ERIC EJ904636: Developing a Faculty Inventory Measuring Perceived Service-Learning Benefits and Barriers

2010·0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

MichiganJournalofCommunityServiceLearning Spring2010,pp.78-89
Developing a Faculty Inventory Measuring Perceived
Service-Learning Benefits and Barriers
Su-IHou
UniversityofGeorgia
The purpose of this study was to develop a Web-based Faculty Service-Learning Beliefs Inventory
(wFSLBI)assessingfacultymembers’viewsofthebenefitsandbarriersinvolvedwithservice-learning
(SL) pedagogy.Analyses of the responses of 362 faculty members showed that Inventory items loaded
consistently on four sub-scales: Perceived benefits at classroom (PROS_CLS) and community levels
(PROS_COM),andperceivedbarriersatclassroom(CONS_CLS)andinstitutionallevels(CONS_INST).
ThewFSLBIshowedsatisfactoryreliabilityandvalidityamongfacultygroupswithandwithoutSLexpe-
rience.ThewFSLBIwillbeusefulinassessingandunderstandingsalientbeliefsmotivatingordiscour-
agingfacultyinvolvementinSL.
D
espite the extensive research regarding student vice-learning, including increased student under-
involvementwithservice-learning(SL),thereislim- standing of course material, increased student per-
itedresearchintheareaoffacultyparticipationwith sonaldevelopment,increasedstudentunderstanding
this pedagogical approach. Studies have shown stu- of social problems as systemic, provision of useful
dentbenefitsthroughreciprocalcommunity-campus serviceinthecommunity,andcreationofuniversity-
partnerships that offer an innovative pedagogical community partnerships. Another study surveyed
approach to engage student learning, strengthen project directors of 66 institutions of higher educa-
opennesstodiversity,andencouragecivicresponsi- tionparticipatingintheAssociationforGerontology
bility (Bringle, Hatcher, & Games, 1997; Butin, in Higher Education / Generations Together grants,
2006). To encourage faculty service-learning and discovered similar perceived benefits (Bulot &
involvement, it is necessary to have a better under- Johnson, 2006). Salient motivating factors were the
standingandassessmentofthebenefitsandbarriers greaterrelevanceofcoursematerialwiththeservice-
perceivedbyfaculty. learning approach as well as the enhanced connec-
Currently,thereislimitedinformationaboutfacul- tions among faculty, community, and students. In
ty involvement and use of the service-learning addition, increased awareness of community issues,
approach. One of the principal sources of informa- opportunitiestodevelopcloserworkingrelationships
tion is the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement with communities, improved student learning out-
(FSSE,2007).Thissurveyisaprojectcoordinatedby comes,andmoremeaningfulengagementandcom-
theNationalSurveyofStudentEngagement(NSSE) mitmenttoteachinghavebeenidentifiedasfaculty-
atIndianaUniversityandisdesignedtoassessfacul- perceived benefits of such pedagogy (Bulot &
ty member’s expectations of student engagement in Johnson;Hammond,1994;Pribbenow,2005).
those educational practices empirically associated Researchhasbeenlimitedregardingbarriersfacul-
with high degrees of student learning and advance- ty encounter when integrating service-learning into
ment (NSSE, 2009). Although the FSSE includes instruction. Some common challenges reported
questions about service activities, internships, and includetimeconstraintsleadingtodifficultybalanc-
communityinvolvement,itdoesnotexplicitlyexam- ingprofessionalresponsibilitiesandcoordinationof
inefacultyperceptionstowardtheintegrationofser- the service component, challenges of adjusting for
vice-learningintotheirteaching. different levels of student readiness, and challenges
Whilelimitedresearchexistsaboutfacultypercep- in assessing student work (Abes et al., 2002;
tions of SL, existing studies have pointed to some Hammond, 1994). Other barriers include logistical
generalmotivatingfactors.Abes,Jackson,andJones challenges,insufficientrelationshipswithcommuni-
(2002) examined factors motivating and deterring typartners,orinadequateknowledgeofwaystouse
faculty use of service-learning among 500 faculty theSLapproacheffectively(Bulot&Johnson,2006;
membersfrom29highereducationinstitutionsaffil- Driscoll,2000;Hammond).Finally,thelackofinsti-
iated with Ohio Campus Compact. They identified tutional recognition of service-learning as scholar-
fivefactorsmoststronglymotivatingtheuseofser- ship has been recognized as an important issue that
78
DevelopingaFacultyInventory
needstobefurtherexamined(Hammond;Morton& pateinthestudy.Facultymemberswhohaveinstruc-
Troppe,1996). tionalresponsibilityorwhohadtaughtacourseinthe
Althoughexistingstudieshavepointedtosomegen- previous academic year were eligible to participate.
