersprovidedstudentsdetailedinformationonimplementation,andwhenanadultfromacommunitypartnerjoinedtheproject.

• Studentsindicatedtheylearnedmoreandmadeagreaterdifferenceinaddressingtheissuewhenanadultfromacommunitypartnerorganizationjoinedtheproject.

• Studentsindicatedtheylearnedmorewhenprojectsweremorecloselyalignedtoacademicstandards-yetprojectsmorealignedtostandardswerealsolessfeasibletoplananddo.

• Studentsindicatedtheylearnedmoreandmadeagreaterdifferenceinaddressingtheissuewhentheprojectincludedreflectionactivitiessuchasreadingacademiccontent,classroomdiscussions,anddisseminatingprojectresults.Itisnotedthequantityofreflectionactivitiesdidnotrelatetohigherratings,asparticipantratingsacrossprojectsdidnotdifferwithmoreorfeweractivities.

Thelong-termgoaloftheProjectsThatWorkstudyistogeneratedata-driveninformationpractitionersandstudentscanusetoguideandimprovedecisionmakinginservicelearningpractice.Itishypothesizedthatmoreschoolsandteacherswillemployservicelearningifinformationisavailableonwhatprojecttypeshavesuccessfullybeendonedozensoftimesinacourse,withinformationonhowtheseprojectswereimplemented.TheWhitePaperisintendedtodemonstratethepotentialoftheProjectsThatWorkmodelandtoserveasafoundationforadditionalongoingresearch.InWave2ofthestudyinthespringof2017,theresearchersarecollectingdatafromanadditional100projectsbeingperformedinschoolsaroundthecountry.

ProjectsThatWork 3

INTRODUCTIONServicelearningisaformofexperientialeducationwherestudentsparticipateinreal-worldprojectstoaddresscommunityneedsandpracticeactivecitizenshipwhilealsolearningacademiccontent.Examplesofschool-basedservicelearningprojectsincludestudentsanalyzingpollutedriverwatertolearnecology,chartingdriverstextingatintersectionstopracticeresearchmethodsandstatistics,ordesigningawebpageforahomelesssheltertoapplydesignandcomputerscienceskills.Inthepasttwodecadesthescienceregardinghighqualityservicelearninghasimprovedsignificantly(Furco,2013;Goethemetal.,2014).Alargebodyofresearchdemonstratesprojectsaremostpotentwhenimplementedwithacommonsetofcomponentsoractivities,andaseriesofdefinedstagesfromstarttofinish.Forexample,inthe‘gold-standard’modelforservicelearningaclassofstudents(ledbyateacher-facilitator)collaboratively:investigateacommunityneedthatalignstocurricularcontent;select,design,andprepareforaproject;performsustainedservicetoaddresstheneed;andreflectonanddisseminatefindingsthroughwriting,discussions,andpresentationstodetailwhatwasaccomplished.Despiteitspotentialandwhatisknownabouteffectivepractice,mostmiddleandhighschoolsintheUnitedStatesdonotpresentlyofferservicelearning.1Andwhereitisoffered,servicelearningcanbeacomplexacademicinterventiontoimplement.Forexample,teachersneedtime,resources,andexpertisetoefficientlyandeffectivelydesignandintegratemulti-dayexperientialprojectswithinstandardinstructionalpractices,allwhilestillcoveringrequiredlearningstandards.Andstudentsneedguidanceandsupporttoparticipateinprojectsoutsideofclassroomsincommunities,yetalsoopportunitiestoindependentlyplananddotheprojectsthemselves.Inschoolswhereservicelearningisemployedasanintervention,researchdemonstratesthatthequalityoftheprojectexperiencecanvarydependingonhowimplementationoccurs(vanGoethemetal.,2014;Youniss&Yates,1997;Eyler&Giles,1999).Thisismeaningfulbecauseifprojectsarenotfeasibletoimplementoraremissingkeycomponentstheoreticalalignedtoyieldingkeyoutcomes–studentswillbelesslikelytobenefitfromormakethedesiredimpactduringtheserviceexperience.Althoughtheresearchliteraturepointstoimplementationasakeyreasonwhymoreschoolsandteachersdonottryservicelearningandasmainchallengetoeffectiveandsustainablepracticewhereitisoffered(Furco,2013),researchhasnotsystematicallyexaminedhowimplementationactuallyoccursacrossalargenationalsampleofprojects.Thefieldalsolacksdata-driveninformationonwhattypesofservicelearning

1In2008,24%ofallU.S.schoolsofferedservicelearning,adecreasefrom32%in1999(Spring,

ProjectsThatWork 4

projectsareeffectiveunderwhatcircumstances.Alongtheselines,moreresearchisneededonwhatprojecttypescanfeasiblybeimplementedandwhatprojectcomponentsandactivitiesaremostlikelytoleadtosuccessfulimplementation.Researchisalsoneededtogenerateusableinformationfrompastprojectsthatnewgroupsofteachersandstudentscanusetoinformdecision-makingtouseservicelearningflexiblyandinwaysthatwork.TheProjectsThatWorkStudyTheProjectsThatWorkstudytrackswhatservicelearningprojectsarebeingdoneacrossanaturallyoccurringnationalsampleofmiddleandhighschools,aswellashowtheseprojectsareimplemented.Thestudyexamineswhathappens,howwellithappens,andwhatfactorsinhibitoroptimizeithappeninginordertoidentify“whatworks”intheeffectiveandefficientprojectdesignandimplementationofnewprojects.Thelong-termgoalsofthestudyareto:(1)generateuser-generateddata-driveninformationonthekeycomponentsthatundergirdefficientandeffectiveimplementationacrossallprojectsand(2)identifyprojecttypesthatconsistentlyworkwellregardlessofvariationsinhowimplementationoccursandprojectsthatworkwellonlywhenimplementedinaspecificway.Itisanticipatedthatovertimecrowd-sourceknowledgecollectedbythisstudywillbeusedbyteachersandstudentstoinformprojectselectionandimplementation.ThisWhitePaperpresentsfindingsfromWave1ofthestudy,whichincluded41projectsdoneinmiddleandhighschoolsaroundtheUnitedStates.Thispaperdescribesthegoalsoftheprojects,howprojectswereimplemented,andtrendsinhowparticipantsreportedexperiencingservicelearninggivenvariationsinimplementationacrossallandwithinspecificprojecttypes.TheWhitePaperisintendedtodemonstratethepotentialoftheProjectsThatWorkmodelandtoserveasafoundationforadditionalongoingresearch.

ProjectsThatWork 5

METHODProcedureandSampleAllstudyprocedureswereapprovedbytheInternalReviewBoardattheCatholicUniversityofAmericainWashingtonD.C.,inJanuary,2014.DatawereprovidedbyschoolsthatreceivedagrantfromYSAandStateFarmthroughtheGoodNeighborImpactSchoolProgram.Throughthisprogram,K-12publicschoolsuperintendentsandprincipalsappliedfor$5,000grantstoemployservicelearningtocreateacultureofserviceintheirschools.AportionofthegrantfundingwasusedtopayfortheexpensesofprojectsinWave1.Inadditiontothefunding,YSAprovidedanaverageof20hoursoftechnicalassistancetotheadministratorsateachoftheschoolsreceivingagrant.Thisassistancefolloweda“train-the-trainer”approachwherebyadministratorstrainedtheirteachersonhowtoimplementahighqualityservice-learningprojectintheirclassroom.YSAalsosupportedtheservice-learningteamsateachschoolwithongoingtechnicalassistanceopportunitiesthroughouttheyear,includinganonlinecourse,webinarsandnetworkingcalls,andone-on-oneconsultation.In2014,2015,and2016,teachers,students,andcommunitypartnerswereinvitedtocompleteanonlinesurvey(usingSurveyMonkey)attheconclusionoftheirclassproject.Noparticipantnamesoridentifiableinformationwasprovidedinanysurveys.Usabledatawasprovidedfor28%oftheprojects(41ofthe140).Acrossthe41projectsincludedinthestudy,873students,41teachers,and20individualsfromacommunitypartnerprovidedasurvey.(Note:Communitypartnerswerenotincludedinthe2014survey.)Acrossthe41projects,anaverageof51%ofstudentsperprojectcompletedthesurvey.Alloftheprojectsinthestudyincludedresponsesfrom8ormorestudents.Projectswithfewerthan8participantswerenotincludedforfurtheranalysis.Onaverage,thesurveytookteachers7minutestocomplete,students3minutestocomplete,andcommunitypartners2minutestocomplete.MeasuresThestudymeasuresareresearcher-generatedandarelistedinAppendixA.Measuresweredesignedtocollectprojectinformationondesignandimplementationandtogenerateparticipantratingsontheextenttowhichprojectimplementationwasfeasibleandalignedtooutcomesofinterestinkeyareas.ProjectInformation:Throughopen-endedandforced-choicequestionsintheTeacherSurvey,teacherswereaskedtoprovideInformationonProjectImplementation.Theitemsincluded:

• thepurposeandgoalsoftheproject;• contextualcomponentsoftheproject(gradelevel,duration,cost,learning

standardscovered,numberofparticipants,projectplacementduringtheschoolday,whereacommunitypartnerjoinedtoproject);

ProjectsThatWork 6

• pre-projectactivities(e.g.,readingcontentonthetopic,presentationsonthetopic,researchonthetopic,discussionsonthelearninggoals,discussionsonimplementation);

• projectactivities(e.g.,theactionperformedduringtheprojectandtherecipientoftheproject);and

• post-projectactivities,(e.g.,assessmentorevaluationoflearningoutcomes,classroomdiscussions,student-ledpresentations,readingcontentonthetopic,studentscreatingproductstoshowcasewhatwasaccomplished,reflectivewriting,advocacytomakeachange).

