Project Interweave Proposal
February 25, 2004
Proposal Title: The Impact of Varied Reflection Approaches on Student Outcomes in Introduction to Human Services Service-Learning Projects
Primary Researchers: Prof. Pamela Kiser, Professor, Human Services
Dr. Cynthia Fair, Assistant Professor, Human Services
Team Members: Dr. Scott Glass, Assistant Professor, Human Services
Selected Students (3-5)
2. Brief relevant literature review and bibliography
Research has long indicated that certain educational benefits can be achieved through course-linked service-learning when specific conditions are present (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Honner & Pousen, 1989; Owens and Owens, 1979; Sigmon; 1979). One such condition that all service-learning experts seem to agree is necessary for positive outcomes in service-learning is student reflection (Eyler, 2002; Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda; & Yee, 2000; Myers-Lipton, 1994, 1996; Eyler, 1993; Waterman, 1993; Conrad & Hedin, 1980). That said, it also important to note that the service-learning literature repeatedly states that effective reflection can take many forms (Eyler, 2002; Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). For example, the literature suggests that students may reflect on their service-learning through writing assignments, group discussions, personal journaling, making presentations, producing artistic representations of their service work (such as poetry, visual arts, or music), etc. Despite this varied scope of effective reflection, service-learning scholarship has identified a few core characteristics that must be present in order for reflection of any type to be most effective. These characteristics include the following:
· the reflection is continuous throughout the course and receives feedback from the faculty member
· the reflection approaches are appropriate to the level of the course and the students’ abilities
· the reflection is connected with course content and goals
· the reflection is challenging to the student, engaging them in dealing with difficult issues and personal values (Eyler, Giles, & Schmeide, 1996; Hatcher & Bringle, 1997, Bringle & Hatcher, 1999).
Thus scholarship in service-learning has begun laying the groundwork of knowledge that can help guide faculty as they design their service-learning courses.
While these guiding principals are useful, there is still a great deal of latitude for the individual faculty member who is developing a course syllabus and is asking, “What type of reflection will help my students get the most out of their service-learning experiences?” The scholarship in service-learning is relatively new around such specific questions. As a result, there remain many unanswered questions about the benefits and outcomes associated with various models and forms of reflection in service-learning classes (Bringle & Hatcher, 1997). Recent publications have called specifically for research that is “more tightly focused on assessing alternative approaches to reflective instruction” in service-learning (Eyler, 2002, p. 532) and for research “on the types of reflective practice that will enhance [student] learning” (p. 531). The research project proposed in this manuscript is designed to respond to this call for more focused research by comparing the outcomes of specific types of student reflection in the service-learning course work required in HUS 111 Introduction to Human Services.
Bibliography
Astin, A., Vogelgesang, L., Ikeda, E., & Yee, J. ((2000). How service-learning affects
students. UCLA: Higher Education Research Institute.
Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1999). Reflection in Service Learning: Making Meaning of
Experience. Educational Horizons, 179-185.
Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1980). Executive summary of the final report of the
experiential education evaluation project. Minneapolis: Center for Youth
Development and Research, University of Minnesota.
Eyler, J. (2002). “Reflection: Linking service and earning—Linking students and
community. The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 58(3), 517-534.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Eyler, J., Giles, D., Schmeide, A. (1996). A Practitioners’ guide to reflection in
service-learning: Student voices and reflection. Nashville: Vanderbilt UP.
Hatcher, J., & Bringle, R. (1997). Reflection. College Teaching, 45(4), 153-159.
Honner, E., Poulsen, S. (1989). Principles of good practice in combining service
and learning. Wingspread Special Report. Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation.
Owens, T., & Owens, SK. (1979). Enhancing the quality of community learning
experiences.” Alternative Higher Education, 4(2), 103-112.
Sigmon, R. (1979). “Service learning: Three principles.” Synergist,8, 9-11.
Waterman, A. (1993). Conducting research on reflective activities in service-learning.
In A. Waterman (Ed.), Service-learning: Applications from research. NJ: Earlbaum.
3. Learning/teaching questions
The primary question guiding this research is:
What types of reflective work related to service-learning is most effective in achieving the following outcomes in Introduction to Human Services?
1) Students are able to make meaningful connections between course content/academic knowledge and their service experiences
2) Students acquire an increased awareness of social justice issues involved in their arenas of service
4. Narrative
The two student outcomes above (linkage of practice to academic knowledge and sensitivity to social justice issues) are overarching goals within the Human Services major. Work toward these outcomes begins in the Introduction to Human Services course and continues throughout the program. The service-learning project that is required in HUS 111 Introduction to Human Services is a critical assignment for initiating student development toward these goals. The human services faculty generally report disappointment with student performance in both these areas. Senior assessment data indicates that our students have improved in their ability to link knowledge with their practice experiences, but these same data also suggest that there is still considerable room for improvement. The social justice goal has never been systematically tracked or measured by the department, although the faculty generally perceives that our students tend to enter the major perceiving human problems as an outgrowth of individual or family deficits with little awareness of how larger social forces come into play. In recent years we have begun introducing more of a social problem and social policy theme throughout our curriculum to help students develop a broader understanding of the forces at work in individual human needs. This study will give us our first opportunity to investigate the social justice perspective more systematically.
In relation to the course integration goal, a previous Carnegie Teaching and Learning Grant a few years ago enabled us to begin gathering some data relevant to course integration as it relates to the use of various reflection models in the HUS 111 service-learning project. In this research project we compared two classes of HUS 111 on several dimensions, testing the effectiveness of the Integrative Processing Model as a framework for student reflection on their service-learning experiences. This research indicated that use of the model did effectively advance students’ ability to make connections between their service experiences and the course content. This Project Interweave proposal is designed to take our work on course integration a step further, as well as to initiate investigation of the social justice goal.
