ERIC ED443380: Combining Service and Learning in Higher Education: Learn and Serve America, Higher Education. Summary Report.

33 Pages·1999·0.8 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 443 380
HE 033 145
AUTHOR
Gray, Maryann J.; Ondaatje, Elizabeth H.; Zakaras, Laura
TITLE
Combining Service and Learning in Higher Education: Learn
and Serve America, Higher Education. Summary Report.
INSTITUTION
Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA.
SPONS AGENCY
Corporation for National and Community Service, Washington,
DC
ISBN
ISBN-0-8330-2757-3
PUB DATE
1999-00-00
NOTE
32p.; This summary is based on a research report, "Combining
Service and Learning in Higher Education: Evaluation of the
Learn and Serve America, Higher Education Program," by
Maryann J. Gray, Elizabeth H. Ondaatje, Ronald Fricker,
Sandra Geschwind, Charles A. Goldman, Tessa Kaganoff, Abby
Robyn, Melora Sundt, Lori Vogelgesang, and Stephen P. Klein.
AVAILABLE FROM
RAND, Distribution Services, 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box
2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138; Tel: [phone]; Fax:
310-451-6915; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
http://www.rand.org.
PUB TYPE
Reports - Evaluative (142)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
College Role; Community Involvement; *Community Services;
Cooperative Programs; Educational Economics; Experiential
Learning; Higher Education; Partnerships in Education;
Public Service; Role of Education; *School Community
Programs; School Community Relationship; *Service Learning;
*Student Development; *Student Participation; *Student:
Volunteers; Universities; Work Experience Programs
IDENTIFIERS
*Learn and Serve America
ABSTRACT
As mandated by the U.S. Congress, this report evaluates the
Learn and Serve America program's effects on higher education students
(service providers), service recipients, and higher education institutions,
and assesses the program's return on investment. An introduction summarizes
the policy debate and reviews the study objectives and approach. Other
sections:
(1) review program accomplishments in direct service and capacity
building;
(2) assess the program's effects on student development;
(3) assess
the program's effects on communities;
(4) assess the program's effects on
colleges and universities as measured by four objectives (expanding student
service opportunities, integrating service into course work, fostering
mutually beneficial relationships with community organizations, and promoting
sustainable programs); and (5) estimate the program's return on investment.
The report finds that community organizations are strongly positive about the
program; that institutional support is growing and an increasing number of
service-learning courses are being offered; and that students are satisfied
with their service learning courses. In measuring the program's return on
investment, it was found that the value of services delivered increased
sharply over three years relative to resources expended; in the third year,
the return on investment was positive.
(CH)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
#
,
a
AIM
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
g This document has been reproduced as
w received from the person or organization
originating it
O Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality
° Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
A
0
Combining Service and
Learning in Higher Education
SUMMARY REPORT
Maryann J. Gray
Elizabeth H. Ondaatje
Laura Zakaras
RAN D
EDUCATION
The research described in this report was supported by the Corporation for
National and Community Service.
ISBN: 0-8330-2757-3
Building on more than 25 years of research and evaluation work, RAND
Education has as its mission the improvement of educational policy and practice
in formal and informal settings from early childhood on. RAND is
a nonprofit
institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and
analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND's publications do not
neces-
sarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors.
© Copyright 1999 RAND
Cover design by Eileen Delson La Russo
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in
any form by any
electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording,
or informa-
tion storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND.
Published 1999 by RAND
1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1333 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-4707
RAND URL: http: / /www.rand.org/
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone];
Internet: [email protected]
Preface
This summary is based
on a research report entitled Combining Service
and Learning in Higher Education: Evaluation of the
Learn and Serve
America, Higher Education Program (RAND, MR-998-EDU,
1999) by
Maryann J. Gray, Elizabeth H. Ondaatje, Ronald Fricker,
Sandra
Geschwind, Charles A. Goldman, Tessa Kaganoff, Abby
Robyn,
Me lora Sundt, Lori Vogelgesang, and Stephen P. Klein. The
research
was sponsored by the Corporation for National and Community Ser-
vice (CNS), a public corporation that
operates AmeriCorps, the Na-
tional Senior Service Corps, and Learn and Serve America.
