Abstract. An explanatory methods design was usedto evaluate the influence of a service learning courseon learning, personal, and social outcomes for servicelearning (n = 142) students. These students showedimprovements in diversity and political awareness,community self-efficacy, and civic engagement scoresfrom the beginning to the end of the semester. In addi-tion, the students' academic learning, personal andinterpersonal development, and community engage-ment were detected as the major benefits from engag-ing in service learning. The findings of this study sug-gest that service learning contributes to students'academic learning and personal and social develop-ment through social-emotional processes.
T here has been an increase in the num-ber of investigations into service learn-
ing over the past few years (Eyler 2000;Harkavy et al. 2000; Moore 2000). Servicelearning refers to a method under whichstudents apply particular course conceptsto real-life situations (Furco 2003). Ser-vice-learning programs are distinguishedfrom other forms of experiential learning
(i.e., community service, volunteerism) bytheir intention to benefit students and recip-ients of service equally (Sigmon and Pel-letier 1996). The majority of previousinvestigations have measured service learn-ing outcomes for students using eitherquantitative or qualitative methodologies.The quantitative studies have measuredchanges in students' personal and interper-sonal development (Eyler and Giles 1999;Eyler et al. 2003; Moely, Mercer et al.2002); academic learning (Eyler 2000;Vogelgesang and Astin 2000); and civicengagement (Eyler et al. 2003; Gallini andMoely 2003; Moely, Mercer et al.), while
the qualitative research has explored theprocesses linked with students' reducedstereotyping (Howard-Hamilton 2000;Rockquemore and Shaffer 2000; Root et al.2002) and increased community involve-ment (Eyler et al.; Reinke 2003). Severalresearchers suggest that service learningresearch is fairly rudimentary and out-comes need to be further examined withmore rigorous methods (Eyler; Moore2000; Ramaley 2000).
The present study addresses method-ological limitations by evaluating an aca-demic service learning model on learn-ing, personal, and social outcomes usinga dominant-less-dominant quantitative-qualitative explanatory methods design.An explanatory methods design refers toa sequential phase of data collection andan integrative analysis of quantitative-qualitative data where quantitative resultsare used to generate questions and pro-vide a context for the qualitative analysis(Creswell 1994; 2005).
The first section of this article defineswhat an academic service learningmodel is, and reviews previous researchon service learning. Next, an explanato-ry methods design is described in termsof both the quantitative analysis and thequalitative analysis. Einally, the two setsof findings are synthesized through asingle discussion.
Service Learning Model
Eyler and Giles (1999) and Furco(2003) describe Sigmon and Pelletier's
Vol. 54/No. 4 307
(1996) typology of service learning as abalance between community service andacademic learning where service andlearning goals are explicitly integrated. Inthis article, the term "service learning"refers to reciprocal learning in that stu-dents apply theoretical knowledge to "realworld" situations, and, at the same time,they connect the service experience to thecourse content (Ramaley 2000; Vogelge-sang and Astin 2000) through goals andobjectives, activities and assignments, andrefiections and discussions.
Service Learning ResearchService learning practitioners agree
that this style of learning provides stu-dents with an opportunity to leam beyondthe bounds of the traditional classroom(Enos and Trope 1996; Harkavy 2000);however, research on service learning andlearning outcomes is mixed. For example,Litke (2002) found that low- and high-achieving students demonstrated a betterability to apply and conceptualize courseconcepts after the service experience aftersystematically analyzing reflectionpapers of sixty students who participatedin service learning. Similarly, Strage(2000) found that service learning stu-dents did not outperform non-service-leaming students on initial examinations,after comparing 311 non-service-leamingstudents to 166 service learning studentsenrolled in a child development coursewith a service learning option. However,service learners gained more points onmidterm and final exams and courseessays compared to non-service learners.Vogelgesang and Astin (2000) also foundthat service learners had better writingskills and higher grade point averages(GPAs) than nonservice learners afterconducting a national longitudinal studywith 22,236 undergraduate studentsenrolled at 177 institutions.
Several studies have found that servicelearning had a positive effect on students'interpersonal and personal development(Eyler and Giles 1999; Moely, Mercer etal. 2002). For example, Moely, Mercer etal. conducted a pre- and post-test study onan interest in civic and community issues,problem solving, political awareness,leadership skills, social justice attitudes,and diversity attitudes between 217 ser-vice learners and 324 nonservice learners
enrolled in the College of Arts and Sci-ences at a large liberal arts university.These researchers found that students hadsimilar scores at the beginning of thesemester, but by the end of the semesterservice learners scored higher on civicaction, social justice attitudes, leadershipskills, and problem-solving skills thannon-service learners. In addition, Moelyet al. assessed service-learning and non-service-learning students' appreciation ofthe course and their interest in learningabout the course and the field, as well asthe differences between these two groupsbefore and after the service. Members ofneither group maintained their initial opti-mism by the end of the semester, but ser-vice learners maintained their positiveview of the course and increased their rat-ings for learning about the community.Similarly, Boyle-Baise and Kilbane(2000) conducted an ethnographic studywith twenty-five preservice teaching stu-dents and found that students changedtheir attitudes toward themselves and thecommunity after a semester of tutoringneighborhood children. In this study, stu-dents were interviewed before, during,and after their service, and their observa-tions and experiences were audiotapedand recorded through field notes andreflective papers. These researchers ana-lyzed the data with a triangulation methodand concluded that the students developedan understanding of the families that theyworked with and were able to identifycommunity assets through bonding withcommunity recipients. Eyler and Giles(1999) suggest that students in servicelearning courses gain a greater level ofself-knowledge and change their beliefsabout the community.
Previous research on social outcomeshas found that service learning had afavorable effect on students' multiculturalcompetencies and community involve-ment (Root et al. 2002; Moely, Mercer etal. 2002; Rockquemore and Schaffer2000). For instance, Payne (2000) con-ducted a pre-post study on exploration,affiliation, experimentation, and assimila-tion preferences for community involve-ment for eighty-three students enrolled infour sections of a service learning course.In this study, students changed theirexploration and assimilation preferencesfor community service by the end of the
semester. Service learners reduced theirapprehension levels (exploration prefer-ence) for community involvement, andthey increased their lifelong commitments(assimilation preference) to communityservice. Gallini and Moely (2003)assessed community engagement, acade-mic engagement, and interpersonalengagement for 142 service-learning andseventy-one non-service-leaming studentsat the end of the semester and found thatservice leamers reported greater levels ofengagement than nonservice leamers.
Investigations on service leaming pro-vide important documentation on stu-dents' learning, social, and personalchanges between pre-post service; howev-er, national surveys are usually limited inthe amount of data (retrospective vs.prospective) obtained from each subjectcompared to the extensive data gatherwith single samples (Eyler and Giles1999; Vogelgesang and Astin 2000). Forexample, students may divulge moreinformation on an anonymous survey thanduring an interview. Additionally, it isimpossible to detect if the reported attitu-dinal changes in pre-post surveys withsingle samples is a result from the serviceexperience when these studies had smallsamples and lacked randomization meth-ods (Payne 2000; Reinke 2003; Root et al.2002), measured attitudes instead ofbehaviors (Gallini and Moely 2003;Moely, McFarland et al. 2002; Moely,Mercer et al. 2002), and assessed attitudeswith either single-item surveys (Rockque-more and Schaffer 2000), reflective essays(Green 2001), or ethnographic techniques(Boyle-Base and Kilbane 2000). Whilesome are concemed about the reliabilityand validity of qualitative research, wehave addressed those concems by usingreflection questions to explain the missinglinks in students' attitudes and behaviorsfrom pre-service to post-service.