Throughoneforced-choiceitemintheStudentSurvey,studentsprovidedaratingfortheextenttowhichtheywereinvolvedinplanningtheirproject,from1=verylittleto5=dideverything.ParticipantRatings:TheTeacher,Student,andCommunityPartnerSurveysincludeditemsaskingforaseriesofratings(from1=leastto5=greatest)inkeyareasofimplementationrelatedtoprojectcomponentsandactivities.Theitemsinclude:

• FeasibilitytoPlanandDotheProjectasanindicatoroftheextenttowhichparticipantswereabletodesignandimplementtheproject–themostbasicprerequisiteforanyservicelearningproject(providedbyTeachers,Students,andPartners)

• AlignmenttoLearningGoalsasanindicatoroftheextenttowhichtheprojectaddressedtheintendedlearninggoalsitsetouttocover(providedbytheTeacher)

• HowMuchStudentsPerceivedTheyLearnedasanindicatoroftheextenttowhichtheprojectprovidedlearningopportunitiesforstudents,aprincipleobjectiveofallservicelearningprojects(providedbyStudents)

• HowmuchofaDifferencetheProjectMadeInAddressingtheIssueasanindicatortowhichtheprojectprovidedopportunitiesforstudentstomakethedesiredimpactinthecommunity,withmakingadifferenceonarelevantcommunityissueaprincipleobjectiveofallservicelearningprojects(providedbyStudentsandPartners)

• OverallRatingasanindicatorofparticipants’impressionoftheprojectonawhole(providedbyTeachers,Students,andPartners).

AverageratingsforallitemsarepresentedinTable1.Ratingswereaboveaverage(3.49outof5)forallstudyitems,withratingsbyCommunityPartnerthehighest,followedbyTeacherratings,andStudentratings.Ofnote–projectswerewell-liked,asmorethan800studentsprovidedanOverallRatingoftheirprojecta4.17outof5,39teacherswhorespondedprovideda4.38outof5,and16partnerswhorespondedprovided4.67outof5.Whenexaminingratingsbyeachclassproject,30of41classprojectsand36of39teachersprovidedratingsof4(verygood)or5(excellent).TeacherRatingswerehighlycorrelatedtoStudentRatings,

ProjectsThatWork 7

asmorethanhalfofstudentswithascoreabove4hadateacherwhoscoredtheprojecta5.Thiscomparestoonlyonecasewhereateacherscoredtheprojecta5withstudentsprovidingaratinginthehigh3’s.Therewerenoprojectswherestudentsratedaprojecta2andteachersratedthesameprojecta5,orvice-a-versa.Students’averageratingsforFeasibilitytoPlanandDoprojectswasinverselycorrelatedwithaverageOverallRatings–studentswithloweraveragescoresonFeasibilityweremorelikelytoprovidehigherOverallRatings.Alternatively,Teacher’saverageratingforFeasibilitycorrelatedwithOverallRatings–teachersweremorelikelytoprovidehigherOverallRatingswhenprojectsweremoreFeasible.Thesefindingssuggestthatstudentsenjoyedprojectsmorewhentheywerechallengedtoplananddotheirproject.Onaverage,Teachersprovidedascoreof4.38outof5forAlignmenttoLearningStandards,indicatingahighlevelofagreementamongteachersthatprojectscoveredlearninggoals.Acrossallstudentsinthestudy,studentsaveragescoreforinvolvementinplanningtheirprojectwas3.49outof5.(NOTE:thisitemwasaddedtothesurveyin2016,hencedataisonlyavailablefrom14projects.)NOTE:Duetolownumberofcommunitypartnerswhoparticipatedinprojectsandprovidedresponsestothequestionnaire,datafromcommunitypartnerparticipantsarenotincludedinthefindings.FutureProjectsThatWorkresearchwillmorefullyexaminewhetherandhowCommunityPartnerratingsrelatetostudentandteacherratings,andwillseektotriangulatefindingsacrossthethreegroupsofprojectsparticipants,includingstudents,teachers,andpartners.Table1.ParticipantAverageRatingsforKeyMeasures Feasibility

ofPlanningandDoing

MadeaDifference

PerceivedLearning

OverallRating

AlignmenttoLearningGoals

InvolvedinPlannedtheProject

Students(n=872) 3.82 3.72 3.80 4.17 -- 3.49Teachers(n=39) 4.15 - - 4.38 4.38 --Partners(n=16) 4.67 4.28 - 4.64 -- --AnalyticStrategyandResearchQuestionsThe41school-basedservicelearningprojectsincludedinWave1wereimplementedaroundthecountryinmiddleandhighschoolsduringcoreclasses,supplementalclasses,orthroughafter-schoolclubs.Theprojectsallfollowedastage-basedmodelfromstarttofinish,andengagedstudentsinanarrayofactivitiesaddressingmanyissuesincommunitiesandschools.Certaintypesofprojectsweredonemultipletimes,suchasschoolgardenprojectsorcollect/donateforacauseprojects,whileothersweredoneonlyoneortwotimes.

ProjectsThatWork 8

Withastudyfocustodeterminevariationinprojectexperiencesbasedonimplementation,studentratingsareaggregatedattheindividualclassprojecttypelevel.Ineachsection,ratingsforitemsrelatedtoimplementationareexaminedbythepresenceorabsenceofprojectcomponentsandactivities.TheoverarchingresearchquestionsinWave1andaddressedinthisWhitePaperfocusedonthefollowing:

• Whataresomeoftheservicelearningprojectsbeingdoneinschoolsaroundthecountry?Whatarecomponentsandactivitiesoftheseprojectsandhowdidimplementationoccur?

• Whatprojectcomponentsandactivitiesrelatetokeyratingsforimplementation,includingfeasibilitytoplananddoprojects,forperceivedlearning,andformakingadifferenceinaddressingtheissue?

FindingsfromWave1aredescriptiveandarepresentedastrendsbyassessingtherelationshipbetweenparticipantratingsbythevariationsinthecomponentsandactivitiesusedtoimplementprojects.Duetothelownumberofprojectsonwhichdatawerecollected,noanalyseswereconductedtoexaminestatisticallymeaningfuldifferencesinparticipantratingsbyvariationsintheimplementationofservicelearningprojects.DataintheFindingssectionbelowarearrangedtoexaminequestionsabouttheimplementationofservicelearningprojectsasfollows.Section1presentsinformationaboutthe41servicelearningprojects.Section2examinestrendsinprojectimplementationacrossall41projectsaggregatedtogether.Section3examinesdifferencesinprojectimplementationbetweenstudentsengagedinoneprojectactivity(collect/donateforacause)andallotherprojects.And,Section4examinesdifferencesinprojectimplementationwithinonly14projectswherestudentsengagedinoneactivity(collect/donateforacause).Withineachsection,findingsarepresentedbyhowservicelearningprojectswereimplementedinfourareas,including:a)contextualcomponents,b)pre-projectactivities,c)projectactivities,andd)post-projectactivities.

ProjectsThatWork 9

FINDINGSSECTION1OverviewofProjectsInWave1,all41projectsweredoneinmiddleandhighschoolswithinacademiccourses(e.g.,math,science,languagearts),electiveorspecialtycourses(e.g.,leadership,servicelearning),orasafter-schoolactivities.Allprojectsfollowedastage-basedmodelofimplementation.Teachers(andstudents2)selectedaproject,engagedinactivitiestodesignandpreparefortheproject,performedservicetoaddressaneedinthecommunityorwithintheschool,andconductedpost-servicereflectionanddisseminationactivities.Althoughallprojectsincludeddefinedstages,therewaswidevariabilityinthetypesofprojectsthatweredone(seeTable1)andinthecomponentsandactivitiesusedtoimplementprojectsfromstarttofinish(seeSection2).Table1.Overviewofservicelearningprojects,includingthegradelevelandcourse,andduration# ProjectDescription GradeLevel(MSorHS)

andCourseDuration(Days)

1 Studentsraisedthreatenedanimals(greenabalone,white-seabass)tobetaggedandreleasedintothewild,inordertorestorethepopulation.

MSEnvironmentalEngineering

180

2 Studentsdesignedandmadegreenhousesfromrecycledbottles,fundraised,andconductedawarenesscampaign.

HSExploringGlobalIssues

80

3 Studentsusedahydroponicssystemtocreatevegetablesandfish,withproducetoaddresshungerinthelocalcommunityandtopromotesustainablefarming.

MSAgriculture 6

4 Studentsresearchedandthenbuiltraisedgardenbedsfortheirschool,whichfutureclassesadoptingportionstomaintain.

MSAfterschoolSTEMclub

22

5 Studentsrananawarenesscampaigntopromoteteendrivingsafetytoavoidthedeadlybehaviors.

HSLeadership/ServiceLearning

40

6 Studentsbuiltaschoolgardenandgrewplants. MSScience N/A7 Studentsgrewacommunitygardenatschool,andprovided

theplantstocommunitymembersandtothelocalfoodbank.

N/A N/A

8 Studentsresearchedandplantedtrees,andconductedanawarenesscampaign.

MSLifeScience

9 Students'learnedaboutandthenpromotedorgandonation.

HSHealth 80

10 Studentsconductedresearchandeducationaloutreachonwar.

HSEnglish 30

11 Studentsresearchedandledarecyclingproject,includingawarenessonenvironmentalsustainability.

HSAquaponicsandSustainability

40

12 Studentsgrewplantsinacommunitygarden,andlearned HSScience 452Informationwasnotprovidedonwhetherstudentswereinvolvedinselectingtheproject.FutureProjectsThatWorkresearchwillexaminehowinvolvedstudentswereinselectingtheirproject.

ProjectsThatWork 10

aboutgrowingfoodandhealthyeating.13 Studentsresearchedandpresentedonsocialissues. HSSocialStudies 1914 Studentsranasportsclinictoteachandmentorelementary

schoolstudentstobeactiveandhealthy.HSLeadership

15 Studentsdesignedandbuiltaschoolgarden,andplannedforitssustainability.

MSScience 100

16 Studentstutoredyoungerelementaryschoolchildreninreading.

MSLanguageArts 10

17 Studentscreatedandmailedcarepackagestomembersofthemilitary.

MSEnglish 25

18 Studentsledapantryforfoodinsecurestudents,andledacarwashfundraisertosupportthepantry.

HS 40

19 Studentsinterviewedandvideotapedofveteransandconductededucationaloutreachonconflictresolution.

HSCross-curricular:ELA,Lifeskills,SocialStudies

54

20 Studentsraisedthreatenedanimals(greenabalone,white-seabass)totagandreleaseintothewildtorestoretheirhabitat.

MSLifeScience 160

21 Studentsconductedresearch,raisedawareness,andfundraisedontheissueofclimatechange.

HSBiology 160

22 Studentsconductedresearch,raisedawarenessonthetopicofbullying.

HSSociology 5

23 Studentsraisedchickenstoproducefresheggs,whichwerethendonatedtomembersofthecommunity.

MSAgriculture 90

24 Studentsmaintainedanaturalhabitatforbirdsandcreatedadocumentarytoraiseawareness.

HSEnvironmentalscience

120

25 Studentscreatedaphotographyexhibitfeaturingveteranswithsubstanceabusedifficulties.

HSPhotography 14

26 Studentsledacollectiontodonatefortheneedy. HSLeadership 227 Studentshelpedstrayanimalsbycollectingdonations.

Studentsalsomadecattoys.MSMathematics 100

28 Studentsaddressedhungerbypackingsuppliesanddistributingtoschoolswithneedystudents;andraisedmoneyforhungerorganizingfun-runsatThanksgivingandEaster.