eral factors encouraging or discouraging faculty SL Anadministrativememowasfirstsentoutinspring
participation, currently there is no systematically 2008todeans,directors,andchairsinformingthem
developedmeasurementtoolavailabletoexaminefac- of the upcoming survey, followed by an invitation
torsinfluencingfacultySLparticipation.Whilesome email sent directly to faculty members. Participants
belief or perception scales are being used wereinformedthattheywereselectedtoprovidethe
(Community-Campus Partnerships for Health universitywithabetterunderstandingofcurrentSL
(CCPH), 2001; Corporation for National and practice among faculty and identify perceived chal-
CommunityService(CNCS)FacultyFellowsSurvey, lenges and barriers for future faculty development
2007; Loyola University Office of Service Learning and support. Participation was voluntary and confi-
Faculty Post-Survey, 2004; Shinnamon, Gelmon, & dential. The invitation also noted that even if they
Holland,1999),thepsychometricsofthesescalesare mighthavenoexperiencewithservice-learning,their
often not available. In addition, no systematically responseswouldstillbevaluableforplanningfacul-
developed instrument is currently available to assess ty development opportunities. As our appreciation
service-learningperceptionsamongfacultywhovary for their time, participants were given the option of
in service-learning experience. To better develop entering a drawing of SL publications or teaching
resourcesandtoencouragefacultyparticipationinser- resources. Participants had a three-and-a-half-week
vice-learning pedagogy, it is essential to understand window to respond to the online survey. The first
benefitsandbarriersthatfacultymembersacrossdif- emailreminderwassentoutaweekaftertheinvita-
ferentservice-learninginvolvementstatusesperceive. tion email, and the second email reminder was sent
Throughsuchefforts,wecanidentifykeybeliefsthat out a week before the survey was due. Participants
canencourage,motivate,andsustainfacultyinvolve- neededtoclickthroughtheconsentpagebeforetak-
mentinservice-learning. ingthesurvey.Thesurveytookabout12-15minutes
Thepurposeofthisstudywastodevelopandvali- to complete. All phases of the research were con-
date a Web-based Faculty Service-Learning Belief ductedwiththeapprovaloftheInstitutionalReview
Inventory to assess faculty perceived benefits and Board for the Protection of Human Subjects at the
barrierstowardservice-learningadoption.Theover- principalinvestigator’suniversity.
all guiding theoretical framework for survey devel- Atotalof449facultymembersparticipatedinthe
opment was the Transtheoretical Model (TTM; study,aresponserateof37.4%.Excluding87facul-
Prochaska, Redding, & Evers, 2002). TTM is a ty members who indicated that they didn’t know
model of intentional change which focuses on the whatservice-learningis,thecurrentanalysisinclud-
individual decision-making process. Individuals ed362participants(102withservice-learningexpe-
weighprosandconsbeforeadoptinganewbehavior. rienceand260without).FacultywithSLexperience
According to the TTM, behavior change is gradual referredtothosewhohadtaughtatleastonecourse
and viewed as a process rather than an all-or-none with an SL component or were teaching SL for the
event. Items for the wFSLBI were developed and firsttimeatthetimeofthesurvey(n=102).Faculty
organizedutilizingkeyconstructsonperceivedben- without SL experience referred to those who were
efits and barriers from the TTM’s decision balance awareofSLpedagogybuthadnotyettaughtacourse
scale,whichareimportantfactorsinfluencingstages withanSLcomponentatthetimeofthesurvey.This
ofbehavioraladoption.Theinnovationandkeycon- groupincludedfacultywhowereeitherinterestedor