To date, there is a lack of investigationon service leaming and leaming, social,and personal outcomes using an explana-tory methods design. We used quantitativemethods to test two hypotheses: Are theresignificant changes in leaming, social, andpersonal outcomes post-service for ser-vice leaming students? And are there dif-ferences in service learning outcomesaccording to the placement site and place-ment activity? We used qualitative meth-
308 COLLEGE TEACHING
ods to identify and explore the majorthemes of service learning guided by tworesearch questions: What do students getout of service learning? What are theprocesses through which service leamingoccurs?
Method
Participants
College students enrolled in under-graduate psychology courses at a privateteaching university in an eastem metro-politan area during the fall of 2002through the spring of 2004 served as thesample for this study. As shown in table1, 142 students enrolled in educationalpsychology courses completed the pre-test at the beginning of the semester, and140 students completed the post-test at
the end of the semester, so the retentionfrom pre-test to post-test was 98 percent.The majority of students were Caucasian(78 percent), female (79 percent), andeither psychology or education majors(82 percent); the average age was nine-teen. Less than half the students (37 per-cent) were freshmen, and about one-thirdof them (38 percent) had volunteer expe-rience prior to the course. Although ser-vice leaming was optional, 95 percent ofthe students self-selected to participate.Service was carried out at three sites; themajority of service leaming students (62percent) were placed in an elementaryschool, while the remaining studentswere placed in an after-school program(25 percent) or a community leamingprogram (11 percent). Almost half of allstudents (48 percent) continued in service
TABLE 1. Descriptive Data
Variables
GenderMaleFemale
EthnicityCaucasianAfrican AmericanHispanicOther
MajorPsychologyEducationNursingHumanitiesSciences
Year in schoolEreshmanSophmoreJuniorSenior
Volunteer experience
Service leaming placementElementary schoolAfter-schoolLeaming program
Service leaming activityTutorMentor
Service leaming continued
Service leaming future
for Service-Learning Students
Service Leaming(n = 142)
%
2179
7820
11
28542
106
3744127
38
622511
6136
48
75
activities after the required hours, andmore than half (75 percent) reported thatthey would engage in future serviceleaming activities.
Course Content
The in-class time (three fifty-minutesessions per week) for the educationalpsychology course was taught by oneinstmctor and began with a lecture on ser-vice leaming. The instructor explained tothe students that the class was a part of anevaluation on service learning and thattheir participation in this study was vol-untary. Then a code was assigned to thestudents to use on surveys instead of pro-viding their names. The instructor furtherexplained to the students that their indi-vidual responses would be kept confiden-tial and only group data would be used inthe evaluation. Informed consent and sur-veys were administered to students at theend of the first class.
The next two classes consisted of a two-hour orientation on mentoring and tutoringby guest speakers representing one of thethree placement sites. The guest speakersexplained to the students the delicatenature of working with at-risk children,and how they would work with children ingroups of four for sixteen hours at a publicelementary school (grades K-6), publicafter-school program (grades K-8) or acommunity learning program (gradesK-6). Guest speakers trained the studentsin either a mentor or tutor role. Mentorswere trained to read to children using adistrict-approved curriculum that consist-ed of structured and nonstructured activi-ties. Tutors were trained in a district-approved tutorial curriculum thatconsisted of semi-structured reading andmath exercises, as well as a research-basedcurriculum that emphasized behaviormodification techniques, such as appliedbehavioral analysis and token economy,for the community learning program.
The rest of the course consisted of lec-ture, activities, and discussion. Five classperiods were devoted to an introductorysegment covering the general history ofeducational psychology, theory and pur-pose, and research methods, and then pro-ceeded through an arrangement of lessonson psychological theories for twenty-threeclass periods. Each section of the coursehad three examinations, twelve refiection
Vol. 54/No. 4 309
activities, sixteen journal entries, andthree written assignments.
Measures
Demographic questionnaire. A self-report survey was used to collect descrip-tive information on gender, race, age,year in school, and volunteer experiencebefore taking the course.
Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire(CASQ). Developed by Moely, McFarlandet al. (2002), the questionnaire was used toassess students' self-evaluation on civicattitudes and skills that are useful in civicendeavors, values related to civic engage-ment, and the likelihood of action andinvolvement in community issues. TheCASQ is an 84-item self-report question-naire that was modeled on previousresearch on service learning outcomes(Moely, McFarland et aL). It yields scoreson six scales for each respondent: civicaction (intentions to become involved inthe future in some community service oraction), interpersonal and problem-solvingskills (ability to listen, work cooperatively,communicate, make friends, take the roleof another, think logically and analytically,and solve problems), political awareness(of local and national events and politicalissues), leadership skills (ability to leadand effectiveness as a leader), social jus-tice attitudes (conceming the causes ofpoverty and misfortune and how socialproblems can be solved), and diversity atti-tudes (toward diversity and the respon-dent's interest in relating to culturally dif-ferent people). Items are presented asstatements, and respondents express theirlevels of agreement with each statement bymarking a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to 5 (strongly agree). Intemal consisten-cies for each scale range from .69 to .88,and test-retest reliabilities for each scalerange from .56 to .81 (Moely, Mercer et al.2002).
The CASQ also measures students' viewof their courses on four scales: course value(how important or useful material coveredin the academic course had been), leamingabout academic field/academic application(content of the respondent's academiccourse such as understanding and applica-tion of the course concepts, interest in thefield, and understanding a professional'srole in the field of study), leaming aboutthe community/community application
(how much the respondent leamed aboutthe community, different cultures, workingwith others effectively, and seeing socialproblems in a new way), and contributionto the community (perceptions of how use-ful their service activities had been in thecommunity). Items are presented as state-ments and respondents endorse their levelof agreement by circling a score on a scalefrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Intemal consistency for each scaleranges from .81 to .82 (Moely, McFarlandet al. 2002). Twelve items from Crandallm,Crandallm, and Katovsky (1965 qtd. inMoely, McFarland et al.) were used tomeasure the extent to which the respondentattempted to present himself or herself in afavorable manner. Intemal consistency forsocial desirability ranges from .70 to .72(Moely, McFarland et al.).