MSSchoolClub 36

29 Studentscreated"welcome"carepackagesforCoastGuardmembersandtheirfamilieswhonewlymovedtotheircommunity.

MSTechnologyIntegration

180

30 Studentscreatedclothing(mittens,scarves,hats,andlinedponchos)andthendonatedtohomeless.

HSFiberandFabricDesign

35

31 StudentsresearchedthewatercrisisinFlint,Michigan,andcollected/donatedwatertothecause.

MSELA 20

32 StudentsassistedthirdgradestrugglingreaderswithreachingproficiencybyintroducingthemtotheimportanceoftextselectionandengagingtheminaPositiveBasedInterventionStrategythatincludedanincentivizedreadinginitiativetoassistthemwithreachingtheirreadinggoals.

MSAfterSchoolBookClub

80

33 Studentsraisedawarenessaboutthedangersofdistracteddriving.

HSServicelearning 30

34 Studentsraisedawarenessaboutthedangersofdistracteddriving.

HSServicelearning 30

35 Studentsorganizedacommunityfun-runtoraisemoneyforaninternationalcharity.

HSLeadership 30

ProjectsThatWork 11

36 Studentsassistteacherswithtechnologyandothertasksinclassrooms.

MSExploringITCareers 5

37 Studentsworkingonbuildingclass-widePublicServiceAnnouncementonmachinestospreadthemessageabouthealthyeatingandtheconsequencesofeatingfastfoodand/orprocessedfood;aswellasexercise.

HSCross-disciplinary,EnglishandPhysics

38 Studentsledaneducationcampaignaboutrightsandacollection/donationfortheneedy.

MSELA 5

39 Studentscollectedanddonatedclothesforthoseinneedatlocalmissionsandsocialserviceorganizations.

MSSemesterofservice 60

40 Studentscollectedanddonatedclothesforthoseinneedatlocalmissionsandsocialserviceorganizations.

MSSemesterofservice 60

41 StudentsraisedmoneyforInternationalorganizationbyorganizinga5Kwalk,anorganizationthatbringscleanwatertolessdevelopednations.

HSSchoolandCommunityLeadership

20

ProjectsThatWork 12

SECTION2TRENDSINIMPLEMENTATIONACROSSALL41PROJECTSSection2presentsfindingsaggregatedacrossall41projectstoexaminetrendsinhowimplementationoccurred,andtounderstandhowthepresenceorabsenceofcomponentsandactivitiesrelatedtoparticipantratings.ContextualComponentsGradeLevelOfthe41projects,22weredoneinHighSchoolsettingsand19weredoneinMiddleSchoolsettings.TrendsWhenExaminingParticipantRatingsbyGradeLevel

! TeachersprovidedhigherratingsforfeasibilitytoplananddoprojectswithHighSchoolstudentswhencomparedtoMiddleSchoolStudents(4.21v4.08).

! Whencomparingbygradelevels,studentsinMiddleSchoolprovidedhigherratingsOverall(4.25v4.10)andforMakingaDifference(3.84v3.60)comparedtohighschool.

Table2.Projectgradelevelbyratings Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Learn Difference

MiddleSchool(n=19projects) 4.08 3.84 4.25 3.76 3.84HighSchool(n=21projects) 4.21 3.80 4.10 3.82 3.60ProjectParticipantsTeachersparticipatedin100%ofprojects(41of41).85%ofstudentsreporteddoingtheirprojectwithfellowclassmates,whereas15%reporteddoingtheprojectalone.(Note:Alloftheprojectsweredonewithinaclassorafterschoolclub,henceitwasnotanticipatedthatstudentswouldreportdoingprojectsalone).Individualsfromcommunityorganizationsparticipatedin78%oftheprojects(283of364).Suchindividualsoftenprovidedexpertiseandcontentknowledgetotheprojectontheissuebeingaddressedandaswellarecognizednameofacommunityorganization.TrendsWhenExaminingParticipantRatingsbyProjectParticipants

! Teachersprovidedhigherscoresforfeasibilitytoplananddotheprojectwhenacommunitypartnerjoinedtheprojectcomparedtowhenapartnerdidnotjoin(4.21v3.81).

! Studentswhodidaprojectwithclassmatesandacommunitypartnerhadhigherratingsonallitemscomparedtostudentswhodidaprojectwithjustclassmates

316of28partnersprovidedQuestionnaires.4Datawasnotprovidedforallprojectsonwhetherapartnerparticipated.

ProjectsThatWork 13

oralone.Alongthoselines,studentswhodidtheprojectwithclassmates(andnocommunitypartner)hadhigherratingsforalloftheitems(exceptperceivedlearning)whencomparedtostudentswhoreporteddoingtheprojectalone.

Table3:Ratingsbywhetherstudentsreporteddoingtheirprojectalone,withclassmates,orwithclassmatesandcommunitypartners Student

FeasibilityOverallRating

Difference Learn

Alone(n=124students) 3.72 3.80 3.31 3.82WithJustClassmates(n=112students)

3.80 4.14 3.51 3.77

WithClassmatesandPartner(n=634students)

3.88 4.26 3.88 4.02

ProjectPlacementduringtheDayProjectswereimplementedthroughdifferentcoursesandatdifferenttimesoftheschoolday.Morespecifically,56%ofprojects(22of41)weredoneinacorecourse(e.g.,Math,Science,History,EnglishLanguageArts);36%(14of41)weredoneinanelectiveorspecialtycourse(e.g.,coursessuchasLeadership,Servicelearning,Innovation,Technology),and8%weredonethroughanafterschoolclub(e.g.,BookClub,KeyClub).TrendsWhenExaminingParticipantRatingsbyProjectPlacementDuringtheDay:

! Studentswhodidprojectsinanelectiveorspecialtycourseprovidedhigherratingsonmakingadifference(3.82v3.54)andoverallrating(4.21v4.09)whencomparedtostudentswhodidprojectsduringacorecourse.

! Atthesametime,studentswhoparticipatedinprojectsinacorecourseprovidedhigherratingsforperceivedlearning(3.83v3.71)whencomparedtostudentswhodidprojectsinanelectiveorspecialtycourse.

! Teachersandstudentsprovidedhigherratingsforfeasibilitytoplananddowhendoingaprojectinanelectiveorspecialtycoursethaninacorecourse.Inotherwords,servicelearningwasmoredifficulttointegratewithincorecourses.

Table3.Participantratingsbywhenprojectwasemployed Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Learning Difference

CoreCourse(n=22) 3.95 3.75 4.09 3.83 3.54SpecialtyCourses(n=14)

4.30 3.89 4.21 3.71 3.82

AfterSchool(n=3) 4.72 3.99 4.68 3.78 4.47IntendedLearningGoalsTeachersreportedthattheintendedlearninggoalsofservicelearningprojectsalignedtocoreacademiclearningstandards(e.g.,CommonCoreorNextGenerationScienceStandards)in47%oftheprojects(18of38);21stCenturySkills(e.g.,creativity,cooperation,careerskills)in39%oftheprojects(14of38);andtootherornooutcomesin14%oftheprojects(6of38).

ProjectsThatWork 14

Further,ofthe21teacherswhoemployedprojectsduringacorecourse,63%(13of21)reportedthatthatthelearninggoalsalignedtoacademiclearningstandards;33%(7of21)reportedthatthelearninggoalsalignedoutcomesto21stCenturySkills,and(4%)1of21reportedthattheprojectalignedtonoorotherstandards.Acrossthe13projectsdoneinSpecialtyCourses,30%(4of13)ofprojectswerealignedtoacademiclearningstandards,47%(6of13)alignedto21stCenturylearninggoals,and22%(3of13)alignedtootherornostandards.TrendsWhenExaminingIntendedLearningGoalsByParticipantRatings

! Teachersandstudentsprovidedhigherratingsforfeasibilitytoplananddoprojectsthatdidnotaligntoacademiclearningstandardscomparedtoprojectsthatdidaligntostandards.

! Studentswhoparticipatedinprojectsthatalignedtoacademiclearningstandardsprovidedhigherratingsoverall,fordifference,andforperceivedlearning,comparedtoprojectsthatdidnotaligntoacademicstandards.

Inotherwords,participantsreportedthatprojectsthatcoveredacademiclearningcontentandthatwereinacorecourseweremoredifficulttoplananddo.However,studentsreportedlearningmoreandmakingagreaterdifferenceduringprojectsthatalignedtoacademicstandardscomparedtoprojectsthatdidnotaligntostandards.Table4:Ratingsbylearninggoalstowhichtheprojectaligned Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Learn Difference

AlignAcademicStandards(n=18)

3.88 3.72 4.24 3.88 3.81

Alignto21stCenturySkills(n=14)

4.26 3.95 4.14 3.79 3.60

NoAlignment(n=6) 4.70 4.00 4.11 3.58 3.86

ProjectDurationTheprojectsvariedinduration,with17%(6of36)lessthan5days;28%(10of36)between6and20days,and56%(20of36)morethan21days,withsomelastingallschoolyear.TrendsWhenExaminingParticipantRatingsByProjectDuration

! Studentswhoperformedmid-andlong-termprojectshadhigherratingsforperceivedlearningandmakingadifferencethanstudentswhoperformedShort-termprojects.

! StudentsandTeachersinvolvedinShorter-termprojectsprovidedhigherratingsforfeasibilitytoplananddo.