tribution of this study was the development in the notinterestedinusingSL,aswellasthoseexploring
wFSLBIofcorrespondingmeasurementitemstobe ways to incorporate SL into their teaching but had
used with faculty who have taught service-learning not yet taught such courses (n = 260). The propor-
coursesandthosewhohavenothadexperiencewith tions of faculty from each college/school participat-
service-learning.ThewFSLBIcouldthenbeusedto ing in the survey were representative of the overall
assess and compare faculty groups varying in SL institutional sample and of faculty with instruction
involvement. responsibilities at the institution. Table 1 describes
demographic and background information of those
Method
whocompletedthesurveyincludingtheSLfaculty,
non-SL faculty, and unaware faculty groups. As
ResearchParticipants
shownthere,membersoftheservice-learningfacul-
Arepresentativesampleof1200facultymembers tygroupweremorelikelytobefemales;lesslikely
fromeachcollege/schoolatamajorresearchuniver- to be younger than 40 years; more likely to be at
sity in the Southeastern U.S. was invited to partici- associateprofessorrank;lesslikelytocomefromart
79
Hou
Table1
DemographicandBackgroundInformationforParticipants
CurrentAnalysesSample Excluded All
Experienced Non-Experienced Unaware All
Overall N=102 N=260 N=87 449
Gender
Women 56(54.9%) 92(35.4%) 28(32.2%) 176(39.2%)
Age
<40years 17(16.3%) 73(28.1%) 24(27.5%) 114(25.4%)
40~50yr 37(36.3%) 58(22.3%) 22(25.3) 117(26.1%)
50~60yrs 37(36.3%) 98(37.7%) 30(34.5%) 165(36.7%)
>60years 11(10.8%) 31(11.9%) 11(12.6%) 53(11.8%)
TenureStatus
Tenured/Tenuretrack 77(75.5%) 217(83.5%) 62(71.3%) 356(79.3%)
Nontenuretrack 25(24.5%) 43(16.5%) 25(28.7%) 93(20.7%)
Rank
Assistant 18(17.6%) 64(24.6%) 23(26.4%) 105(23.4%)
Associate 42(41.2%) 81(31.2%) 20(23.0%) 143(31.8%)
Full 29(28.4%) 90(34.6%) 31(35.6%) 150(33.4%)
Other 13(12.7%) 25(9.6%) 13(14.9%) 51(11.4%)
College
Art/Science 15(14.7%) 95(36.5%) 43(49.4%) 153(34.1%)
Ag/Environ(Forest/Eco) 14(13.7%) 32(12.3%) 8(9.2%) 54(12.0%)
Pharmacy/Vet 7(6.9%) 31(11.9%) 22(25.3%) 60(13.3%)
Education 28(27.5%) 35(13.5%) 8(9.2%) 71(15.8%)
Law/Business 7(6.9%) 19(7.3%) 4(4.6%) 30(6.7%)
SocialSciencerelated 31(30.4%) 48(18.5%) 2(2.3%) 81(18.4%)
andsciencecollege,pharmacy,orveterinaryschools; ingandbarrierfactorsintofourareasthatcouldberel-
andmorelikelytobefacultyfromeducationorsocial evantforassessmentregardlessofpriorSLexperience
science related colleges. Faculty of the arts and sci- amongfaculty.Twocorrespondinglevelsofperceived
ences,aswellaspharmacy/veterinaryschools,were benefits were developed: Perceived benefits of SL at
morelikelytobeunawareofservice-learningpeda- classroom (PROS_CLS: 7 items) and community
gogy. Overall, respondents from the current study (PROS_COM:6items)levels.Similarly,twolevelsof
weresimilartothoseparticipatedintheFSSEstud- perceived barriers to SL were developed: Perceived
ies conducted among faculty at higher education barriersatclassroom(CONS_CLS:5items)andinsti-
institutions:boththecurrentandFSSEsamplescon- tutional(CONS_INST:3items)levels.Thesub-scales
sistedofhigherproportionsofmales,full-timefacul- included institutional barriers rather than benefits,
ty members, and faculty in the arts and humanities reflecting existing evidence that participants tend to
(FSSE,2007). viewinstitutionallevelfactorsasbarriers(Hammond,
1994;Morton&Troppe,1996).ThewFSLBIdidnot
Measurement
querybarriersatthecommunitylevel,asthemajority
Theresearchinstrumentwasanonlinesurveydevel- of faculty without prior service-learning experience
opedthroughareviewofexistingassessmenttoolson likelywouldhavehadahardtimerespondingtostate-
service-learning(CCPH,2001;CNCSFacultySurvey, mentsconcerningsuchbarriers.