Community Service Involvement Pref-erence Inventory (CSIPI). Developed byPayne (2000), the inventory was used toassess how students become involved incommunity service. The CSIPI is a 48-item paper and pencil inventory based onexperiential learning (Payne 1998) andassesses four preferences for communityinvolvement: exploration involvement(reflecting the affective nature of appre-hension common in new experiences, andthe behavioral perspective that commit-ment is short term and is usually at theconvenience of the helper), affiliationinvolvement (reflecting that behaviormotivation of recognition and commit-ments tend to be infrequent and shorter induration), experimentation involvement(reflecting the desire to make a differencein the lives of others and to leam moreabout the community), and assimilationinvolvement (reflecting cognitiveprocesses with career and lifestyle deci-sions based on the service experience as away to understand what it means to be aresponsible citizen). Items are presentedas statements, and respondents indicatetheir level of agreement by circling ascore on a five-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Scores for each involvement pref-erence range from twelve to sixty, and thetotal score for each preference serves asan indicator of how the student prefers tobecome involved in community service.Intemal consistencies for exploration (r =.63), affiliation (r - .70), experimentation
(r = .74), and assimilation (r = .70) pref-erences are modest.
Civic/Community Behaviors. This tmn-cated version of the Civic EngagementInventory developed by Reinke (2003) is a20-item Likert-type questionnaire thatmeasures different types of engagement.Items were presented as statements, andstudents circled either a yes (1) or no (0)dichotomized response to indicate thedegree of engagement. Items were addedtogether to produce the four subscalesmeasuring social, religious, cultural, andpolitical engagement, and a total scalescore measuring civic engagement scale(Reinke 2003). The civic engagementscale was also used for this study. In addi-tion, thirty items were developed by theresearcher to measure community engage-ment and were analyzed separately. Newitems asked about community involve-ment and types of volunteer activities.Cronbach's alpha for the original and newitems was modest (a = .83).
The Community Service Self-EfficacyScale (CSSES). Developed by Reeb andcolleagues (1998), this scale measured stu-dents' confidence in making a clinicallysignificant contribution to the communitythrough service. The CSSES scale pre-sents ten items and responses range from 1(quite uncertain) to 10 (certain). Scores areadded together to produce a full scalescore. Test-retest reliability for this scalewas modest (r = .62).
Learning outcomes were assessedusing individual student self-reportedGPAs and application ability as demon-strated in reflection questions.
Open-ended and Closed-ended Ques-tions. Twelve open- and closed-endedquestions were designed to explore theextent, nature, and quality of students'thoughts and feelings about academicservice learning. Nine open-ended ques-tions directly assessed the service experi-ence, and three closed-ended questionsinquired about community engagement.The open-ended questions led to topicalareas associated with the course content,while the closed-ended questions led torelevant areas associated with communitypartnerships. A copy of the open-endedand closed-ended questions is shown inthe appendix.
The Texas Social Behavior Inventory-Short Form (TSBI). Developed by Helm-
310 COLLEGE TEACHING
reich and Strapp (1974) as cited inBringle, Phillips, and Hudson (2004), thisinventory was used to measure self-esteem and social competence. The TSBIis composed of thirty-two items and usesa five-category response format rangingfrom 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to5 (very much characteristic of me). Itemsare added together to produce a full-scalescore. Reliability coefficients were mod-est ( r= 85).
Procedure
Service leaming students were evaluat-ed before and after service. They complet-ed a consent form and a survey packetconsisting of questionnaires measuringdemographics, learning, and social andpersonal outcomes during the first weekof the course, and then again after theycompleted service (the sixteen-hourrequirement). Students completed eachsurvey at their own pace, placed it in acoded, confidential envelope, and gave itdirectly to the researcher. Each surveytook about forty-five minutes to complete.
Analysis
A paired f-test was conducted to exam-ine if there were significant changes inlearning, social, and personal outcomespost-service for service leaming students,and a one-way ANQVA was conducted toexamine differences in service leamingoutcomes according to the placement siteand placement activity. In addition, weanalyzed the nine open-ended and threeclosed-ended questions with a purposefulsample of seventy-five service learningstudents enrolled in educational psychol-ogy courses from the fall of 2003 throughthe spring of 2004 (reflection questionswere added to the survey during the sec-ond year of the study, and for this reasonwe are reporting on seventy-five stu-dents). We identified major themes thatwere generated from the systematicallyobtained data and analyzed using the con-stant comparative method (Creswell1994; 1998). Our analyses focused on ourresearch questions: What do students getout of service learning? What are theprocesses through which academic ser-vice leaming occurs?
Open- and closed-ended questions thatinquired about what students' get out ofparticipating in service learning were
analyzed to categorize responses. Twoindependent coders read the responses,then met and identified the units ofanalysis; these were the isolated thoughtsexpressed by students. Typically, thethought units were found within a para-graph, but there were also instances inwhich a student expressed multiplethought units found in a sentence. Dis-crepancies between how coders identi-fied discrete units were discussed untilthe coders agreed on units. The coding ofthe nine open-ended questions resulted in1,123 units, and the coding of the threeclosed-ended questions resulted in 183units.
These 1,306 individual thought unitsunderwent an item-level analysis so thatsimilar thoughts were combined to con-struct a common framework. Open cod-ing of the individual thought units con-sisted of naming and categorizing thedata. The categories were arranged andrearranged until "saturated"; that is, untilthe coders and the researcher agreed theconcepts were similar and should begrouped together. Then the units werecoded in the service leaming frameworkof Eyler and Giles (1999). Fifteen majorcategories emerged in the open codingprocess: service learning added value tothe course, course/field understanding,course/field application, career benefits,personal efficacy, self-knowledge, spiri-tual growth and reward of helping others,diversity, work well with others, commu-nity connections, stereotyping/tolerance,appreciating other cultures, understand-ing social problems, solutions to socialproblems, and reflection. Coders countedthe number of responses that occurred ineach category to obtain the frequency ofresponses and then divided the frequen-cies by the number of participants toidentify the percentages for each catego-ry. The percentages were used to rank themajor categories that resulted in eightdominant themes as illustrated in table 2.
Once the eight dominant themes wereidentified, an axial coding procedure wasconducted to describe the learningprocesses that occur while students areengaged in service learning. The axialcoding connected students' learningprocesses to the central concepts ofsocial, emotional, cognitive, and multi-cultural leaming (Gardner 1993; 1999;
Howard-Hamilton 2000; Salovey et al.2004), as shown in table 3. Social learn-ing was defined as students' ability toidentify, monitor, and discriminate feel-ings, and to draw on them as means ofguiding one's behavior (Gardner 1993,1999, and 2004). Social leaming wasidentified and coded when the codersread either an interpersonal or an intrap-ersonal reflection. Interpersonal learningwas coded when the students' reflectionsindicated knowledge about oneself, andintrapersonal leaming was coded whenthe students' reflections indicated knowl-edge about others. In addition, students'statements were coded as emotionalleaming when they reflected an expres-sion of feeling, and statements werecoded as cognitive learning when theyreflected thoughts, judgments, or reason-ing ability (Salovey, Brackett, and Mayer2004; Slavin 2003). Students' reactionswere coded as multicultural learningwhen they reflected knowledge of cultur-al identity for themselves and others,understanding of cultural differences, andappreciation of different cultural groups(Howard-Hamilton). We used a reliabilitycheck for the qualitative data by compar-ing the dominant themes and major learn-ing processes to students' self-reports onsurveys and placement site coordinators'reports. The discussion section addressesthe discrepancies between qualitative andquantitative results.