ProjectsThatWork 15

Table5:Ratingsbyprojectduration

TeacherFeasibility

StudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Learn Difference

Short-term,5daysorless(n=6)

4.08 4.01 4.16 3.61 3.63

Mid-term,20daysorless(n=10)

4.15 3.73 4.12 3.71 3.84

Long-term,morethan20(n=20)

4.21 3.86 4.20 3.79 3.81

ProjectCostThecost($)oftheprojectsvaried,withaboutathirdlessthan$800,athirdbetween$800and$2000,andathirdabove$2000.Withanaveragecostof$883andmanyprojectsspentbelow$300,veryfewprojectsinthisstudyreportedusingthefull$5,000forprojectcosts.Therewerenotrendstoreportinparticipantratingsbythecostoftheproject.Pre-ProjectComponentsStudentInvolvementinPlanningtheProjectAllstudentswereaskedhowmuchtheywereinvolvedinplanningtheirprojectonascalefrom1=noplanningto5=dideverything.20%ofstudentsreportedtheywerealittleinvolved;50%indicatedtheywereinvolvedamoderateamount,and25%reporteddoingeverythingtoplantheproject.Therewasvariabilityamongstudentsinthesameclassdoingthesameprojectwhenrespondingtothisquestion–somestudentsreporteddoingeverythingwhileothersdoingthesameprojectreporteddoingonlyalittle.TrendsWhenExaminingParticipantRatingsByStudentInvolvementInPlanning:

! WhenstudentsprovidedhigherratingsforbeinginvolvedinPlanningtheProject,theyprovidedhigherratingsforFeasibilityofPlanningandDoing,Overall,forLearning,andforMakingaDifference.

Pre-ProjectActivitiesAllteachersreportedthattheirprojectsincludedoneormoreformofpre-projectactivity,aslistedinTable6.Ofthe7pre-projectactivitieslistedinTable6,theaveragenumberofactivitiesperprojectwas5.15outof7.Lookingatthedataanotherway,70%(27of39)ofteacherswhorespondedtothissetofquestionsindicatedthattheirprojectemployed5ormoreofthesepre-projectactivities.Ofnote,85%ofprojectseachdidresearchonthetopic,discussedlearninggoals,anddiscussedimplementation.

ProjectsThatWork 16

Table6.ActivitiespriortotheserviceactivitybeginningStudentsconductedresearchonthetopic 85%(33of39)Studentreadcontent 72%(28of39)Teacherpresentedonthetopic 72%(28of39)Communitypartnerpresentedonthetopic 49%(19of39)Studentspresentedonthetopic 64%(25of39)Learninggoalswerediscussed 85%(33of39)Projectimplementationwasdiscussed 85%(33of39)TrendsWhenExaminingParticipantRatingsByPre-ProjectPlanningActivitiesOverall,therewerefewtrendstoreportwhencomparingprojectsthatemployedmorepre-projectactivitiestothosethatemployedless.

! Amongtrendstonote–classprojectsthatincludedreadingcontentontheissuepriortotheprojectprovidedhigherratingsforperceivedlearningwhencomparedtostudentswhodidnotpreparebyreading(3.86v3.59).

Table7:Ratingsbypre-projectreadingcontentalignedtotheproject

TeacherFeasibility

StudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Learn Difference

Yes(n=28) 4.12 3.86 4.17 3.86 3.72No(n=11) 4.29 3.73 4.20 3.59 3.68

StepsTakentoImplementProjectsThroughanopen-endedquestionintheTeacherSurvey,teachersdetailedthestepstakentoplananddotheproject.Afterallstudydatawascollected,theresearchercategorizedeachteacher’swrittenresponsebywhethertheresponse:(a)providedverydetailedinformationonthestepstakentoimplementaprojector(b)providedlessdetailedinformation.Inall,30teachersprovidedverydetailedinformationand11ofteachersprovidedlessdetailedinformation.TrendsWhenExaminingParticipantRatingsByMoreorLessDetailsonImplementation:

! Whenteachersprovidedmoredetailedinformationcomparedtolessdetailedinformationonstepstoimplementtheproject,bothteachers(4.21v4.00)andstudents(3.86v3.69)providedhigherratingsforfeasibilityofplanninganddoingtheproject.

Table8.Ratingsforwhenteachersprovidedmoredetailedinformationonimplementation Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Learn Difference

LessImplementationDetails(n=11)

4.00 3.69 4.08 3.77 3.67

MoreImplementationDetails(n=18)

4.21 3.86 4.20 3.81 3.74

ProjectsThatWork 17

ProjectComponentsStudentsEngagedinServiceActivitiesThecentralcomponentofallservicelearningprojectsisstudentsengaginginanactivitytoaddressaneedandintegratingtheexperiencewithinanacademiccontext.Asdetailedbelow,100%ofprojects(41of41)includedanactivity(e.g.,serving,collectinganddonating,building,planting)withadefinedgoaltoaddressaneedofarecipient(e.g.youngstudent,individualinneed)oracause(e.g.,theenvironment,collectingclothesforthehomelessoracollectionformilitaryfamilies).Alloftheprojectswereintegratedwithinanacademicsettingwithinacourseorasanafter-schoolactivity.MainAreas&ProjectTypeAcodingschemewascreatedtocategorizetheMainAreaofFocusforeachthe41projects.ThemostcommonMainAreasincludedEnvironmental(10of41,24%),SocialService(8of41;20%),SchoolGarden(6of41;15%),andPublicHealth(6of41;15%).Tofurtheridentifythenatureoftheservicelearningexperience,theresearcherdeterminedthatstudentsengagedin22differentProjectTypes.ThemostcommonprojecttypewastoCollect/DonateforaCause.Table9.ProjectareasandtypesAreasofFocus N= ProjectTypesEnvironment 10 habitatrestoration(1);sustainablefarming(4);recycling(1);

climatechange(1);planningtrees(1);causefortheenvironment(2)

SocialService 9 servingdinnertofoodinsecureatasoupkitchen(1);collectinganddonatingforthoseinneed(8);

SchoolGarden 6 BuildingandgrowingaschoolgardenPublicHealth 6 Safedrivingawareness(3);bullyingprevention(1);healthy

eating(1);organdonation(1)Educational 3 Readingtutortoyoungerchildren(2);coachingyoung

childrenonsportsandphysicalhealth(1)Veteran/Military 3 interviewingofveterans(2);carepackagesforveterans(1);General 2 helpingstrayanimals(1);rightscampaign(1);PeaceStudies 1 conflictresolutiontraining(1);Functional 1 teacherassistant(1)TrendsinParticipantRatingsbyAreasofFocus

! TeachersandstudentsprovidedlowerratingsforfeasibilitytoplananddoSchoolGardenprojects,perhapsreflectingthechallengeofbuildingagarden,andgrowinganddistributingplantswithinaninstructionalcontext.

! StudentswhoparticipatedinprojectsintheareaofPublicHealth(suchasbullyingpreventionanddrivingawareness)hadthehighestoverallrating,andhigherthanaveragescoresforperceivedlearninganddifference.

! Studentswhoparticipatedinprojectareasthatdirectlyservedthoseinneed(suchasbyservingthehomelessorveterans)providedhigherratingsOverallandfordifference,butnotforperceivedlearning.

ProjectsThatWork 18

! StudentswhoparticipatedinprojectsthatfocusedontheEnvironmentreportedlowerratingsoverall,forperceivedlearning,andforhowmuchdifferencetheprojectmade.

! StudentsinMiddleSchoolandHighSchoolengagedinsimilarprojecttypeswithoneexception–sixHighSchoolprojectsfocusedonPublicHealthissues(e.g.,safedriving,bullying)comparedtozeroMiddleSchoolprojects.

Table10.Studentratingsbyareaoffocus Teacher

FeasibilityStudentsFeasibility

Rating Learn Difference

Environment(n=10) 4.31 3.76 3.98 3.75 3.51

SchoolGarden(n=6) 3.80 3.54 4.24 3.93 3.95PublicHealth(n=6) 4.25 3.86 4.28 3.95 3.82

PeaceStudies(n=1) 3.50 3.56 4.11 4.05 2.95

Education(n=3) 4.33 3.96 4.35 3.92 3.96Veterans/Military(n=3)

4.08 4.26 4.49 4.10 4.04

SocialService(n=6) 4.27 3.93 4.27 3.70 3.93

Other(n=3) 4.00 3.50 3.63 3.40 3.06Functional(n=1) 4.00 3.82 4.17 3.79 3.72

MainActivityDuringProjectAcodingschemecategorizedaMainActivityforeachoftheprojectsthroughwhichstudentsengaged.Inall,therewereninedifferentMainActivitiesacrossthe41projects,withthehighestnumberofprojectsincludingthemainactivitytoCollect/DonatefollowedbyEducationalAwarenessCampaigns.Table11.MainactivityduringtheprojectCollecting/Donating 34%(14of41)EducationalAwarenessCampaign 22%(9of41)Raisinganimals(fish,chickens) 12%(5of41)Buildstructureandgrewplants 10%(4of41)Tutor,Coach,Mentor 7%(3of41)Growingplants 5%(2of41)Directservicetoothersinneed 5%(2of41)Teacherassistance 2%(1of41)Habitatrestoration 2%(1of41)ProjectRecipientAcodingschemecategorizedtheRecipientforeachoftheprojectsthroughwhichstudentsengaged.Inall,therewere9differenttypesofRecipientsacrossthe41projects,withthehighestnumberofprojectsforSchoolcommunitymembers(e.g.,classmates),Thoseinneed,andtheEnvironment.