2007; Loyola University OSL Faculty Post-Survey, Thedefinitionofservice-learningthattheuniversi-
2004;Shinnamonetal.,1999),adaptingandmodify- tyadoptedwasprovidedforallfacultyforreporting
ingitemsrelevanttoperceptionsrelatedtobenefitsor theirservice-learninginvolvementstatuses.Thesur-
barriers toward SL pedagogy, and developing new vey stated: “For the purpose of this survey, service-
itemsincludingcreatingcorrespondingitemstoassess learning(SL)isdefinedas‘anexperientialeducation
perceptions among faculty with or without prior ser- method which integrates academic instruction,
vice-learningexperience.Baseduponlessonslearned meaningful community service, and reflection to
fromexistingliterature,wegroupedcommonmotivat- enhance the learning experience.’” Analyses of
80
DevelopingaFacultyInventory
wFSLBI items excluded faculty who indicated they examinetheproposedfour-factormodelamongeach
werenotawareofwhatservice-learningwas,asser- group (faculty with or without SL experience). The
vice-learning perception statements would not be purpose of this process was to determine whether or
applicabletothisgroup. not there was sufficient empirical evidence that the
Allofthescaleitemsused5-pointLikertscalesto model,asspecified,wasaviablerepresentationofthe
assign meaningful values to an underlying continu- true relationships between observed and latent vari-
um of ratings (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006). ables(Mueller,1996).Judgmentsaboutmodelfitwere
Responseoptionsrangedfrom1(stronglydisagree) made jointly by assessing the ratio of chi-square to
to 5 (strongly agree). Values were later recoded to degreesoffreedom(X2/df),rootmeansquareerrorof
maintainconsistencywiththehypotheses,withhigh- approximate (RMSEA), incremental fit index (IFI),
er scores indicating more positive views for the and comparative fit index (CFI).The criteria used to
PROS items, and higher scores representing more determineifthemodelfitsthedataweretheX2/dfless
negative responses for the CONS items. Detailed thanthree(Bollen,1989),RMSEAnomorethan.08
itemdescriptionscanbefoundinTable2. (Raykov,2001),andvaluesofIFI,andCFIatleast.90
Thewordingofeachitemwaschosenaccordingly (Byrne,1998).Factorloadingswereconsideredstatis-
fortheexperiencedvs.noexperiencedgrouptomea- ticallysignificantiftheratioofthefactorloadingtoits
surethesameconceptorperceptionamongfacultyin standarderrorwasgreaterthan1.96orlessthan-1.96
various stages of SL involvement. For example, the (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The structure of factor
statement, “The service my students completed was loadingsisprovidedinFigure1.
beneficialtothecommunity”writtenforexperienced Finally,item-discriminationanalysiswasconduct-
service-learning faculty, was reworded as “I believe edtoexaminewhetherthescoresoftheinventorydis-
theservicemystudentswillcompletewillbebenefi- criminated faculty with favorable beliefs toward SL
cial to the community,” to measure comparable per- fromfacultywithlessfavorablebeliefs(Hou,2009).
ceptionsoffacultywithoutpriorSLexperience. This analysis was also done separately for faculty
Feedbackforaninitialversionofthemeasurewas with or without SL experience. Each sample was
sought from three key stakeholder groups: (1) the dividedintotwogroupsbasedonthescoresoneach
OfficeofServiceLeadership(OSL)leadershipteam, scale. Faculty members scoring in the top one-third
including higher administrators for instruction and of each scale were compared with those scoring in
publicserviceoutreachandtheOfficeforInstitutional thebottomone-thirdofthatscale.Independentttest
Research;(2)theSLCurriculumCommittee–acam- wasusedtocompareitemmeansbetweenthesetwo
pus-wide committee consisting of 18 faculty mem- groupsforeachscale.