Results
Pre-Post Test Analyses for ServiceLearning Students
To determine if there were significantchanges in social and personal outcomesfor service learning students, a paired t-test was conducted on six dependentmeasures: GPAs, CASQ, CSIPI, TSBI,CSE, and civic engagement scores beforeand after service. We were able todemonstrate that service learnersincrease their political awareness, diver-sity attitudes, civic engagement, commu-nity self-efficacy, and affiliation prefer-ences for community involvement, butthey decrease their interests in the courseand field and social competence from thebeginning to the end of the course, asshown in table 4. The first hypothesiswas partially supported.
Vol. 54/No. 4 311
TABLE 2. Dominant Themes
Themes
Academic leaming
Personal—Careerdevelopment
Personal—Self-knowledge
Impact of the programon personal
Interpersonaldevelopment
Developing connectionswith others
Reduced stereotypingand tolerance
of Academic Service
Categories
Service leamingadded value to thecourse
Better understanding
Better application
Career benefits
Personal efficacy
Self-knowledge
Spiritual growth
Reward of helpingothers
Application
Reflection
Diversity
Working well withothers
Diversity
Communityconnections
Reward in helpingothers
Diversity
Stereotypes/developing tolerance
Learning
Units
This course would have been difficult without the service; I couldnot have understood the concepts if it were not for service; I needreal life examples to understand the material
Understood the field and how it relates to the concepts and theories;I truly understood the terms "at-risk characteristics," "protectivestrategies," and "educational resilience"; I leamed how being a rolemodel can serve as a form of an intervention; I get what is meant by"hasic needs"; I understand the challenges associated with studentcharacteristics
I was able to apply concepts and theories; I was able to useclassroom management techniques; I was able to practice test-takingmethods and memory aids with the students that I worked with; Ipracticed extrinsic motivation strategies; behavioral strategies workwell with children with emotional and leaming problems; I coulddistinguish between the different types of disorders
Hands-on experience; understanding of teachers' role; knowledge ofwhat is required; respect for teachers—confirmed or disconfirmedcareer choice; changed major/career aspiration; contemplated careerchange
Impact as teaching assistant; self-understanding; competence
Real world experience; understanding of the field and course
Spiritually and emotionally benefited me; self-esteem and self-confidence; social confidence
Impacted others; a better understanding of other cultures; anappreciation for different cultures; relationships with children andteachers; felt appreciated by children/teachers
Role model; extra hands in the classroom; school improvement;relationships with others; felt good; giving back; community impact
Social/racial/culture identification; social/racial/cultural differences;worked well with others who are different; tolerant attitudes;teacher/role identification; others are like me; appreciating culturaldifferences
Others are like me; shared beliefs; mutual goals; genuine; concem
School culture identification; staff/role/children identification;socioeconomic/culture identification; tolerant attitudes
Enhanced my beliefs in the good of others; continued aftercompleted my hours; changed my beliefs about the community;developed partnerships/relationships; community engagement; civicengagement; I go into Chester now; Chester is a part of my community.
It was better than what I expected; I enjoyed being there; I felt like Iwas needed; the children would smile every time I was there; I likedthat I helped them with their skills—it made me feel good
Appreciation for other cultures; leamed not to stereotype; changedmy thoughts and feelings; understood student characteristics;developed empathy/passion for working in this type of school
I blamed the parents for the children's behaviors and problems untilnow; I didn't realize how involved the parents are—I thought the
(latite coniinues)
312 COLLEGE TEACHING
TABLE 2. Continued
Themes Categories Units
Reduced stereotypingand tolerance
Appreciating othercultures
Problem solving Understanding socialproblems
Solutions to social
Reflection
children were unsupervised; they have a lot of obstacles to overcome;I leamed that these kids have potential; these kids are that differentfrom other kids; they want to succeed; it opened my eyes to realityI leamed how economics affects leaming; I want to help more; I sawa different type of life; the school is a substitute for home and I wantto be a part of that type of school; I learned that basic needs must bemet before leaming can proceed and this made me appreciate myfamily and life's opportunities; these children need more attentionand you must be extra sensitive so that they stay on task—I neverthought I would want to work in special education but I realized thatthis is so different than regular education and I want to be a part ofthis culture
At-risk children need extra attention and guidance; the financesimpact the school resources; I would have been unable to tmlyunderstand the social problems addressed in this course if it were notfor service-leaming; an understanding of different cultures and socialissues linked with poverty
Making an impact by giving your time; role modeling for students;building esteem in the children; using motivational approaches toengage them in class and to stay in school; providing alternatives to"street" activities; providing resources that are needed; being thereand caring; giving up a few hours a week is worth helping students'improve their test scores and making a difference to a child
Feeling of making a difference; creating opportunities; adding value;I would never have leamed about myself and ability to work inimpoverished environments if it were not for this school; it openedmy eyes to a reality that I didn't even know existed
TABLE 3. The lUlajor Processes Associated With Academic
% Processes Themes
100 Social—Interpersonal Academic leaming
Career development
Self-knowledge
Impact of the program
Interpersonal skills
Community connections
Stereotyping/tolerance
Problem solving
83 Social—Intrapersonal Academic learning
Career development
Self-knowledge
Impact of the program
Service Learning
Patterns
Better understanding or application ability
Hands on experience; confirmation of career choice; competence
Self-confidence, social competence, self-efficacy
An appreciation of different cultures
Sociocultural identification; role identification
Enhanced my beliefs in the good of others
Enhanced my beliefs in the good of others; developedpartnerships/relationships
Giving up your time can make a difference to a child
Understanding of the field; teacher's role
Impact as teaching assistant
Understanding of the field/course
Helped the children; made a difference
(lable continues)
Vol. 54/No. 4 313
TABLE
%
83
81
52
33
33
3. Continued
Processes
S ocial-Intrapersonal
Emotional
Cognitive
Multicultural
Multicultural
Themes
Interpersonal skills
Community connections
Stereotyping/tolerance
Problem solving
Academic leaming
Career development
Self-knowledge
Impact of the program
Interpersonal skills
Community connections
Stereotyping/tolerance
Problem solving
Academic leaming
Career development
Self-knowledge
Impact of the program
Interpersonal skills
Community connections
Stereotyping/tolerance
Problem solving
Academic leaming
Career developmentSelf-knowledge
Impact of the program
Interpersonal skills
Community connections
Stereotyping/tolerance
Problem solving
Pattems
Share beliefs/mutual goals regardless of differences
Developed partnerships/relationships; civic engagement
Felt good to be appreciated; concem for the children
I felt helpless; the children would smile every time I was there;the children would get excited
It was a surreal experience; I am thankful for this experience
I felt like I was needed
I am grateful for how much I have, but we need to createopportunities/resources for them
Evaluation of skills and impact
Respect for teachers; student characteristics
Realized the type of person that I am; personal values
I can work in a diverse atmosphere/individuals
I have leamed that I can work anywhere/anyone
Leamed how to relate to the students and deal with theircharacteristics and behaviors
It opened my eyes to a reality that I did not know existed; Ileamed not to stereotype
Service leaming creates opporunities for the children
Application of school culture to course concepts
Experience of teaching in urban schoolsDesire to work in an urban environment
Learned that I can work anywhere and with anyone
Leamed of different cultures/how others are like me
Appreciation for different cultures
Leamed racial/economic disparities affect leaming and that thechildren are more capable than thought
Methods to overcome barriers linked with disparities
Placement Site and Service-ActivityAnalyses
To evaluate placement site effects onstudents' social and personal outcomes, aone-way ANOVA was repeated withscores on five dependent measures:
CASQ, CSIPI, TSBI, CSE, and civicengagement. There were no significantdifferences in personal and social out-comes according to the type of placement(school, after-school, and communityprogram), but there were differences insocial outcomes between service activi-
ties. Mentors (% - 26.93) had highersocial justice scores (F (1, 125) = 6.92, p< .01) compared to tutors (% - 25.25).Mentors {% = 20.10) also had higher com-munity interests scores (F (1, 127) - 5.22,p < .05) than tutors {% = 18.75). The sec-ond hypothesis was partially supported.