The purpose of Learn and Serve America is
to incorporate com-
munity service into academic learning in both K-12 and higher
edu-
cation. The National and Community Service Trust Act
requires CNS
to evaluate its programs and report the results to Congress (section
12651d). RAND's task was to focus
on Learn and Serve America,
Higher Education (LSAHE), evaluating the program's effects
on service
providers (i.e., students), service recipients, and higher
education in-
stitutions, and assessing the nation's
returns from investing in the pro-
gram.
iii
At
a Glance
What work did Learn and Serve America, Higher
Education (LSAHE)
perform?
LSAHE awarded approximately $10 million
in direct grants to
about 100 higher education institutions and
community orga-
nizations for each of the three
years from Fiscal Year 1995
through Fiscal Year 1997. Through subgranting,
these funds
reached close to 500 higher education institutionsnearly
one
of every eight colleges and universities
nationwide.
In FY 1997 alone, an
average program involved over 60 stu-
dents providing
more than 2,500 hours of volunteer service.
Most students served
as part of academic courses; a smaller
number served through extracurricular
activities.
More resources were devoted
to building institutional capacity
for community service than
to offering direct service to the
community. Over the three
years, staff at LSAHE programs
spent about half of their time on capacity building, compared
to
one-third of their time
on training, supervising, and coordinat-
ing student volunteers.
Education was the most
common area of service. Seventy-five to
80 percent of students chose
to work in education.
How did the program affect students?
Results indicate
a strong correlation between student participa-
tion in a service-learning
course and increased civic responsi-
bility.
Analysis of a wide variety of college
courses showed no associ-
ation between participation in
a service-learning course and
improvement in a student's academic abilities
or career prepa-
ration. Correlation did
emerge, however, when certain "good
practices" were employedsuch
as establishing strong links
between the service experience and the
course content, having
COMBINING SERVICE AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
vi
student volunteers serve for more than 20 hours per semester,
and discussing service in class.
How did the program affect communities?
Student volunteers helped community organizations reach more
people and improve the quality of their services.
Communities were extremely satisfied with the contributions of
student volunteers, giving them high marks on all dimensions,
particularly enthusiasm and interpersonal skills.
How did the program affect institutions?
The program met three of its four institutional objectives: it ex-
panded service opportunities for students, integrated service
into courses, and strengthened community relations.
It is still too early to determine the program's success in meeting
its fourth institutional objective: promoting program sustain-
ment. At the end of the study, nearly half the institutions lacked
the resources they would need to sustain the service-learning
programs once funding ran out.
Four key factors led to program sustainment: an institutional
tradition of service, leadership of a single individual, faculty sup-
port, and the presence of service centers.
What was the program's return on investment?
The value of services increased sharply over the three years rel-
ative to resources expended. Although the programs did not
repay their entire investment in the three years, there was a
positive return on investment in the third year. Results suggest
that the programs will more than repay the total investment if
they sustain these returns past the third year.
Combining Service and Learning
in Higher Education
INTRODUCTION
The Policy Debate
In the past decade, colleges and universities have made
greater efforts
to involve students in community service, particularly service-learning,
a special form of community service designed to promote student
learning and development. Proponents of service-learning
believe that
it stimulates academic performance, increases students' understanding
of the responsibilities of living in
a democratic society, and encourages
students to become involved in the social problems facing
their com-
munities. Hundreds of college and university presidents,
most of the
major higher education associations, and
a number of highly influen-
tial scholars actively support the development of
service-learning pro-
grams on college campuses.
At the same time, service-learning has its critics, particularly
among
faculty, many of whom
are skeptical of its benefits. Critics contend that
service waters down the curriculum, further weakening the
quality of
higher education, and that the time students spend
volunteering in
community agencies as part of
a course might be better spent in the li-
brary or laboratory.