bers across disciplines interested in SL; and (3) SL
Results
Interest Group – a campus-wide network consisting
of faculty, staff, and community partners who meet
Reliabilities
monthlydiscussingissuesrelatedtoSL.Suggestions
were incorporated into a revision, and the resulting Table 2 provides psychometric information for the
surveyinstrumentwaspilottestedwithasmallsam- wFSLBI items. The analysis of the reliability coeffi-
ple of faculty members before it was finalized and cients from the online survey showed that Cronbach
converted into the online format. The final survey alphasrangedfrom.65to.85amongfacultywithprior
consistedof5mainsections:Demographics,current SL experience (n = 102), and ranged from .74 to .91
SLpractice,perceivedbenefitsofSL,perceivedbar- among faculty without SL experience (n = 260).The
riers of SL, and directions for planning future SL correcteditem-totalcorrelations(CITC)ofthewFSLBI
trainingopportunities.Datafromthelastsectionwere itemsintherespectivefoursub-scaleswereallgreater
open-ended responses concerning faculty interests than.20,rangingfrom.34to.73fortheSLexperienced
andneedsforfutureSLtrainingopportunitiesandare faculty and from .29 to .81 for the no SL experience
notincludedintheanalysespresentedhere. faculty, indicating sufficient item corrections among
both faculty groups. The correlation matrix among
DataAnalysis
itemsisavailableuponrequest.Statisticsforbothfac-
Before data were analyzed, some items were ulty groups are provided, with statistics for the group
reverse-codedtoreflectpositiveexpressionsintheir without SL experience highlighted in italic. Item
corresponding scales (see Table 2). Descriptive sta- descriptionsinTable2representedstatementsusedfor
tistics, item-total correlation, and Cronbach's alpha facultywithpriorSLexperience.
coefficientswerecalculatedforeachscaletoevaluate
ValidityEvidence:ConfirmatoryFactorAnalysis
internal consistencies among faculty with and with-
outpriorSLexperience. Confirmatoryfactoranalysis(CFA)thenwasdone
Confirmatory factor analysis was then applied to totestthewFSLBIfour-factormodel:perceivedben-
81
Hou
amed
Alphifitedelet .85.88.84.88.82.88.82.88.83.90.82.87.85.88 .78.90.74.89.74.89.82.91.73.90.75.89
C
T
I 82743101149603 640149856619
C 47577777656757 476867366767
.............. ............
SD) 0)06)7)2)7)9)02)06)9)4)07)06)3)0) 1)3)1)5)9)8)7)4)2)8)0)2)
n( (.7(1.(.8(.9(.9(.9(1.(1.(.9(.9(1.(1.(.8(.9 (.6(.8(.7(.9(.6(.7(.9(.9(.8(.8(.6(.8
a 05296119509860 755232527811
Me 4.53.44.13.23.63.03.42.73.63.53.72.04.03.5 4.43.84.43.64.33.93.63.43.83.54.43.6
e nt
c e
n m
forthewFSLBI ItemdescriptionWithpriorSLexperiencea NopriorSLexperience(Italic)b CronbachAlphanPROS-Classroomlevel(withexperience)([7-item]=.85;=102)PROS-Classroomlevel(noexperience)(CronbachAlpha[7-item]=.90;n=260)Service-learningenrichesclassroomdiscussionsandlecturesinmycourse. Ienjoyteachingmorewhentheclassinvolvesservice-learning. Service-learninghelpedmetounderstandmyprofessionalstrengthsandweakness. Participatinginservice-learninghelpedmeclarifyareasoffocusformyscholarship. Teachingservice-learningcourseshasresultedinachangeinmyteachingstyle(s). Participationinservice-learningisanimportantcomponentofmyprofessionalportfolio. Iwasabletodevelopagoodrelationshipwiththestudentsinmyservice-learningcourse(s)becauseofthecommunitywork. CronbachAlphanPROS-Communitylevel(withexperience)([6-item]=.79;=102)PROS-Communitylevel(noexperience)(CronbachAlpha[6-item]=.91;n=260)Theservicemystudentscompletedwasbeneficialtothecommunity. Ivalueworkingwithcommunitypartnerstostructureanddelivertheservice-learningexperieforstudents.Ilearnedsomethingnewaboutthecommunityfrommycommunitypartners. ThecommunitymemberswithwhomIpartnerplayanactiveroleintheplanningordevelopofmyservice-learningcourse(s).TheworkmystudentsandIperformedenhancedmyabilitytocommunicatemyideasinthecommunity.Icanmakeadifferenceinthecommunity
n
o
ati
m
r
o
nf
I
c 1 2 3 4 5 6
Table2Psychometri Scalec PROS-CLS PROS-CLS_1 PROS-CLS_2 PROS-CLS_3 PROS-CLS_4 PROS-CLS_5 PROS-CLS_6 PROS-CLS_7 PROS-COM PROS-COM_ PROS-COM_ PROS-COM_ PROS-COM_ PROS-COM_ PROS-COM_
82
DevelopingaFacultyInventory
d
e
c
n
e
eri
p
x
8838647254 267278 e
5666665667 666734 L
.......... ...... S
o
n
vs.