314 COLLEGE TEACHING
TABLE 4. Learning, Personal, and .Social Outcomes for ServiceStudents (A/= 142) Before and After Service
in the distribution where the score falls that isnecessary to reject the null hypothesis. ***p < .001, *p < .05.
What Did Students Get Out of ServiceLearning?
Eyler and Giles (1999) suggest thatservice learning enhances students'understanding and application of coursematerial. Almost all (96 percent) of thecoded data identified academic learningas a benefit of service leaming. For exam-ple, one student commented on theimpact the service had on applicationability: "I was able to apply the lessonsfrom class into a real classroom . . .stereotyping and diversity, Piaget'sstages, operant and classical condition-ing, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,developmental disorders, and classroommanagement techniques."
More than three-quarters (82 percent) ofthe coded data identified career develop-ment as a second benefit of the course,consistent with previous research (Eylerand Giles 1999; Payne 2000) that suggestsservice leaming is a vehicle for confinningand modifying students' career decisions.Two observations conveyed the impact the
course had relative to career development:"Before participating in service leaming, Ithought I wanted to work with pro athletes.Now I've realized that I want to work withchildren," and "I am confused . . . I nowwant to work with children in an urban,impoverished environment as a teacher. Idid not realize the impact that one personcan make on a child's life and teachershave this profound ability."
Eyler and Giles (1999) found that ser-vice leaming contributes to students' per-sonal development in that they acquiregreater self-efficacy and self-knowledge.Almost all (97 percent) of the coded dataidentified self-efficacy or self-knowledgeas a third service learning benefit. As onestudent wrote, "I was worried that mytutoring would have a negative effect... Iworried so much about what I was goingto say and how I was going to say it. I wasafraid that the kids wouldn't accept meand the parents would resent me. Thisexperience was wonderful . . . I realizedthat I didn't have to worry about what Isaid or the manner in which I spoke."
Eyler and Giles (1999) and Jacoby(1996) suggest that program characteris-tics such as placement quality, reflectionactivities, and application of service fur-ther impact students' personal develop-ment. More than three-quarters (80 per-cent) of the coded data identified theimpact of the program on personal devel-opment as a fourth benefit of servicelearning. One student's reflection con-veyed the impact that the placement hadon fostering diversity: "Service leamingmade me understand that I can work withpeople from different backgrounds andsaw with my own eyes the impact I hadon the children by spending only a fewhours a week."
Service leaming researchers proposethat service leaming contributes to stu-dents' ability to work well with others andan appreciation for other cultures (Eylerand Giles 1999; Moely, Mercer et al.2002; Moely, McFarland et al. 2002). Themajority (84 percent) of the coded dataidentified interpersonal development as afifth service learning benefit. Studentsreported that service learning allowedthem to work well with others and identi-fy with the teachers and children. One stu-dent wrote, "I could relate to the childrenand the school, because I am from a simi-lar neighborhood. I could identify with thethings that they were going through . . .some of the children do not get the helpthat they need at home and others aremuch 'older' and 'wiser' for their age. Iwas glad to be there, to encourage andreinforce them to stay in school, since Ireally know what it takes to be resilient."
Gallini and Moely (2003) and Reinke(2003) suggest that service leamers takeownership for community problems afterestablishing relationships with communi-ty recipients, and more than three quarters(78 percent) of the data coded from open-ended and closed-ended questions identi-fied developing connections to others as asixth service leaming outcome. One stu-dent's comment conveyed the impact thecourse had relevant to community connec-tion: "Before this class I might not havethought of Chester as part of my commu-nity but now I do . . . we live in a commu-nity that suffers from extreme economicand racial differences . . . My friend wasshot dead a year ago on campus for noreason so I stopped going into Chester
Vol. 54/No. 4 315
until now." The majority (76 percent) ofthe students reported that they participatein community service activities such asvolunteering and coaching, and half alsoreported that they registered for eitheranother service leaming or multiculturalcourse next semester. Service leaming notonly contributes to community relation-ships and engagement, but it also providesstudents with an opportunity to observethe benefits of helping others. A secondstudent's observation demonstrated find-ing a reward in helping others. "I noticethat I take things for granted and thesechildren do not take anything for granted. . . I have learned that I can make a dif-ference . . . we need to create opportuni-ties for these children and service leamingis only the beginning to reach that end."
More than half (61 percent) of thedata coded identified reduced stereotyp-ing and the development of tolerant atti-tudes as a seventh benefit of servicelearning. This finding is consistent withservice learning multicultural research(Boyle-Baise and Kilbane 2000) thatsuggests students modify their precon-ceived notions about communitythrough social bonding and interperson-al interactions with community recipi-ents. For example, one student's com-ment spoke to the impact the course hadon stereotyping: "I have learned not tostereotype. . . I saw a different life thatpeople live and it changed my views . . .I have learned that the children are morecapable than I thought and by gettinginvolved with them makes a difference .. . I need to give more of my time." Afinal comment conveyed the impact ofthe course relative to developing tolerantattitudes. "These children are poor andhave a lot of barriers to overcomebecause people stereotype them andthink that they won't make it in life . . .now I want to work in an impoverishedurban school . . . I am thankful for thisexperience."
Eyler and Giles (1999) suggest thatservice leaming fosters students' abilityto understand social problems and identi-fy solutions to resolve social problems.More than half (61 percent) of the datacoded identified problem-solving skillsas an eighth service leaming outcome.One student commented, "This was a sur-real experience . . . the situations and
lifestyles of people are scary and sad. Ifelt helpless at times, but I learned thatevery person needs to have someone whocares . . . someone who is rooting forthem. It is easy to recognize those lessfortunate and to feel sorry for them, but tomake a difference is what is important. Ihave learned to reframe from judgmentand adjust my behavior to make a differ-ence in their lives."
What Are the Processes through WhichService Learning Occurs?