ProjectsThatWork 19

Table12.MainrecipientoftheprojectSchoolcommunitymembers(e.g.,peers) 22%(9of41)Thoseinneed 22%(9of41)Environment 22%(9of41)Communityingeneral 12%(5of41)Veterans/Military 10%(4of41)Children 7%(3of41)InternationalCharity 4%(2of41)Animals 2%(1of41)Teachers 2%(1of41)

Post-ProjectComponents

Post-ProjectActivities100%ofprojects(41of41)includedoneormoreformofpost-serviceactivity,duringwhichstudentsreflectedontheexperienceordisseminatedinformation.Highlightsfrompost-projectactivitiesinclude:95%oftheclassesandafterschoolclubsdiscussedtheproject;71%ofprojectsincludedapost-projectassessmenttodetermineiflearninggoalsweremet;and50%ofprojectsincludedpresentationoractivitywherestudentsledoutreachtoschoolorcommunitymembers.Onaverageacrossallprojects,teacher’sreportedthattheprojectemployed3.89oftheseactivitiesoutof8.Table13.Post-projectreflectionactivitiesClassdiscussed/assessedwhatwaslearned 71%(27of38)Classdiscussedtheproject 95%(36of38)Studentspresentedtotheclass 47%(18of38)Studentspresentedtomembersoftheschool 43%(16of37)Studentspresentedtomembersofthecommunity 38%(14of37)Studentsreadcontent 24%(9of38)Studentsdidreflectivewriting 42%(16of38)Studentsconductedadvocacyontheissue 32%(12of38)TrendsWhenExaminingParticipantRatingsByPost-ProjectActivities:

! Studentsinclassesthatincludedanactivitywithaclass-widediscussionandthatassessedandevaluatedtheprojectreportedhigherscoresforoverallrating,perceivedlearning,anddifference,comparedtoprojectsthatdidnotincludeadiscussion.

Table14.Ratingsbypost-projectclassdiscussionandassessment Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Learn Difference

None(n=11) 4.16 3.92 4.06 3.67 3.58

Yes(n=27) 4.09 3.80 4.21 3.83 3.77

! Studentsinclassesthatconcludedtheprojectbyreadingcontentrelatedtothe

issuereportedhigheroverallratings,perceivedlearning,anddifference,than

ProjectsThatWork 20

studentswhodidnotconcludebyreading.Table15:Ratingsbypost-projectreadingcontentthatrelatedtotheissue Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

Rating Learn Difference

None(n=29) 3.81 3.81 4.13 3.74 3.62

Yes(n=9) 3.93 3.93 4.30 3.95 4.03

CreatingaPost-ProjectProductandDoingOutreachTheresearchercreatedacodingschemetodetermineprojectsthatincludedapost-projectactivityofcreatingaproduct(e.g.,article,presentation,video)thatstudentsthendisseminatedtotheschoolorcommunitytoraiseawareness.44%ofprojects(18of41)includedthistypeofactivity.TrendsWhenExaminingEducationalAwarenessCampaignsbyParticipantRatings

! ForprojectswhichincludedanEducationalAwarenessCampaign,studentsprovidedhigherratingsoverallandforperceivedlearningcomparedtoprojectsthatdidnot.

! Itisnotedthattherewerenodifferencesinteacherorstudentratingsforfeasibilitytoplanordotheseprojects.

Table16.Scoresforpost-projecteducationalawarenessactivities Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

Rating Learn Difference

NoEducationalAwareness(n=23)

4.18 3.80 4.12 3.67 3.75

YesEducationalAwareness(n=18)

4.12 3.84 4.25 3.96 3.68

ProjectsThatWork 21

SECTION3TrendsinImplementationWhenComparingOneTypeofProject(Collect/Donate)withAllOthersSection3ofthisreportcomparestheimplementationbetween14projectswherestudentsengagedinthesameactivity,toCollect/DonateforaCause–andallotherprojectactivities.InCollect/Donateprojects,studentscollectedfoodorclothesormoneyforthoseinneed,raisedmoneyfortheenvironment(toprovidewaterindevelopingcountries),ordonatedcarepackagesforveteransandmembersofthemilitaryoverseas.InCollect/Donateprojects,studentswerelesslikelytohaveadirectface-to-faceinteractionwiththerecipientoftheservice.Thepurposeofcomparingcollect/donateprojectsversusallothersistodetermineiftherearedifferencesinthecomponentsandactivitiesusedtoimplementonetypeofprojectversusotherprojectsattheaggregatelevel.ContextualComponentsGradeLevel

! ProjectsdoneinMiddleSchoolsettingsweremorelikelytodoCollect/DonateprojectsthanprojectsdoneinHighSchool.Specifically,43%ofprojects(8of19)inMiddleSchoolsweretoCollect/Donatecomparedto28%(6or21)ofHighSchoolprojectswhereCollect/Donatewasdone.

Participants

! 75%(9of12)ofCollect/DonateprojectsinvolvedaCommunityPartnerExpert-asimilarpercentagetoallotherprojects.

ProjectPlacement

! Collect/Donateprojectsweremorelikelytobedoneinelectiveorspecialtyclassesandwerelesslikelytobedoneincorecourses,comparedtoallotherprojects.Morespecifically,50%(7of14)ofprojectsdoneinelectiveorspecialtycoursesweretoCollect/Donate,comparedto27%(6of22)ofprojectsdoneincorecourses.

IntendedLearningGoals

! Collect/Donateprojectswerelesslikelytoaligntoacademiclearningstandardscomparedtoallotherprojects.Morespecifically,36%of(5of14)ofCollect/Donateprojectsalignedtoacademiclearningstandards,comparedtoallotherprojectswhere54%(13of24projects)alignedtostandards.

Duration

ProjectsThatWork 22

! TherewerefewdifferencesbetweenCollect/Donateprojectscomparedtoothersforprojectduration.Morespecifically,14%(2of14)ofCollect/Donateprojectswereshort-term,29%(4or14)weremiddlelength,and57%(8of14)werelong-term.

Cost

! Therewerenotrendstoreportrelatedtocost.Pre-ProjectActivities

! Collect/Donateprojectsincludedfewerpre-projectactivitiesthanallotherprojects(seeTable17).Specifically,Collect/Donateprojectsaveraged4.64activitiesoutof7;comparedtoallotherprojectsthataveraged5.92activitiesoutof7.Lookingatthedataanotherway,50%(7of14)ofCollect/Donateprojectsincluded5ormoreactivitiestopreparefortheproject,whereas82%(20of24)ofallotherprojectsincludedmorethan5activities.

! Collect/Donateprojectswerelesslikelytoincludestudentsreadingcontentrelatedtotheissueandwerelesslikelytodiscussimplementationcomparedtoallotherprojects.

Table17.Activitiespriortotheprojectbeginning Collect/Donate OtherActivitiesStudentsconductedresearchonthetopic 93%(1of13) 80%(20of25)Studentreadcontent 64%(9of14) 84%(21of25)Teacherpresentedonthetopic 50%(7of14) 84%(21of25)Communitypartnerpresentedonthetopic 36%(5of14) 56%(14of25)Studentspresentedonthetopic 71%(10of14) 60%(15of25)Learninggoalswerediscussed 79%(11of14) 88%(22of25)Projectimplementationwasdiscussed 72%(10of14) 92%(23of25)ImplementationPlanning

! TeachersthatledCollect/Donateprojectswerelesslikely(57%;8of14)toprovidemoredetailedimplementationplanscomparedtoteacherswholedprojectswithotheractivities,ofwhom81%(22or27)ofprovidedmoredetailedimplementationplans.

StudentPlanning! StudentswhoengagedinCollect/Donateprojectswerelessinvolvedinplanning

theirprojectcomparedtostudentswhoperformedallotherprojects.Specifically,students’averagescoreforlevelofinvolvementinplanningforCollect/DonateProjectswas3.37outof5,comparedtostudentsprovidinga3.76outof5forallotherprojects.

ProjectActivities

ProjectsThatWork 23

! Table18liststheareasoffocusforprojectswherestudentsengagedinCollect/Donateactivities.Collect/DonateprojectsweremorelikelytofocusonSocialServiceissuescomparedtoallotherprojects.

Table18.Areasoffocusforcollect/donateprojectsandallotherprojectsAreasofFocus AllProjects

N=27CollectDonateProjectsN=14

Environment 10 3SocialService 9 6SchoolGarden 6 0PublicHealth 6 0Educational 3 0Veteran/Military 3 2General 2 3PeaceStudies 1 0Functional 1 0Post-ProjectActivities

! Collect/Donateprojectsincludedfewerpost-projectactivitiesthanallotherprojects(seeTable19).Specifically,whenaggregatingallPostProjectActivities,teachersreportedthatprojectswherestudentsdidCollect/Donateactivitiesconductedanaverageof3.64ofthe8activities,comparedtoallotherprojectsthatconductedanaverageof4.04outof8activities.

! 14%(2or14)Collect/Donateprojectsincludeddisseminationactivitiesthroughawarenesscampaignsthatincludedpublications,videos,orformalpresentations,comparedto67%(16of24)ofallotherprojectsthatincludedsuchactivities.

Table19.Post-projectactivitiesforclassesthatperformedcollect/donateprojectsandallotherprojects CollectDonate AllOtherProjectsClassdiscussed/assessedwhatwaslearned 64%(9of14) 75%(18of24)Classdiscussedtheproject 86%(12of14) 100%(24of24)Studentspresentedtotheclass 42%(6of14) 50%(12of24)Studentspresentedtomembersoftheschool 36%(5of13) 48%(11of24)Studentspresentedtomembersofthecommunity 21%(3of14) 48%(11of24)Studentsreadcontent 29%(4of14) 21%(5of24)Studentsdidreflectivewriting 64%(9of14) 29%(7of24)Studentsconductedadvocacyontheissue 21%(3of14) 38%(9of24)TrendsinParticipantRatingsBetweenCollect/DonateandAllOtherTypesofProjects

! TeacherandstudentswhoparticipatedinCollect/Donateprojectsreportedhigherratingforfeasibilitytoplananddotheprojectthanteachersandstudentswhodidotherprojects.

! StudentswhoparticipatedinCollect/Donateprojectsreportedlowerratingsforperceivedlearningthanstudentswhodidotherprojects.

ProjectsThatWork 24

Table20.Ratingsforprojectswherestudentscollect/donateversusallotherprojects Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Learning Difference

Collecting/Donating(n=14)

4.28 3.94 4.09 3.64 3.67

OtherProjects(n=27)

4.08 3.82 4.17 3.79 3.72

ProjectsThatWork 25

SECTION4TrendsWithinCollect/DonateProjectsSection4ofthisWhitePaperexaminesdifferencesinimplementationwithinonlythe14projectswherestudentsengagedinthesameactivity,toCollect/Donate.NOTE:Duetothelowsamplesize,Section4includesalimitednumberofitemsandcomparisons.Findingsareintendedtodemonstratethepotentialofexaminingwithinprojectdifferencesrelatedtoprojectcomponentsandactivitiesinimplementation.ContextualActivitiesGradeLevel:

! MiddleSchoolclassesweremorelikelytoconductCollect/DonateprojectsthanHighSchoolclasses.