This report summarizes the results of
a RAND study designed to
resolve some fundamental questions about service-learning.
The study
evaluated Learn and Serve America, Higher Education
(LSAHE), a
service-learning program administered by the
Corporation for
1
2 COMBINING SERVICE AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
National and Community Service (CNS).' Between Fiscal Year 1995
and Fiscal Year 1997, LSAHE awarded approximately $35 million to
more than 500 higher education institutions and community organiza-
tions. These funds were used to enhance the links between community
service and academic learning by developing service-learning pro-
grams as part of the regular college curriculum. This study evaluated
the effects of the program on student volunteers, service recipients, and
higher education institutions. It also assessed the returns
on the nation's
investment in LSAHE.
Study Objectives and Approach
We addressed five questions:
What work did LSAHE perform?
How did participation in the program affect students?
How did the program affect communities?
How did the program affect higher education institutions?
What was the program's return on investment?
We used LSAHE-supported programs as the unit of analysis. Be-
cause institutions usually combine their LSAHE funds with other
sources of support to initiate a range of service-learning activities on
campus, the effects of these programs cannot be wholly attributed to
LSAHE.
Our analysis was based on surveys, site visits, and data analysis.
The surveys were as follows: (1) annual accomplishments
surveys that
questioned all LSAHE program directors each year, (2) two community
impact surveys of a random sample of community organizations that
were host sites for student volunteers from LSAHE institutions, and (3)
a 1997 student survey, comparing students enrolled in LSAHE-
supported courses with those enrolled in non-service-learning
courses.
Over 1,300 students from 28 institutions completed this survey.
I The Clinton administration created the National and Community Service Trust Act in September 1993.
This act established the Corporation for National and Community Service to operate three initiatives:
Learn and Serve America, AmeriCorps, and the National Senior Service Corps. Learn and Serve America
comprises two programs: Learn and Serve K-12, for elementary and secondary students, and Learn and
Serve Higher Education, for undergraduate and graduate students.
COMBINING SERVICE AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3
Our study team made ten site visits
per year, during which team
members interviewed
program staff, faculty, administrators, and com-
munity agency staff. Follow-up telephone interviews
were conducted
with 18 sites one to two
years after the site visits to determine how the
programs had developed.
Survey data were analyzed in two
ways. First, results were aggre-
gated across all respondents to provide
an overview of LSAHE as a
whole. Second, subgroups of respondents
were compared to determine
how LSAHE-supported
programs differed as a function of various
factors, such as geographic location, institutional
type, grant type and
size, and area of service.'
The following sections summarize the research findings for each of
the five study questions and identify the factors
most important to suc-
cessful implementation of service-learning
programs.
LSAHE PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
LSAHE has three primary objectives: (1) to
engage students in ad-
dressing the needs of communities; (2) to enhance students' academic
learning, sense of social responsibility, and civic skills through service-
learning; and (3) to increase the number, quality, and sustainability of
opportunities for students to serve.
To achieve these goals, CNS awards grants to higher education in-
stitutions and a small number of community organizations
to develop
or improve courses or programs that involve students in service as part
of their education. These direct
grantees have included some single in-
stitutions and some consortia, or
groups of institutions linked to a cen-
tral hub. The consortia used their LSAHE
grants to award subgrants to
member institutions, a small number of which then awarded sub-
subgrants. Through subgranting, LSAHE funds reached between 365
and 458 higher education institutions nationwide each
year.
2 The evaluation depended heavily, although not exclusively,
on self-reports of respondents. For example,
we relied on LSAHE program directors and community organization staff to provide the number of stu-
dent volunteers, service hours, and service outputs, and made
no effort to verify the accuracy of the in-
formation. Similarly, students were asked for their own evaluation of the effects of service-learning
on their
attitudes and behavior. Such self-evaluations may either
over- or understate the actual effects of LSAHE
participation.
,4.