To understand how students leam whileengaged in service, the coders indepen-dently identified social, emotional, cogni-tive, and multicultural leaming as process-es through which academic serviceleaming occurs. Gardner suggests that per-sonal leaming (interpersonal and intraper-sonal) is an individual's capacity to assessone's feelings and the ability to notice andmake distinctions among other individuals(2004, 239). All of the coded data identi-fied interpersonal learning as a majorprocess of academic service leaming. Inaddition, more than three quarters (83 per-cent) of the coded data identified intraper-sonal leaming as a second major processassociated with academic service leaming.As one student asserted, "I have impacteda child's life and helped the teacher... myinvolvement with this school effected [sic]the culture of the classroom and the leam-ing environment in general."
Salovey et al. suggest that emotionalleaming is an individual's ability to "per-ceive, appraise and express emotions accu-rately" (2004, 25). The majority (81 per-cent) of coded data identified emotionalleaming as a third and final major processlinked with academic service leaming. Asone student stated, "I felt empathy for thestudents because they have so many obsta-cles to overcome . . . I have developed apassion for working with those less fortu-nate." High frequencies were found forinterpersonal leaming, and moderate fre-quencies were found for intrapersonal andemotional leaming as leaming processes.Cognitive and multicultural leaming werealso identified as leaming processes, butcited less often.
Discussion
There has been a tremendous amountof research on the impact of service learn-
ing. Despite these developments, fewstudies have used rigorous research meth-ods to evaluate leaming, social, and per-sonal outcomes. This is one of the firststudies to use an exploratory methodsdesign to demonstrate that participationin service learning affects academiclearning and personal and social develop-ment. Incorporating qualitative and quan-titative methods allowed us to test for pre-service and post-service differences andassured us the reliability of findingsbeyond those possible if only a singlemethod had been considered.
Service learning students showedexpected changes in political awareness,diversity attitudes, community self-efficacy, affiliation preferences for com-munity service, and community engage-ment from the beginning to the end of thesemester. Service leamers acquired knowl-edge about local and national politics,developed an appreciation of the diversebackgrounds and characteristics of com-munity recipients, and increased their con-fidence in their ability to make a differencein the community. Service leamers' prefer-ence for short-term community involve-ment and levels of civic engagementincreased throughout the semester and ispartially congment with the findings ofPayne (2000), who found that serviceleaming students make short-term com-mitments and then transition to long-termcommitments to community service.
A possible explanation for inconsistentfindings between previous and currentresearch are methods and measurements.Previous research assessed students'community involvement with a singlemeasure (Payne 2000), and in this studywe evaluated students' attitudes andbehaviors with multiple methods. Ourstudy controlled for good-subject effectsand halo effects (Rosenthal and Rosnow1991) associated with previous research.In addition, service leaming provided stu-dents with opportunities to work ingroups with peers and engage in interper-sonal interactions with culturally diversechildren at a school and a program locat-ed in the poorest neighborhood in thecommunity. Unfortunately, this projectalso exposed the students to some of theworst aspects of the local politicalprocess, including the closing of theschool where they were placed and the
316 COLLEGE TEACHING
misuse of funds and supplies by leadersin the after-school program. Such expo-sure may have influenced students'awareness of local politics, civic engage-ment, and preference for short-term com-munity involvement.
The placement site activity influencedstudents' personal and social develop-ment. Mentors acquired a deeper under-standing of social institutions and theirinfluence on community recipients, andthe act of mentoring gave students anopportunity to develop relationships withchildren and administrators of differentraces, social classes, and family dynam-ics, thus increasing the students' interestin learning about the community andtheir comprehension of institutionalinequities and injustices. It is possible,then, that the nature of the service activi-ty may change student attitudes in waysthat are unforeseen and desirable. This isan avenue that demands further research.
Another objective of this study was touse the qualitative data to explain themissing links in students' attitudes andbehaviors before and after service.Almost all of the students described adeeper understanding and application oftheoretical concepts in their reflections.However, students' grade point averagesdid not change as expected and are par-tially consistent with previous studies(Fredericksen 2000; Strage 2000; Voge-lesgang and Astin 2000), Inconsistentfmdings in qualitative and quantitativedata may be attributed to the differentassessment methods that were used tomeasure academic learning, and academ-ic learning may be better assessed withqualitative methods. In addition, morethan half of the students' reflections illus-trated their comprehension of the socialproblems that plague the community anddescribed solutions for community prob-lems is inconsistent with students' self-reports on surveys of problem-solvingskills, A possible explanation for thisinconsistent finding is that the problem-solving subscale measured students' abil-ity to communicate and work well withothers, rather than finding solutions tocommunity problems (Moely, McFarlandet al, 2002), Almost half of the studentsreported that they continued to volunteerat the placement after required hours andbefore the school was closed as a method
to solve the problem of overcrowdedclassrooms. The students' ability to takeownership for social problems may bemore indicative of their problem-solvingability than their problem-solving skillson self-reported surveys.
Students' reflections indicate that theylearned about themselves, acquiredknowledge about the demands of teach-ing, and learned to make objective careerdecisions. In addition, their reflectionsindicate that they changed their precon-ceived notions about the community,learned to interact with people who areculturally different and discovered com-monalities, and developed tolerant atti-tudes toward cultural differences. Stu-dents formed relationships withcommunity recipients and sustained theserelationships and their involvementbeyond the initial service. The consistentdata on students' surveys and reflectionsmake us feel confident asserting that stu-dents benefit from engaging in this formof pedagogy,
A final objective of this study was toinquire into the leaming processes thatoccur while students engage in servicelearning. The majority of studentsdescribe understanding the course contentand acquiring self-knowledge and socialcompetencies through social-emotionalleaming. This kind of leaming is a processthrough which people leam to recognizeand manage emotions, care about others,and make responsible decisions to solveproblems (Fredericks 2003; Wang andGordon 1994; Zins et al, 2001), Social-emotional leaming contributes to serviceleaming and, at the same time, serviceleaming provides students with an oppor-tunity to demonstrate values and skillsderived from social-emotional leaming(such as respect and responsibility). Thequalitative data provides a proceduralframework of service leaming throughsocial-emotional leaming, and the integra-tion of both qualitative and quantitativedata furthers our conceptual framework ofa service leaming model and its influenceon learning, personal, and social out-comes.
Implications for CourseDevetopment
Our findings may be of particularinterest for faculty developing service
learning courses. First, faculty shouldhave a working knowledge of the localpolitics surrounding educational institu-tions and community agencies, becausethe organizational politics are likely toinfluence the students' level of communi-ty and civic engagement. Faculty shouldprepare students to deal with local poli-tics in a way that prevents students fromending their service.
Second, faculty should select short-termrather than long-term projects because stu-dents will be able to view their impact oncommunity recipients. It appears thatwhen students are able to view theiraccomplishments, they gain greater levelsof satisfaction with the service experi-ences. The faculty will also need to nego-tiate activities with placement sites thatallow students to work in groups and fos-ter relationships with community recipi-ents. Specifically, faculty should selectactivities that balance the students' level ofautonomy with supervision to promotecommunity and civic engagement.