! MiddleSchoolclasseswhoparticipatedinCollect/Donateprojectshadhigherscoresoverall,forperceivedlearning,anddifference,comparedtoHighSchoolclasses.

Table21:Scoresforprojectsthatinvolvedcollecting/donatingbygradeleveloftheparticipants Teacher Student Overall

RatingLearning Difference

MiddleSchool(n=8)

4.24 3.98 4.31 3.72 3.88

HighSchool(n=6)

4.33 3.90 3.79 3.55 3.40

Courses

! TeachersreportedthatCollect/DonateprojectsweremorefeasibletoplananddoinElectiveorSpecialtycoursescomparedtocorecourses.

! StudentswhoengagedinCollect/DonateactivitiesinaCoreCoursehadhigherratingsforperceivedlearning,butlowerratingformakingadifferencecomparedtostudentswhodidprojectsasanElectiveorSpecialtyCourse.

Table22:Scoresforcollect/donateprojectbythecoursetheprojectwasdonethrough Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Learning Difference

CoreCourse(n=6) 4.08 3.94 4.05 3.84 3.40ElectiveorSpecialtyCourse(n=8)

4.39 3.89 4.02 3.52 3.78

ProjectParticipants

ProjectsThatWork 26

! TeachersreportedCollect/Donateprojectsweremorefeasibletoplananddowhenacommunitypartnerparticipatedcomparedtowhenpartnersdonotparticipate.

! ProjectswherestudentsengagedinactivitiestoCollect/Donatewithacommunitypartnerhadhigherratingsforallofthemeasures.

Table23:Scoresforprojectstocollect/donatebywhetherapartnerjoinedtheproject Teacher

FeasibilityStudentFeasibility

OverallRating

Difference Learn

NoPartner(n=5) 3.66 3.90 3.95 3.46 3.67YesPartner(n=9) 4.32 4.03 4.28 3.70 3.86Pre-ProjectActivitiesStudentPlanning

! Studentswhoprovidedhigherscoresforbeinginvolvedinplanningtheirprojecthadhigheroverallratingsandhigherperceivedlearningthanstudentswhoprovidedlowerscoresforplanning.

ProjectActivities

! ProjectswherestudentsperformedCollect/DonateprojectsforVeteransorSocialService(e.g.,homeless,hungry)hadhigheroverallratingsandfordifferencecomparedtoprojectsfortheEnvironmentorGeneralCauses.

Table24:ScoresforprojectsthatinvolvedcollectinganddonatingbytherecipientofthecauseProjectstoCollect/Donateforacause(n=14)

TeacherFeasibility

StudentFeasibility

Rating Learn Difference

Environment(n=3) 3.76 3.89 3.88 3.61 3.32Veterans(n=2) 3.62 4.23 4.24 3.81 3.87

SocialService(n=6) 4.36 3.99 4.30 3.62 3.93

General(n=3) 3.92 3.42 3.52 3.31 3.06

Post-ProjectComponentsReadingPost-Project

! StudentswhodidCollect/Donateprojectsandconcludedtheprojectsbyreadingcontentrelatedtotheissuereportedhigheroverallratings,perceivedlearning,andmakingadifferencethanstudentswhodidnotconcludebyreading.

Table25:Scoresforcollect/donateprojectsbyratingsandpost-projectreading

PostProjectReading

TeacherFeasibility

StudentFeasibility Rating Learn Difference

No(n=9) 4.24 3.96 3.99 3.55 3.55

Yes(n=4) 4.37 3.90 4.33 3.87 3.99

ProjectsThatWork 27

CONCLUSIONThevastmajorityofresearchonschool-basedservicelearninghastraditionallyfocusedonmeasuringtherelationshipbetweentheexperienceandoutcomesderivedfromtheexperiencebystudentparticipants.ProjectsThatWorkoffersanewmodelofservicelearningresearch.Bysystematicallytrackingimplementationinanaturallyoccurringsampleofschools,thestudyexamineswhetherparticipantratingsvarybasedonthepresenceorabsenceofcomponentsandactivitiesusedtoimplementprojects.Thelonger-termgoalofthestudyistogeneratefindingsthatpractitionerscanusetoinformpracticeinnewprojects.Itishypothesizedservicelearningwillgaintractionasamoreviableandregularlyusededucationinterventionifdata-driveninformationisavailableonprojecttypesthatcanbefeasiblycarriedoutinaspecificcourse,withinformationonhowtheseprojectswereimplemented.Wave1findingsrevealedthatall41projectswere-bydefinition–“servicelearning.”Intheseprojects,classesdesignedandpreparedfortheprojectinanacademiccourseorafterschoolclub,performedservicetoaddressacommunityorschoolissue,andconductedpost-servicereflectionanddisseminationactivities.Whileallprojectsincludeddefinedstages,asanticipatedtherewasmeaningfulvariabilityintheimplementationfromstarttofinish.Afewdifferentexamplesinclude:classesperformedmanytypesofprojectsaddressingmanyissues,differentandvaryingdegreesofactivitieswereemployedtoprepareforandconcludeprojects,someprojectsexplicitlyaddressedacademiclearningoutcomeswhereasothersdidnot,andstudentswereinvolvedinactivitiestoplanandconcludeprojectsatdifferentlevels.(FutureProjectsThatWorkresearchwillexaminetheroleofstudentsinselectingtheproject.)Beyonddifferencesinhowprojectswereplannedandcarriedout,themajorfindingfromWave1isthatstudentandteacherratingsonkeyindicatorsofimplementationvariedbasedonthepresenceorabsenceofmostcomponentsandactivitiesusedtoimplementprojects.Thiswasthecasewhencomparingratingsacrossallprojectsaggregatedtogether,betweenonetypeofprojecttypeandallothers,andwhenexaminingwithinonetypeofprojectactivity.Thefindingiscongruentwiththepaststudiesshowingthatspecificprojectcomponentsandactivities,suchasthetype,duration,reflection,explicitalignmenttolearninggoals,definedroles,andtheinvolvementofacommunitypartner–affectimplementationandoutcomesderivedfromexperience(vanGoethemetal.,2014;Youniss&Yates,1997;Eyler&Giles,1999).Thefindingismeaningfulbecauseifprojectsarenotfeasibletoimplementoraremissingcomponentsoractivitiestheoreticalalignedtoyieldingkeyoutcomes–studentswillbelesslikelytobenefitfromormakethedesiredimpactduringtheservicelearningexperience.FeasibilitytoPlanandDoProjectsFocusingonfeasibilitytoplananddoprojectsfirst,researchtodatehasnotsystematicallyexaminedthedegreetowhichteachersandstudentsareabletofeasibly

ProjectsThatWork 28

implementservicelearningprojects,andwhatcomponentsrelatetoimprovedorworsenedfeasibility(Furco,2013).Simplystated,ifprojectsarenotfeasibletoplananddo,servicelearningcannotbesuccessful.Findingsrevealedthatwithonlyafewexceptions,teachersandstudentsreportedtheirprojectsweremostlyorhighlyfeasibletoplanandcarryout.Alongtheselinesas,itislikelythesefindingswereareflection(atleastinpart)ofthestudysample,granteesofYSAandStateFarmwhoalreadypossessedtheresources,support,andexpertisetofeasiblyimplementprojects.Furtherresearchisneededtoexaminefeasibilityforimplementingservicelearningamongschoolandteachersampleswithlessexperienceandfewerfinancialresources.Whilefeasibilityratingsweregenerallyhigh,severalnoteworthytrendsemergedrelatedtodifferencesinplanninganddoingprojects.Projectsweremorefeasiblewhenteachersprovidedstudentsmoredetailedinformationonimplementation,whenstudentsreadcontentontheissuepriortotheproject,andwhenacommunitypartnerorganizationjoinedtheproject.Further,studentswhoweremoreinvolvedinplanningtheprojectprovidedhigherratingsforfeasibility,perceivedlearning,andmakingadifference.Fromaprogrammaticstandpoint,thesetrendsallsupportpriorresearchthatprojectsaremorelikelytobesuccessfulwhenstudentsarepreparedwithkeyinformationontheissue,provideddetailsforwhatisneededtobedone,providedsupportfromadultexperts–butalsogivenexplicitopportunitiestoleadthemselves(Youniss&Yates,1997;Eyler&Giles,1999).Itisalsonotedthatonaverageprojectsincludedmorepre-projectactivitiesthanpost-projectactivities,possiblyreflectingalackoftimeattheconclusionoftheprojectforfullreflectionanddisseminationactivities.Thetypeofprojectalsorelatedtofeasibilityratings.Studentsandteacherswhoengagedincollect/donateprojectsreportedgreaterlevelsoffeasibilityforplanninganddoingprojects.Thisresultwaslikelyafunctionthatcollect/donateprojectsincludedfewerpre-andpost-projectactivitiesthanothertypesofprojects.Forexample,only14%ofcollect/donateprojectsincludeddisseminationactivitieswhereas67%ofallotherprojectsincludedsuchactivities.Further,studentsreportedbeinglessinvolvedinplanningcollect/donateprojectscomparedtoothers–indicatingthattheseprojectswereeasierforstudentstodo.Forteachers,fewercollect/donateprojectsalignedtoacademiclearningstandardsthanotherprojectsandincludedfewerstepstoimplement,likelyresultinginhigherratingforteacherfeasibility.Itisimportanttonotethatstudentswhoprovidedhigherratingforfeasibilityprovidedlowerratingsfortheprojectoverall.Inotherwords,whenstudentsreportedthatprojectswereeasiertoplananddo–theyreportedlikingtheprojectless.Thesefindingsdidnotholdforteachers–asprojectsthatwerethehighestratedforfeasibilityrelatedtohigheroverallteacherratings.Coupledwiththefindingthatstudentsprovidedhigherratingsforprojectsthattheyreportingbeingmoreinvolvedinplanninganddoing,thetrendssuggestthatstudentslikedtobechallengedandprovidedexplicit