d
.50.48.39.46.34.57.55.61.36.29 .44.52.39.46.61.65 was102. xperience
p e
u e
CronbachAlphanCONS-CLSCONS-Classroomlevel(withexperience)([4-item]=.65;=102)CONS-Classroomlevel(noexperience)(CronbachAlpha[4-item]=.74;n=260)Timeconstraintsinterferewithmyabilitytoteachaservice-learningcourse.CONS-CLS_13.60(1.14)3.90(.90)IfeelthatIamgivingupcontrolofthelearningexperiencewhenteachingaservice-learningCONS-CLS_22.00(.96)2.69(.89)course.CONS-CLS_3Ihaveahardertimeassessingstudentlearningandworkinaservice-learningcoursethaninatra-2.72(1.15)3.22(1.03)ditionalcourse.CONS-CLS_4Iexperiencechallengeswiththereducedtimeforclassroominstructioninmyservice-learning2.70(1.02)3.57(.97)course.CONS-CLS_5Usingservice-learningrequiredmoreofmytimeasateacher.4.01(1.01)e 3.87(.89) CronbachAlphanCONS-INSTCONS-Institutionlevel(withexperience)([3-item]=.66;=102)CONS-Institutionlevel(noexperience)(CronbachAlpha[3-item]=.72;n=260)3.74(1.13)CONS-INST_1Facultypromotionandtenurepoliciesdonotsupportorencouragemyservice-3.55(1.07)3.23(1.00)CONS-INST_2Administrativeleadersactivelyworktomakeservice-learningavisibleandimportantpartof3.11(.94)institutionalwork.d Mycolleaguesunderstandandvalueservice-learninginpromotion,tenure,andannualevaluation3.57(1.08)CONS-INST_33.43(1.04)decisions.d Notes: FacultywithSLexperiencereferredtothosewhohavetaughtatleastonecoursewithSLcomponentorwereteachingitforthefirsttimeatthetimeofthesurvey.Thesamplesizeofthisgroa FacultywithoutSLexperiencereferredtothosewhowereawareoftheSLpedagogybuthadnotyettaughtacoursewithSLatthetimeofthesurvey.Thesamplesizeofthisgroupwas260.b “PROS”refersto“perceivedbenefitsofservice-learning,”“CONS”refersto“perceivedbarriersofservice-learning.”Thewordingofeachiteminthesescaleswaschosenaccordinglyforthc group.Foreasierreading,itemdescriptionsinthetablewerestatementsusedforparticipantwhohadpriorSLexperience.StatisticsforthenoSLexperiencegroupwereindicatedinitalics. Itemswerereversecodedintheanalysis.d Itemwasexcludedfromthefinalscaleduetonon-significantfactorloadingtotheunderlyingconstruct.e
83
Hou
Figure1
ThestructureanditemloadingsofthewFSLBI(FacultywithoutSLExperience)
Note:ModelfitIndex:Chi/df=2.64;RMSEA=.079;CFI=.91;IFI=.91
84
DevelopingaFacultyInventory
efitsatclassroom(PROS_CLS;7-item)andcommu- toward SL pedagogy (i.e., those scored in the top
nitylevels(PROS_COM;6-item),andperceivedbar- one-thirdofthescale)fromthosewithlessfavorable
riersatclassroom(CONS_CLS;5-item)andinstitu- SLbeliefs(i.e.,thosescoredinthebottomone-third
tional levels (CONS_INST; 3-item). CFA showed ofthescale).