Finally, faculty should avoid givingcredit for time spent at the placement site.Students are likely to develop a deeperunderstanding of the course content, mod-ify their thoughts about the community,and take responsibility for social problemsin the community through their relation-ships with community recipients. This typeof academic leaming and student develop-ment cannot be assessed through a setamount of time, but rather through social-emotional leaming that is fostered by theservice activity and course assignments.Faculty must collaborate with agencies andorganizations to design assignments thatfoster this kind of leaming, thus allowingstudents to apply the course material,acquire personal growth and self-efficacy,and develop an understanding of theirinfluence on community recipients.
The current study adds to the researchon service learning by evaluating learn-ing, personal, and social outcomes withan explanatory methods design. Thereare probably homogeneity and sample-selection limitations associated with thestudents who volunteered for this study.Students from public institutions arelikely to have different views of servicelearning because of their personal char-acteristics, educational experiences,and service opportunities. Participants
Vol. 54/No. 4 317
reported on their attitudes and behaviorswith multiple questionnaires and open-and closed-ended questions, and thereare likely social desirability and self-report biases associated with our results.More research is needed to identify aclear and consistent pattern of servicelearning outcomes with a triangulationmixed methods design. This would makean interesting future study.
Key words: personal and social out-comes, service learning, social-emotionallearning
REFERENCES
Boyle-Baise, M., and J. Kilbane. 2000. Whatreally happens? A look inside service-learn-ing for multicultural teacher education.Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLeaming 7:54-64.
Bringle, R. G., M. A. Phillips, and M. Hudson.2004. The measure of service learning.Washington, DC: American PsychologicalPress.
Creswell, J. W. 1994. Research design: Qual-itative and quantitative approaches. Thou-sand Oaks, C;A: Sage.
. 1998. Qualitative inquiry andresearch design: Choosing among five tra-ditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Enos, S., and M. Troppe. 1996. Curricularmodels for service learning. MetropolitanUniversities 7(1): 71-84.
Eyler, J. S. 2000. What do we most need toknow about the impact of service learningon student leaming? Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning, SpecialIssue, 11-17.
Eyler, J. S., and D. E. Giles. 1999. Where's theleaming in service leaming? San Francis-co: Jossey-Bass.
Eyler, J. S., D. E. Giles, C. M. Stenson, and C.J. Gray. 2003. What we know about theeffects of service leaming on college stu-dents, faculty, institutions and communi-ties, 1993-2000, 3rd ed. In Introduction toservice leaming toolkit, 15-22. Providence,RI: Campus Compact.
Federicks, L. 2003. Making the case for socialand emotional leaming and service-learn-ing. Denver: Collaborative for Academic,
Social and Emotional Leaming, EducationCommission ofthe States.
Fredericksen, P. J. 2000. Does service learn-ing make a difference in student perfor-mance? Joumal of Experiential Education23 (2): 64-74.
Furco, A. 2003. Service leaming: A balancedapproach to experiential education. InIntroduction to service-learning toolkit,11-14. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
Gallini, S. M., and B. E. Moely. 2003. Serviceleaming and engagement, academic chal-lenge, and retention. Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning 10 (1): 1-14.
Gardner, H. 1993. Multiple intelligences: Thetheory in practice. New York: Basic.
. 1999. Intelligence reframed. NewYork: Basic.
-. 2004. Erames of mind: The theory ofmultiple intelligences. New York: Basic.
Green, A. E. 2001. "But you aren't white?":Racial perspectives and service learning."Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLearning 8 (1): 18-26.
Harkavy, I., J. Puckett, and D. Romer. 2000.Action research: Bridging service andresearch. Michigan Journal of CommunityService Learning, Special Issue, 113-19.
Howard, J. P. F. 2003. Academic service leam-ing: A counternormative pedagogy. InIntroduction to service learning toolkit,57-62. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
Howard-Hamilton, M. 2000. Programmingfor multicultural competencies. New Direc-tions for Student Services 90:67-78.
Jacoby, B. 1996. Service learning in highereducation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Litke, R. A. 2002. Do all students "get it?"Comparing students' reflections to courseperformance. Michigan Joumal of Commu-nity Service Leaming 8 (2): 27-34.
Moely, B. E., M. McFarland, D. Miron, D.Mercer, and V. Illustre. 2002. Changes incollege students' attitudes and intentions forcivic involvement as a function of serviceleaming experiences. Michigan Joumal ofCommunity Service Leaming 9(1): 18-26.
Moely, B. E., S. H. Mercer, D. Ilustre, D.Miron, and M. McFarland. 2002. Psycho-metric properties and correlates of the civicattitudes and skills questionnaire (CASQ):A measure of student's attitudes related toservice leaming. Michigan Joumal of Com-munity Service Leaming 8 (2): 15-26.
Moore, D. T. 2000. The relationship betweenexperimental leaming research and servicelearning research. Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning, SpecialIssue, 124-28.
Payne, C. A. 1998. Community serviceinvolvement preference inventory: Techni-cal specifications manual. Unpublishedmanuscript.
. 2000. Changes in involvement prefer-ences as measured by the community ser-vice involvement preference inventory.Michigan Joumal of Community ServiceLearning 7:41-53.
Ramaley, J. A. 2000. Strategic directions forservice leaming research: A presidentialperspective. Michigan Joumal of Commu-nity Service Learning 91-97.
Reinke, S. J. 2003. Making a difference: Doesservice-leaming promote civic engagementin MPA students? Joumal of Public AffairsEducation 9 (2): 129-37.
Rockquemore, K. A., and R. H. Schaffer.2000. Toward a theory of engagement: Acognitive mapping of service learning.Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLeaming 7:14-23.
Root, S., J. Callahan, and J. Sepanski. 2002.Building teaching dispositions and service-leaming practice: A multi-site study. Michi-gan Journal of Community Service Learn-ing 8 (2): 50-59.
Rosenthal, R., and R. L. Rosnow. 1991.Essentials of behavioral research: Methodsand data analysis. 2nd ed. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Salovey, P., M. A. Brackett, and J. D. Mayer.2004. Emotional intelligence: Key readingson the Mayer and Salovey model. PortChester, NY: Dude Publishing.
Sigmon, R. L., and S. G. Pelletier, eds. 1996.Journey to service-learning: Experiencesfrom independent liberal arts colleges anduniversities. Washington, DC: Council ofIndependent Colleges.
Stanton, T. K., D. E. Giles, and N. I. Cruz.1999. Service learning. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Strage, A. A. 2000. Service leaming: Enhanc-ing leaming outcomes in a college-levellecture course. Michigan Joumal of Com-munity Service Leaming 7:5-13.
Vogelgesang, L. J., and A. W. Astin. 2000.Comparing the effects of community ser-vice and service leaming. Michigan Journalof Community Service Learning 7:25-34.
Wang, M. C , and E. W. Gordon. 1994. Edu-cational resilience in inner-city America:Challenges and prospects. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zins, J. E., R. P Weissberg, M. C. Wang, andH. J. Walberg. 2001. Social-emotionalleaming and school success. CEIC Review10 (6): 1-3.