ProjectsThatWork 29

rolesinplanninganddoingtheirprojects.Indesigningprojects,thisfindingsupportspriorresearchdemonstratingtheimportanceofabalancebetweenchallengingbutrealistictasksforstudentparticipants(Eyler&Giles,1999).PerceivedLearningandMakingaDifferenceBeyondthefeasibilityofimplementingaproject,themaingoalofallservicelearningprojectsistwofold–toprovidestudentsopportunitiestolearnacademiccontentandcriticalskillswhilealsomakingadifferenceinaddressingimportantcommunityissues.Acrossallprojects,studentratingsforperceivedlearningandmakingadifferenceinaddressingtheissuevariedbasedonthepresenceorabsenceofmanycomponentsandactivitieswhichthepriorliteraturepointtoasimportantfortheexperiencetobeimpactful.Priorresearchsupportstheessentialroleofreflectionactivitiesinacrosstheproject,includingpreparingfor,duringtheactivity,andrecappingtheexperience.Reflectionfocusesstudentsonideasandframestheirexperienceinlightofstatedlearningobjectives(vanGoethemetal.,2014;Billig,2009;Hatcher,Bringle,&Muthiah,2004).Acrossallprojectsandwhenlookingonlyatcollect/donatetypesofprojects,studentsprovidedhighestratingsforperceivedlearningandformakingadifferencewhenpre-andpost-projectactivitiesincludedreadingcontentrelatedtotheissue,whentheclassdiscussedandevaluatedtheprojectafterward,andwhenstudentscreatedproductsanddisseminatedinformationtopeersandmembersofthecommunity.Forprojectdesignpurposes,itisimportantthatthequantityofreflectionactivitiesdidnotrelatetohigherratings,asstudentswhoparticipatedinprojectswithmoreactivitiesdidnotperceivelearningmoreormakingagreaterdifferencethanthosewhodidprojectswithlessactivities.Ratheritwasthepreciseformofreflectionactivity(e.g.,readingacademiccontent,classroomdiscussions)thatlikelyexposedandengagedstudentsincontentanddevelopmentalopportunitiesthatmatteredmost(Youniss&Yates,1997;Billig&Weah,2008;Eyler&Giles,1999).Aswell,thecombinationofprivatereflection(throughreadingcontent),classroomdiscussionswithpeersandadults,anddisseminationandoutreachofideasmayhaveinfluencedstudentperceptionsoflearningandinmakingadifferencethroughtheexperience.Alongwiththeroleofreflection,whenprojectsalignedtoacademicstandardsduringacorecoursestudentprovidedhigherratingsperceivedlearning.Inthesecases,becausetheserviceactivityoverlappedwithcoursecontentteachersmayhaveexplicitlyappliedlearningopportunitiesthroughpre-andpost-projectdiscussionsandreadings(Dymondetal.,2007).Itisimportanttonotethatprojectsthatalignedtoacademiclearningstandardsforelectiveorspecialtyprojectsdidnotrelatetohigherlevelsofperceivedlearning–demonstratingthatmerelyaligningaprojecttonon-academicstandardswasnotenoughtoincreasestudents’levelofperceivedlearning.

ProjectsThatWork 30

Severalothertrendsemergedrelatingimplementationtostudentratingsforperceivedlearningandmakingadifference.Studentsprovideddifferingratingsforperceivedlearningforprojectduration,supportingpriorresearchthatlongerprojectsallowforgreateropportunityforreflectionandconnectionstocoursework(Melchior&Bailis,2002;Billig,Root,&Jesse,2005).(FutureProjectsThatWorkresearchintendstoexamineifspecifictypesofshorter-termprojectsthatcloselyaligntoacademicstandardsprovidelearningopportunitieswhilealsobeingfeasibletoimplement.)Studentsprovidedhigherratingsforperceivedlearningandmakingadifferencewhenanadultfromacommunityorganizationparticipated.Suchindividualsprovidedpracticalexpertiseinexplainingissuesandsupportingtheserviceactivities.Theseindividualsalsolikelyprovidedstudentstheopportunitytointegrateschoolprojectswiththemissionoftheorganizationinwhichtheywork(Allahyari,2000).RaskoffandSundeen(2000)callsuchorganizationsportsofentryinbecauseyoungpeopleserviceundertheauspiceofaspecificvaluesystem,andaregivenasensethattheyaremakingadifferenceaspartofthatorganization.Studentsalsoprovidedhigherratingsforperceivedlearningwhentheyweremoreinvolvedinplanningtheproject,supportingpriorresearchthatexplicitopportunitiesforactiveandengagedlearningmaycomebothfrominstructionbutalsofromself-directedlearning(Bradley,2003).Thetypeofservicealsorelatedtodifferencesinstudentratings.Whenstudentsdidtypesofservicethatputthemdirectlyintouchwiththerecipientoftheservice(e.g.,servingatahomelessshelterorworkingwithVeterans)theyprovidedhigherratingformakingadifferenceinaddressingtheissue.Thisfindinglikelyresultsfromtheface-to-faceinteractionsthatpermittedstudentsadeeperandmorepersonallymeaningfulconnectioninworkingtoaddressproblemsfacedbyrecipients(Metz,Youniss,&McLellan,2003;Root&Billig,2008).StudentswhoparticipatedinprojectsintheareaofPublicHealth(suchasbullyingpreventionanddrivingawareness)hadhigherthanaveragescoresforperceivedlearninganddifference.Keycomponentsofmostpublichealthprojectsincludedstudentsdoingresearchonanissueanddevelopingandconductingpresentationsonissuesfacingpeers,oncemorepointingtoaconclusionthatthisexperiencemayhavebeenmorepersonallyrelevantandmeaningfulforstudents.Contributions,Limitations,andFutureDirectionsTheProjectsThatWorkstudyoffersseveralcontributionsasanewmethodologyinresearchonschool-basedservicelearning.

1) Thestudyincludesanaturallyoccurringnationalsampleofservicelearningprojects,providingtheopportunityforasnap-shotofwhatprojectsarebeingdonenowandhowimplementationisoccurringinschoolsandclassrooms

ProjectsThatWork 31

aroundthecountry.

2) Withincreasedsamplesizes,statisticalanalyseswillbeemployedtoestimatetherelationshipsamongvariablestodeterminethecomponentsandactivitiesthatpredictfeasibleandeffectiveprojectimplementation.Theresearchwillalsodetailhowdifferenttypesofservicelearningprojectsareimplemented,andcomponentandactivitiesthatoptimizecertainprojectsbutnotothers.

3) Thestudyshiftsthefocusoftraditionalservicelearningresearchfrommeasuringtheimpactoftheexperienceonstudentoutcomestoexaminingprojectimplementationinordertoinformandoptimizepractice,buildingcapacityforfutureimpactevaluations.Forexample,thestudysystemicallycollectsdataonkeyprogramcomponentsandactivitiesacrossthesametypeofprojectdonemanytimes.Withthisinformation,specifictypesofprojectswilleventuallybeinbetterpositionforoutcomestudieswhereinthatcomponentsandactivitiesofthattypecanbeheldconstanttoallowforamorepreciseassessmentofimpactoftheprojectitself,andnotsomeotherfactor(Bailis&Melchior,2003).

4) Thestudycollectsdatafromthreegroupsofparticipants(teachers,students,

partners),thuspermittingformultipleperspectivesandfor“triangulationofdata”todrawmorefirmconclusionsfromthedata.InitialresultsfromWave1providesupportforthisapproach.Forexample,projectsthatincludedfewercomponentsoractivitieswerereportedbyteachersandstudentsaseasiertoimplementthanprojectswithmorecomponents.Or,studentsprovidedhigherratingsforperceivedlearningforprojectsthatteachersreportedalignedtolearningstandardsdoneincorecourses.

5) Thestudywillpermitfordifferentwaystotesthypotheses(Furco,2003),

includingdataaggregatedacrossallprojectstounderstandbroadthemesforwhatcomponentspredictstrongerimplementationacrosstheboard,betweenoneactivityandallotherstoisolatedifferencesinimplementationbetweenparticulartypesofprojects,andwithintheoneactivitytoidentifycriticalcomponentstooptimizeimplementationforjustthattype.Forexample,resultsfromWave1demonstratedpotentiallysignificantdifferenceswithinindividualclassprojectsrelatedtohowmuchstudentswereinvolvedinplanningtheproject–withsomestudentsdoingalotandothersless.Suchdifferencescouldbemorefullyexaminedandcouldprovidepractitionersvaluableinsightonhowtodesignprojectstobenefitallstudents,notjustthosewhoaremosthighlymotivated.

6) Longer-term,thisstudyintendstogeneratelistsoftypesofprojectsthathave

beenreplicatedsuccessfullyacrosssettings.Withlistsofprojecttypesthathavebeendonemanytimesacrossmanysettings,teachersandstudentscouldassessandunderstandthespecificprojectcomponentsthatpredicthigherorlower

ProjectsThatWork 32

ratingsacrossimplementationsindifferentlocations.Projectscouldthenbedesignedandimplementedtoinclude(orexclude)components,drivingcontinuousqualityimprovementofprojectsthroughtheprocess.

7) TheProjectsThatWorkresearchmodelcouldbeemployedbystudents,

teachers,andpartnersasafinalstepofaservicelearningprojectasaformofself-assessmentandprogramevaluation(Billig,2011).Throughtheprocessofratingprojectsandviewingresultsinrealtime,classparticipantscouldlookatpeerratings,discusswhytheprojectwasfeasibletoimplementornot,andhowtheprojectcomponentsandactivitiesrelatedtothewhytheprojectmetthedesiredgoalsforlearningandmakingadifference.

8) Lastly,theProjectsThatWorkmodelcouldbeemployedtoexaminefeasibleand

effectiveschool-basedprogramimplementationindisciplinesbeyondthefieldofservicelearning,suchasprojectbasedlearningorcitizenscience-basedinterventions.