that all of the wFSLBI items were loaded signifi-
ValidityEvidence:GroupComparison
cantlyandinawayconsistentwiththefourspecified
constructs for each faculty group, except that one Preliminary analyses showed that, except for the
item (CONS_CLS_5) did not load significantly to perceived barriers at the institutional level, service-
any of the four factors. After removing this item, learningfacultyscoredhigheronperceivedSLbene-
CFA then was done again to confirm the 20-item fitsandloweronSLbarrierscomparedwithnon-SL
wFSLBIwithfour-factormodel. faculty.Theperceivedinstitutionalbarriersweresim-
Model fit index obtained from Amos output ilarinbothfacultygroups.Table3providessumma-
showedthat,amongfacultywithpriorSLexperience rystatisticsofthegroupcomparison.
group (n = 102), the values of the Incremental Fit The final validated wFSLBI, consisting of 20
Index (IFI) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) itemsin4sub-scales,withseparateformsforSLand
were .86 and .85, respectively, with X2/df of 1.60, non-SLfaculty,isgiveninTable4.
indicating satisfactory fit (Bollen, 1989).
Discussion
Furthermore, the Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA=.077) and Standardized The study showed satisfactory evidence for the
Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR=.069) were reliabilityofeachscaleinthewFLSBIaswellaspre-
bothsmall,whichalsoindicatedagoodfit(Raykov, liminary evidence for the validity of the instrument
2001). Among faculty without SL experience (n = among faculty with and without service-learning
260), model fit index also showed satisfactory fit experience.ThewFSLBIassessesbeliefsaboutper-
index,withX2/dfof2.64,andIFI,CFI,RMEAas.91, ceived benefits and barriers toward service-learning
.91,and.079respectively.Figure1summarizedthe that are salient among faculty (Abes et al., 2002;
interrelationsamongthefourconstructs(latentvari- Bulot & Johnson, 2006; Driscoll, 2000; Hammond,
ables, identified using circles) and the relations 1994;Pribbenow,2005).Thenewcontributionofthis
betweeneachlatentvariableandobservedindicators instrumentliesinitsabilitytosystematicallyexam-
(i.e., individual belief items identified using rectan- ineperceivedservice-learningbenefitsandbarriersat
gles) among faculty without prior SL experience. differentlevels,asopposedtogeneralencouragingor
(The same figural summary for the SL experienced discouraging variables. In addition, this validated
faculty group is available upon request.) instrument provides corresponding measurement
Examination of the factor loadings for both the SL items to assess and compare these service-learning
experiencedandnoexperiencedgroupsrevealedthat perceptions across faculty at different service-learn-
allofthe20itemsinwFSLBIloadedsignificantlyto inginvolvementstatuses.
theircorrespondingfactororconstruct(p<.001). The perceived SL benefits measured by the
wFSLBIincludethoseattheclassroomlevelssuchas
ValidityEvidence:ItemDiscriminateValidity
enrichingclassroomdiscussions,enhancingteaching
Analyses showed significant discriminate validi- and learning experience, relationship building with
ties for all of the items in the PROS_CLS, students, etc. Benefits were also measured at the
PROS_COM,CONS_CLS,andCONS_INSTscales community level, such as the purpose and meaning
(all p < .001), indicating that the wFSLBI success- foundininteractionwithandservicetothecommu-
fully discriminated faculty with favorable beliefs nity. Key barriers to SL included those at the class-
Table3
PerceivedBenefitsandBarriersamongFacultywithandwithoutService-LearningExperience.
PROS_CLSM** PROS_COMM** CONS_CLS** CONS_INST
SLExperience N Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
FacultywithSL
experience 102 27.19(4.75) 25.19(3.12) 15.02(3.48) 10.53(2.48)
FacultywithoutSL
experience 260 22.23(5.46) 22.00(4.35) 17.26(3.21) 10.09(2.45)
T-Test T =8.05;p<.001 T =7.78;p<.001 T =-5.82;p<.001 T =1.54;p=.126
(360) (256) (360) (360)
Note:**p<.001
85
Hou
e Itemdescription-NopriorSLexperience Ibelieveservice-learningwillenrichclassroomdiscussionsandlecturesinmycourse. Ianticipateenjoyingteachingmorewhentheclassinvolvesservice-learning. Iexpectthatservice-learningwillhelpmetobetterunderstandmyprofessionalstrengthsandweaknesses. Ianticipatethatparticipatinginservice-learningwillhelpmetoclarifyareasoffocusformyscholarship. Ibelieveteachingservice-learningwillresultinchangesinmyteachingstyle(s). Iforeseeparticipationinservice-learningwillbecomeanimportantcomponentofmyprofessionalportfolio. IbelievethatIwillbeabletodevelopgoodrelationshipswiththestudentsinmyservice-learningcourse(s)becauseofthecommunitywork. Ibelievetheservicemystudentswillcompletewillbebeneficialtothecommunity. IbelieveIwillvalueworkingwithcommunitypartnerstostructureanddelivertheservice-learningexperienceforstudents. IanticipatethatIwilllearnsomethingnewaboutthecommunityfrommycommunitypartners. IexpectthatthecommunitymemberswithwhomIpartnerwillplayanactiveroleintheplanningordevelopmentofmyservice-learningcourses.