318 COLLEGE TEACHING
APPENDIXReflection Questions
Open-etided Questions
1, What did you gain from your service leaming experience?2, Did service leaming influence your career choice? If so, explain,3, Did service leaming help you understand the course content? If so, explain,4, Identify benefits and limitations to the service leaming experience,5, Identify how service leaming contributed to the community/children/school or
program,6, What similarities and differences did you detect hetween you and the children/staff
who you worked with?7, Did your perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and levels of empathy change through your
service leaming experience?8, What did you leam about children placed at-risk and how have your views changed
since the beginning of the semester?9, What did you get out of this course by participating in service leaming?
Closed-ended Questions
10, Do you consider Chester a part of your community?11, Do you participate in any other leadership or civic endeavors (such as voting, stu-
dent organizations, or neighborhood groups)?12, Have you enrolled in a service leaming, multicultural, or experiential leaming
course next semester?
Unn,d SHIM Potui Swvtca
Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation
COLLEGE TEACHINGISSN: I7i(i-7M5
2 6 0 - 2 0 0
7, Convlat* luUiling AdOr**! ol Known Ofllc* ol Publication rNef pitmr; fSM*(, at*', ocuniy, MSM, and 2P>4;
1319 Eighieemh S tmi NW. VVWiitigion DC 2OO36-igO2
6- Annual SubaoiptiQn Prlca
instilulionsSI23
Individuali Si5
1319 Eighteenth Street NW. Wuhiogton DC 20036-1802
H. Ednor, *ra) Mwiaglf^ Editof fDorK
Helen Dwight Reid Educationii Foundation
1319 Eighteenth Streel NW. Waihington DC 20O36-i8
Board of Executive Editors1319 Eighteenth Street NW. Wmhington DC 20036-1802
E,»w f/Mm* an) oompM* m
Kaly Lindcnmuth1319 Eighteenth Street ^fW. Waihington DC 20036-1802
n w m and ttUiMtM of a l (lix;ikfic«Mrt iMTiing or AoMIng 1 pnaniM and aditvMaf ^ m* MdMdutf owrwi, ^ ow-iad tv • Fvtnanfilp or cAar unJiiD»ponnd nmf, g M / t t n ^ ^«flcf> idVWtMr oimar, ff I M puM:alM M pijMtfMi) br a rxyvnin Ofpanlialiion, 0h« a
Fun Nam*
Helen Dwighi Reid Educational Foundaiion
CwnptaM MlUno AddrMS
1319 BiBhteenih Stitel NW. Washington DC 20036'1S02
Holding 1 Parctnt or Mon ot Tolnl Amouni el Bondl, Mortgagai, of
Full Nam* ComiMt* Mailing AddrMi
12. T M Slalu* (Kw to(n«i*(«n By nonpfoW ofpanttaftoni «utfiorii»tf WTti* purpo**, luncllon, and nonprotll itatus ot tt^* organization and tha txampt tu
XEI H u Not Changad inuring Pr*c*ding12 MonlhsD H a * O
PS Forni 3526 , Ociobar 199S
13,PublicatkviTltl«
COLLEGE TEACHING
'^' Eitant and Natur* iX Ctrculatlon
a. Total Numbar ot CopMa (NM pnat wn)
b. Paid amVor
(1)
a)
0)
(4)
P«id/niqut*1>d OutHte-Ceuntf U i l SiAur«t!on) StalM en
Fonn 3541, (Indudt affuWMti pnot anO txditag* cofiht}
Paid IrvCounty SuMcrlpWn* Statad On Form 3S41
Salss Ttvough D*«l*r* and Carrian, Sh*at Vandor*,Counter Satot, and O)h*r Non-USPS Paid DWrlbution
Olhw CttnBa hUtod TivoucTi th* USPS
<=' Tolal Paid antfof FtoqiMtMd Onulalion k
/Sem el 15b. (1). (2).(3).and (4}] r
DisMMtion
offMrftsa;
(U
a)
(3)
OutsidaCouity a* SUtad on Fonn 3W1
In-County a* Slatad on Foim 3541
Omar Clasaa Manad Though t M USPS
* ' Ft** OlttriCutlon OutskM th* MalfCvr^fn or otfwr mawuj
'' TottlFrMDi>0ttvIi0nrSum<rfl5d.mdt9«.J ^
"' Total Dttlribution |5un of tSC, and 151) ^
CoptM not Oistrbutad
'• Total^Sumo/.Sc.aod/,,; ^
1' Parcvnl Paid iMVor Raqu*tt*d Circulation
(\5o. dVNM Oi I5o Umat 100)
14. luua Data tor CMulation Data BaMw
Sutmner 2006
Avarava No, Coptaa Ewn latu*Durtng Pracading 13 Uomtia
1.667
1.203
0
B4
0
1.289
32
0
0
4
36
1.325
342
t.667
97
No,Copta*ofSlng>*laau*
1.714
1.239
0
S8
0
1.327
32
0
0
4
36
1.363
351
1.714
97
1S, PuMcatMn ot SMteni*m ol Ownwitip
vns p i i^^ fun rHnuirad Wid bA DrintAd En tha FlliJ 2006 iisiia ot Ihln DubHcatlDfi D Pi£llcaUon not raoulrad
17, Stgrutur* and Td* ot Editor, PuUonar, Busn*** Managtr, or Ownr
ji^i^^^tgr^^fO^^^^,^ Circuiation Director
Dai*September 29. 2006
1 caiUy thai all Inlormaton (umlshad on thii form 1> tnj* and conip(ata. 1 undvatand thai anyon* who tumish** tal l* or mIMading Intormatkm on Itiii torm
cr who ornita rnaiertal 01 intorinaUon r*qu*«lfd on m* lorni may M autitact ID Qimlnal unctkxi* (inctuOIng tin** and lnif)ri*onri^
Instructions to Publishers
1, Compute and lila one copy ol this lortn wtth your postmastar annually on or Mfora October 1, Kaep a copy of tha complaled lormfor your records.
2, in cases whara thestockhoider Of security hokjar is a trustee, inciudein items 10 and 11 lhe rwma of Iha parson or corporation forwhom the trustee is acting, Aiso include Iha names and addresses ol IndlvlduBis who are stockhoidars who owm or hold 1 parcentor more of ma total anxiunt of bonds, moitgagas, oioihar sacuritiasof IheputiilsTtingcorporaUor). initart) 11, il nona, chack thabox. Use blank sheets if mora spaca Is required.
-a to fumish aii circuiation ir)formation caiied for in itam 15, Frae circuiation m in Hems 15d, o, and!.
if tt>a pubiication had Partodicals auttxjitzation as a ganarai or rsquatter pubiicatkin, Ihis Ststsmant of Ownarship. Mariagamant,and Circuiation must iM pubiisnad: il must ba printad In any issue In Odober or, if the publication b nol pubiished during Ociobar,the tirst issue printad aftar October,In itam 16. IndKata the date of the Issua In which this Statement of Ownership vriii be pubiished,
m\um torn or publish a alatwnwif or owtMnhlp may iMd to auapwia/on ot Periodical* authorlzallon.