LimitationsItisnecessarytoreiteratetheexploratoryandpreliminarynatureoftheWave1datapresentedinthisWhitePaper.Additionalresearchisneededwithalargeroverallsampleofprojectsandwithincreasedresponserateswithinprojects.Withalargersample,analyseswillbeperformedtoexaminestatisticallymeaningfuldifferences,aswellasisolatepatternsandtrajectoriesofthefactorsthatrelatetoimprovedimplementation,andthatpredictbetterorlower-ratedprojects.Anincreasedresponseratewithinprojectswillalsointroducegreatervariabilityamongstudentswhowerepotentiallylessmotivatedtoenjoy,fullyparticipate,andpotentiallybenefitfromservicelearning.Additionalresearchisalsoneededtomorefullyexaminewhetherandhowteacherandpartnerratingsforimplementationfeasibilityrelatetostudentratingsforfeasibility,perceivedlearning,andmakingadifference.Additionalresearchisalsoneededtoextendthegeneralizabilityofthemodelandthefindings.AllprojectsinthecurrentstudyreceivedsmallgrantsandtechnicalassistanceonservicelearningfromYSAandStateFarm.Thesampleofprojectsandparticipantswasself-selectedwithabiastowardservicelearning.Thisgroupincludedadministratorsandteachersmotivatedtodoservicelearningandwithpriorexperienceplanningandimplementingprojects.Itislikelythatthefundingprovidedthenecessaryresourcesforsuppliesandtransportation,andtheadditionaltechnicalassistanceenabledtheprojectstobemostlyorhighlyfeasibleandtoconnecttokeygoals(e.g.learningandmakingadifference)formostprojects.Futureresearchisneededtoincreasegeneralizabilitywithasampleofschoolsandteachersdoingservicelearningwhohadnotreceivedfundingortechnicalassistance,andwithgroupswhoarenewtousingservicelearning.FutureresearchcouldalsoisolatetheimpactoftheYSAandStateFarmprogrambycomparingimplementationinschoolsthatreceivedgrantsversusthosethatdidnot.

ProjectsThatWork 33

FutureDirectionsInthespringof2017duringWave2theresearchersaimtocollectdatafromanadditional100servicelearningprojects,includingfromschoolsandclassroomsfromtheYSAandStateFarmaswellasfromoutsidethegrantsprogram.WithanincreasedsamplesizeinWave2,statisticalanalyseswillbeemployedtomeasuredifferencesbetweengroupsandidentifythestrongestpredictorsofsuccessfulprojectimplementation.Further,agoaloftheWave2studyistomorefullyexplorepatternsintypesofprojectsthatcanfeasiblybeimplementedandthatconsistentlyworkwellregardlessofvariationsinhowimplementationoccursandprojectsthatworkwellonlywhenimplementedinaspecificway.Despitelowresponseratesoverallandwithinprojects,andwhilethesampleinWave1includedaself-selectedgroupofprojectsandstudents,manyofthestudentsinthissamplethemselveswerelikelynodifferentthanmanystudentsinschoolswherethereislesscapacityandmotivationforservicelearning.Wave1findingsrevealedthatthesestudentswerehighlyengagedbyservicelearningandproducedpositiveresultsfrommanytypesofservicelearningprojects.Manyofthefindingsinthisstudyechopriorresearchdemonstratingtheroleofwell-designedprogramsthatincludespecificactivitiestopreparestudentswithaclearandcompellingrationalefortheprojectandwithspecificrolesandresponsibilities.Thekeytoreplicationinschoolswithlessexpertiseinservicelearningislikelyrelatedtothecapacityforimplementingstrongprograms(Metz&Youniss,2005).

ProjectsThatWork 34

ReferencesAllahyari,R.A.(2000).Visionsofcharity:Volunteerworkersandmoralcommunity.UnivofCaliforniaPress.Bailis,L.N.,&Melchior,A.(2003).Practicalissuesintheconductoflarge-scale,multisiteresearchandevaluation.Studyingservice-learning:Innovationsineducationresearchmethodology,125-147.Billig,S.H.(2009).Doesqualityreallymatter.Creatingouridentitiesinservice-learningandcommunityengagement,131-157.Billig,S.,&Weah,W.(2008).K-12service-learningstandardsforqualitypractice.Growingtogreatness,6,8-15.Billig,S.,Root,S.,&Jesse,D.(2005).Theimpactofparticipationinservice-learningonhighschoolstudents'civicengagement.Billig,S.H.(2011).Makingthemostofyourtime:ImplementingtheK-12service-learningstandardsforqualitypractice.ThePreventionResearcher,18(1),8-14.Bradley,L.R.(2003).UsingdevelopmentalandlearningtheoryinthedesignandevaluationofK-16service-learningprograms.Studyingservice-learning:Innovationsineducationresearchmethodology,47-72.Dymond,S.K.,Renzaglia,A.,&Chun,E.(2007).Elementsofeffectivehighschoolservicelearningprogramsthatincludestudentswithandwithoutdisabilities.RemedialandSpecialEducation,28(4),227-243.Eyler,J.,&GilesJr,D.E.(1999).Where'stheLearninginService-Learning?Jossey-BassHigherandAdultEducationSeries.Jossey-Bass,Inc.,350SansomeSt.,SanFrancisco,CA94104.Furco,A.(2003).Issuesofdefinitionandprogramdiversityinthestudyofservice-learning.Studyingservice-learning:Innovationsineducationresearchmethodology,13-33.Furco,A.(2013).AresearchagendaforK-12school-basedservice-learning:Academicachievementandschoolsuccess.InternationalJournalofResearchonService-LearningandCommunityEngagement,1(1),11-21.Goethem,A.,Hoof,A.,OrobiodeCastro,B.,VanAken,M.,&Hart,D.(2014).Theroleofreflectionintheeffectsofcommunityserviceonadolescentdevelopment:Ameta-analysis.Childdevelopment,85(6),2114-2130.

ProjectsThatWork 35

Hatcher,J.A.,Bringle,R.G.,&Muthiah,R.(2004).Designingeffectivereflection:Whatmatterstoservice-learning?.MichiganJournalofCommunityServiceLearning,11(1).Metz,E.,&Youniss,J.(2005).Longitudinalgainsincivicdevelopmentthroughschool-basedrequiredservice.PoliticalPsychology,26(3),413-437.Metz,E.,McLellan,J.,&Youniss,J.(2003).Typesofvoluntaryserviceandadolescents’civicdevelopment.JournalofAdolescentResearch,18(2),188-203.Root,S.,&Billig,S.H.(2008).Service-learningasapromisingapproachtohighschoolcivicengagement.Educatingdemocraticcitizensintroubledtimes:Qualitativestudiesofcurrentefforts,107-127.Spring,K.,GrimmJr,R.,&Dietz,N.(2008).CommunityServiceandService-LearninginAmerica'sSchools.CorporationforNationalandCommunityService.Sundeen,R.A.,&Raskoff,S.A.(2000).Portsofentryandobstacles:Teenagers'accesstovolunteeractivities.NonprofitManagementandLeadership,11(2),179-197.Youniss,J.,&Yates,M.(1997).Communityserviceandsocialresponsibilityinyouth.UniversityofChicagoPress.

ProjectsThatWork 36

AppendixA:StudyMeasuresI.StudentSurveyItems1.Withwhomdidyoudotheproject?(Checkanythatapply)

Alone,byyourself

Withyourclassmates

Withmembersofacommunityorganization

Withmembersofyourcommunity

Withyourteacher

Other(pleasespecify) 2.Howfeasible(oreasy)wasitforyoutoplananddothisproject?(1to5scale)3.Overall,howwouldyouratethisproject?(1to5scale)4.Overallfromstarttofinish,howmuchdidyoulearnduringthisproject?(1to5scale)5.Overall,howmuchdifferencedidthisprojectmakeinsolvingtheproblemorissue?(1to5scale)6.Whatisyourgender?(1to5scale)7.Writeareviewofthisproject.Aswell,providearecommendationforstudentswhoareabouttodothesameproject.OpenResponseII.TeacherSurveyItems

1.Providethenameofthecourseinwhichtheprojectwasdone.2.Indicatethegradelevelofthestudents.

3.Indicatethenumberofstudentswhoparticipatedintheproject.4.Didanyindividualsfromcommunityorganizationsorexpertmentorsparticipatein

ProjectsThatWork 37

theproject?Ifyes,providethenumberofadults,thenameoftheorganization/s,andtheirroleintheproject.Indicatewhetherstudentsknewtheroleoftheorganization/s.

5.Describetheproject.Detailthekeystepsindoingtheproject.Describetherecipientofand/ortheissuebeingaddressedbytheproject.6.Howlongdidtheprojecttakefromstarttofinish?(Pleasespecifythenumberofdaysorclasses.)7.Whatkeyactivitiesweredonetopreparestudentstodotheproject?

Studentsdidresearchonthetopic

Studentsreadcontentonthetopic

Presentationsbytheteacher

Presentationsbyacommunityagencyorexpertmentor

Presentationsbystudents

Discussionsonthelearninggoalsoftheproject

Discussionsonthestepsforimplementingtheproject

8.Listeachoftheeducationallearningstandardsandothergoalsintendedtobecoveredbytheproject.9.Listallofthecostsassociatedwiththisproject,formaterials,tools,transportation,orother:10.Whatkeyreflectionactivitiesweredonetoconcludetheproject?

Post-projectassessmentorevaluationoflearningoutcomes

Classroomdiscussions

Student-ledpresentations

Readingcontent

Reflectivewriting(blogs,journals,letter,editorials,reports)

Advocacytomakeachange

Generatingvideos 11.Overall,howwouldyouratethisproject?(1to5scale)

12.Howfeasible(i.e.,easy)wasitforyoutoplananddothisproject?(1to5scale)

ProjectsThatWork 38

13.Howmuchdidtheprojectactuallycovertheeducationlearningstandardsorothergoals?(1to5scale)14.Writeareviewofthisproject.Aswell,provideanyrecommendationstofutureteacherswhodothesameproject.(1to5scale)III.PartnerSurveyItems1.Howfeasible(oreasy)wasitforyoutodothisproject?(1to5scale)2.Overall,howwouldyouratethisproject?(1to5scale)3.Overall,howmuchdifferencedidthisprojectmakeinsolvingtheproblemorissue?(1to5scale)4.Writeareviewofthisproject.Aswell,provideanyrecommendationstofutureindividualswhodothesameproject.(1to5scale)