c
n
FSLBI20-itemFormsforFacultywithandwithoutPriorSLExperie Itemdescription-WithpriorSLexperience Service-learningenrichesclassroomdiscussionsandlecturesinmycourse. Ienjoyteachingmorewhentheclassinvolvesservice-learning. Service-learninghelpedmetounderstandmyprofessionalstrengthsandweakness. Participatinginservice-learninghelpedmeclarifyareasoffocusformyscholarship. Teachingservice-learningcourseshasresultedinachangeinmyteachingstyle(s). Participationinservice-learningisanimportantcomponentofmyprofessionalportfolio. Iwasabletodevelopagoodrelationshipwiththestudentsinmyservice-learningcourse(s)becauseofthecommunitywork. Theservicemystudentscompletedwasbeneficialtothecommunity. Ivalueworkingwithcommunitypartnerstostructureanddelivertheservice-learningexperienceforstudents. Ilearnedsomethingnewaboutthecommunityfrommycommunitypartners. ThecommunitymemberswithwhomIpartnerplayanactiveroleintheplanningordevelopmentofmyservice-learningcourse(s).
w
d
e
at
d
Table4TheFinalVali Scale PROS-CLSPROS-CLS_1 PROS-CLS_2 PROS-CLS_3 PROS-CLS_4 PROS-CLS_5 PROS-CLS_6 PROS-CLS_7 PROS-COMPROS-COM_1 PROS-COM_2å PROS-COM_3 PROS-COM_4
86
DevelopingaFacultyInventory
bility vice- n kina in my ble
IexpectthattheworkmystudentsandIperformwillenhancemyatocommunicatemyideasinthecommunity. IbelieveIwillbeabletomakeadifferenceinthecommunity. Iexpecttimeconstraintswillinterferewithmyabilitytoteachaserlearningcourse. IfeelthatIwillbegivingupcontrolofthelearningexperiencewheteachingaservice-learningcourse. Ianticipatehavingahardertimeassessingstudentlearningandworservice-learningcoursethaninatraditionalcourse. Iforeseechallengeswiththereducedtimeforclassroominstructionmyservice-learningcourse. Facultypromotionandtenurepoliciesdonotsupportorencourageservice-learningendeavors. Administrativeleadersactivelyworktomakeservice-learningavisiandimportantpartofinstitutionalwork. Mycolleaguesunderstandandvalueservice-learninginpromotion,tenure,andannualevaluationdecisions.
a
TheworkmystudentsandIperformedenhancedmyabilitytocommunicatemyideasinthecommunity. Icanmakeadifferenceinthecommunity. Timeconstraintsinterferewithmyabilitytoteachaservice-learningcourse. IfeelthatIamgivingupcontrolofthelearningexperiencewhenteachingservice-learningcourse. Ihaveahardertimeassessingstudentlearningandworkinaservice-learningcoursethaninatraditionalcourse. Iexperiencechallengeswiththereducedtimeforclassroominstructioninmyservice-learningcourse. Facultypromotionandtenurepoliciesdonotsupportorencouragemyservice- Administrativeleadersactivelyworktomakeservice-learningavisibleandimportantpartofinstitutionalwork. Mycolleaguesunderstandandvalueservice-learninginpromotion,tenure,andannualevaluationdecisions.
OS-COM_5 OS-COM_6 NS-CLSNS-CLS_1 NS-CLS_2 NS-CLS_3 NS-CLS_4 NS-INSTNS-INST_1 NS-INST_2 NS-INST_3
R R OO O O O OO O O
P P CC C C C CC C C
87