Students who enter the community for service experiences clearly have the opportunity to make connections between their academic learning and their experiences in the field. The extent to which students make these connections in accurate and meaningful ways is, we believe, largely contingent on the work of the faculty to foster these connections in the classroom and through well-conceived reflective assignments. As noted in the literature review, the research in service-learning supports this belief. Similarly, through service students have the opportunity to observe examples of social injustice and to witness the multiple social problems that stem from social inequality in our community. The key word here is “opportunity” which suggests that simply placing students in these settings does not mean that they will necessarily recognize the social issues involved in what they see and experience. Again, the guiding hand of a faculty member is needed to help students make these connections. An important question is what type of intervention(s) by the faculty member is/are most effective in helping students see the social justice issues involved in their service experiences? From our earlier Carnegie project, we have reason to believe that different approaches to engaging student thought about the service experience can lead students to different outcomes. This project builds upon the demonstrated results of that project.
The design of this project is that three (3) sections of HUS 111 Introduction to Human Services will be offered by the same faculty member in Fall 2005. Each of these three sections will require a service-learning project, but each section will require different reflective assignments related to the service project. Students enrolled in HUS 111 A will be taught the Integrative Processing Model (IPM). These students will use this model as the frame work for class discussion as well as for three papers during the semester. (Our previous Carnegie project only used the IPM as an in-class discussion framework). Students in HUS 111 B will keep daily journals of their service experiences and will be encouraged by the faculty member to focus on connections between course content and social justice issues in their journaling. Students in HUS 111 C will have a third distinctly different method of reflecting on their service, but the reflective assignments will be designed by student consultants. The faculty will recruit at least three students who are experienced with service-learning and will ask them to design the portion of the syllabus that requires students to do reflective work associated with the service-learning project. This group of students will be composed of senior human services majors and/or student leaders in the service-learning center. While the teaching faculty member will, of course, have final approval and oversight of this work, the students’ design of these assignments will be the distinguishing feature of HUS 111 C. The lead researchers of the SOTL project will convene the students and facilitate their work and will involve the teaching faculty member as needed in order to refine and shape more precisely the students’ ideas in the design of the syllabus.
Students in all three sections of HUS 111 will write a final exam question that asks them to discuss their service-learning experience in relation to 1) the content of the course and 2) their understanding of social justice issues involved in their service field. Also students in each section will be asked to take the Global Belief in a Just World Scale at the beginning and end of the semester. This scale will provide an independent measure of students’ awareness of social justice issues coming into the class and exiting the class. A strong research student will be selected from among the human services majors to conduct the quantitative analysis of this data under the guidance of Dr. Cindy Fair. A random sample of ten (10) exam essays will be selected from each class to assemble a pool of thirty (30) subjects for the study. Each essay will be scored by blind readers (one faculty member and one senior student) who will evaluate each essay on the student’s integration of academic knowledge with their service experiences and on the student’s grasp of the social justice issues involved in their work. The comparative analysis of the data from the three course sections will be also carried out jointly by Dr. Fair and the designated research student mentioned above.
This project will broaden the conversation in our department about the types of reflective work that would be beneficial for our service-learning students and will for the first time add a significant student voice to these discussions. The findings of our work will benefit not only our own discipline but will also potentially be useful to faculty and students in other disciplines who engage in academic service-learning. The study will contribute new information and insights about the value of various types of reflective work related to service-learning and the differential outcomes that may result from each type. The answers to such questions constitute an important component of the service-learning research agenda nationally and internationally and therefore would be of interest to faculty well beyond the Elon campus.
Possible venues for dissemination of this work are extensive. At the institutional level, the research can be presented in service-learning faculty development sessions as well as potentially at the North Carolina Campus Compact Conference that is held on the Elon campus each year. The potential exists as well for publication in Human Service Education, a peer reviewed journal of the National Organization for Human Services, or possibly within a broader publication focusing on experiential learning such as the Michigan Journal of Community Service or the Journal of Experiential Education.
5- 6. Budget and Timeline
Year 1
Lead Researcher 1 $ 1950.00
Lead Researcher 2 $ 1950.00
Students $ 400.00
Teaching faculty member $ 700.00
Total $ 5000.00
The work of the first year will consist of assembling the research team and designing the project with them. The lead researchers will select and meet with the students who will be involved in various roles in the project and will prepare them for those roles (i.e., course design students, quantitative research student, and blind reader). Also the lead researchers will be working with the teaching faculty member and the course design students to develop the student designed reflection assignments/approaches for HUS 111 C. Finally, the lead researchers will be working with the teaching faculty member to develop the three (3) different HUS 111 syllabi.
Year 2
Lead Researcher 1 $ 1950.00
Lead Researcher 1 $ 1950.00
Students $ 500.00
Teaching faculty member $ 600.00
Total $ 5000.00
In the fall of year two (2005) we will implement the project as the three sections of HUS 111 involved in the study will be taught. The spring of year two (2006) will focus on the analysis of the results of the study. The blind readers will evaluate the essays from the fall semester (Kiser and student) and the quantitative research team (Fair and student) will analyze the data from the social justice scale and from the blind reader assessments. The lead researchers will coordinate the research team, convening and facilitating the work of the appropriate team members for each aspect of the work as needed. The final report will be written by the end of the spring semester. The research team as a whole will convene at the end of the spring semester to reflect on the experience, evaluate our work, and develop plans for dissemination. The second year will also involve the lead researchers in mentoring a newly selected SOTL team.
______
Department Chair Signature Date
______
Dean Signature Date
Appendices
Information regarding the Global Belief in a Just World Scale
Information regarding the Integrative Processing Model