Final.Report.Faculty.Attitudes.Towards.CSL.docx

1



Final Report: Investigating Faculty Attitudes toward Service-Learning
The Higher Education Quality Assurance Council considers service-learning as one of seven work-integrated learning high impact practices within Ontario. Work-integrated learning (WIL) experiences are "educational activities that intentionally integrate learning within an academic institution with practical application in a workplace setting, relevant to a student's program of study or career goals" (Sattler & Peters, 2013, p. 13).
Learning outcomes associated with service-learning compliment many of the institutional and government mandated student outcomes. For example, the MTCU Essential Employability Skills can link directly to the outcomes of critical thinking & problem solving, interpersonal and personal development (MTCU, 2009). The conference board of Canada indicates fundamental skills that include communication, personal management and teamwork skills (Conference Board of Canada). Each of these outcomes is associated with service-learning (Eyler & Giles, 1999).
The purpose of the research project and survey is to assess faculty members' understanding of, and interest in, service-learning. As well, we would like to understand the obstacles that faculty perceives as being problematic to the implementation of service-learning, and the resources that would help them to address these barriers. This information will be used to help the Centre for Teaching and Learning to design a framework and strategy to support the development of service-learning initiatives at Humber.
We anticipate that faculty will indicate an interest in learning more about service-learning pedagogy, and an interest in implementing service-learning within their courses. The process we have undertaken as well as survey results may also be of value to other colleges that are thinking about implementing or further developing their CSL programs on campus. Finally, as the quantity, quality, and range of service-learning initiatives increase at Humber, student learning experiences will also ideally improve.
Service-Learning is an experiential learning method in which learning outcomes, community needs, and research objectives are met through student engagement in active and reciprocal community service work and thoughtful reflection. Community service-learning opportunities can include volunteer hours, group projects, and social innovation or research initiatives both locally and internationally. At its core, service-learning is an active, experiential learning opportunity that places students within local or international communities. Service-learning is therefore not unlike the more common internships, field placements, or co-op's that students engage with. The pedagogy of service-learning differs from the latter through the practices of reciprocity and reflection.
Service-learning assumes that a balance must exist between the service students are providing to the community and the learning that students are receiving from the community (Furco, 1996) (Eyler & Giles, Where's the learning in service-learning? 1999). Mainly students engage with and solve community issues in partnership with community organizations (Jacoby, Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices, 1996). A second key differentiator is an essential role of reflection in service-learning practice (Jacoby, Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices, 1996). Reflection is the key to helping students make the connection between in-class concepts and theories with hands-on experience in the community. A study conducted by Eyler and Giles (1999) indicated that reflection is a predictor of academic outcomes leading to a "deeper understanding and better application of subject matter and increased knowledge of social agencies, increased complexity of problem and solution analysis, and greater use of subject matter knowledge in analyzing a problem" (p. 173).
Andrew Furco (1996) further explains that the difference between service-learning and other experiential learning methods lies with who the beneficiary is, and what the focus of the service is. As we can see in Figure 1, when the community is the primary beneficiary the experience more closely resembles a volunteer opportunity. Conversely, when the student stands to benefit the most, the experience is classified as an internship. For example, students who are placed within a community agency focusing on gaining career-related skills would be engaged in an internship.

Also, when the focus of the activity is on the actual work that students do, the experience resembles volunteerism. For example, students may choose to volunteer at a food bank sorting food to complete a specified set of volunteer hours. The work is of value to the organization, and the student may feel good about their contribution, but without a focus on in-class concepts, a discussion on poverty, for example, the experience is volunteerism. Furco (1996) also explains that the lines between each category are fuzzy and that an experience can often lie between groups (p. 6).

Some scholars and faculty also differentiate between academic service-learning and community service. Maas Weigart (1998) explains that there are six essential ingredients that must be included in an academic service-learning course (pp. 6-7):
The student provides meaningful service
Members of a community define the need
The service given by the student flow from course objectives
Service is integrated into the course using an assignment (or assignments) that require some form of reflection
Assignments rooted in the service must be assessed and evaluated accordingly
About the current research and literature on service-learning, it is, therefore, important to incorporate many of the elements mentioned above into the design of a service-learning program. In doing so, we can ensure that the program lives up to the standards set out by practitioners in the field and to ensure that students are gaining the full value of their community experience.
Methodology
As we begin the process of developing a service-learning program and framework for the campus, we wanted to assess faculty attitudes toward service learning and to identify what the interest and motivation levels are on campus. A survey was designed and disseminated through the Humber Communique, an email list serves to all faculty on campus, with reminders sent through Twitter and the service-learning blog maintained by the faculty resource person. The survey was active for approximately three weeks.
The study (See Appendix I) provided a definition of service-learning including a short list of researched learning outcomes. The purpose of providing the description was to attempt to ensure that all faculty understood what was meant by service-learning, and to make sure that the faculty who are interested in service-learning or have been using service-learning were including reciprocity and reflection.
The survey received 237 usable responses, with 438 attempted for a completion rate of 54%. The average time to completion was 3:58 minutes. We also received responses from all eight academic schools, although the replies were not representative of the academic unit's faculty cohort. The majority of the replies came from the Business School (20%) and Liberal Arts and Sciences (17%).
Faculty completing the survey were able to choose all of the barriers that apply and the most common cited barriers were: too time-consuming at (41%), not sure how to integrate, deliver and assess learning outcomes (39%), not sure how to get started (34%) and need administrative support (32%). About 30% of the faculty surveyed felt that service-learning was not relevant to their course objectives.
The most common supports indicated by faculty included: provide training and information on best practices for implementation (66%), introduce me to faculty using service learning (53%) and help design curricular service-learning (53%).
The self-report score of 1-7 for interest and motivation were converted into three categories (low, medium and high). Low scores are based on self-reports of 1-2; average scores are based on self-reports of 3-5; high scores based on self-reports of 6-7.
Interest in incorporating service-learning into courses is highest among partial-load faculty at 58%, followed by part-time staff at 57%. 46% of full-time faculty indicated interest in incorporating service-learning into their courses.
Interestingly, motivation to incorporate service-learning demonstrated similar results among faculty groups. Partial load and part-time faculty at 56% and full-time faculty at 40%.
The faculty were given a chance to indicate what types of service learning courses they would be interested in pursuing. The options included:
One-time volunteer day with a community agency
Course that requires students to complete volunteer hours
Course that requires students to work on a small project with a local or international community agency
A course dedicated to service learning ex. Leadership for Social Change
International service-learning course
Problem-based course where students identify a community need and develop a project
Capstone course where students work with a community agency in some capacity
Participate in action research
Other:

As cited above, the two areas of interest most mentioned by faculty included: a course that requires students to work on a small project with a local or international community agency and a problem-based course where students identify a community need and develop a project.

When we took into account faculty who were highly interested in service learning, we found their responses to be consistent with the overall faculty chosen barriers and supports needed.
Discussion
Implementing CSL – Survey results indicated that 64% of faculty felt they had implemented service-learning in their courses. This response tells us one of two things. If it is true that 64% of faculty use service-learning, then it is possible to assume that the survey attracted individuals who are already engaged and interested in experiential learning activities. This finding would skew the results of the survey as we can expect that the sample may not be predictive of the campus population. Had we sampled a larger population of faculty the answer may have demonstrated a smaller percentage of faculty engaged in service-learning. For example, faculty surveyed from the Faculty of Hospitality, Recreation and Tourism indicated 81.3% had implemented service-learning or 13 out of the 16 individuals surveyed this was true. As well, 75% of faculty from Creative and Performing Arts indicated using service-learning, or 3 out of 4 participants.
Interest and Motivation: In general, most of the faculty who participated in the survey were interested and motivated to incorporate service-learning into their courses. What is interesting to note is that part-time faculty and partial-load faculty are more motivated to incorporate service-learning into their courses as compared to full-time faculty. This finding perhaps indicates that part-time and partial-load faculty is see service-learning as a way to develop and broaden their teaching portfolios. It is possible that the partial load and part-time staff work in the industry and understand the value of hands-on learning and the value of learning from community partners and professionals who are already in the field.
When the data is broken down by the school, we find that the School of Hospitality Recreation and Tourism were most interested and indicated wanting support in incorporating service-learning, followed by Liberal Arts and Science, and Health Sciences. Perception of barriers was consistent across all eight schools.
When asked to indicate the barriers to implementing service-learning most faculty cited a lack of understanding of how to integrate, deliver and assess learning outcomes, followed by a perception that service-learning is too time-consuming. From a part-time and partial load perspective, many of the courses they are asked to teach are already written, and there is little room for these faculty to make a change and incorporate a service-learning activity. Although there may be interest to do so, there is a little room. However, with some exception, some partial load and part-time faculty have been asked to re-write or update courses, so there is some room for negotiation with the academic deans to possible, incorporate service-learning. Full-time faculty is wanting to include service-learning should do so early in the year to work through permissions and details within their departments.
Types of CSL Courses: Faculty was also given an opportunity to express their interest in various types of service learning. The majority of faculty indicated that they were interested in a service-learning course that: requires students to work on a small project with a local or international community agency and a problem-based course where students identify a community need and develop a project. The course type least chosen by faculty was a course that requires students to complete volunteer hours. Here we see faculty selecting a path for students that is more practical, direct and hands-on. Volunteer hours are usually left up to the discretion of the student and do not necessarily link quickly or directly to course outcomes.
Faculty Forums
In January of 2015, before the faculty survey, two faculty forums were held inviting all faculty to join in and provide feedback on service-learning (see appendix for notes). A total of four faculties attended, one from Lakeshore campus and three from the North campus. The conversations with the faculty provided several themes for further research and discussion including barriers, course design, curriculum, community and students. More specifically barriers for faculty included managing student expectations (about placement and experience type), time, support and compensation, as well as not understanding how to go about implementing service-learning. Faculty mentioned wanting a manual or a "how-to" guide to help them develop a service learning course as well as a "menu" of service-learning course types they could choose from.
Faculty also understood the need for developing service-learning within the curriculum to help build capacity and continuity throughout the program. Rather than having a faculty experiment with a course and have it fail, how do we provide supports, so the course is successful and continues to be offered each semester? As well, how do you build student capacity to work within the community over time? For example, students may volunteer in their first semester, and by their sixth semester, their community service is more involved and intense.
A final concern is managing student expectations around "how to get marks." How do faculty work with students, so they understand the value of the community experience, rather than only work toward getting marks?
Limitations
The main limitation throughout the project was the low number of participation given the faculty compliment at our institution. About 17% of the full-time faculty responded, and 7.5% of part-time (part-time and partial load combined) faculty participate in the survey. As well, we cannot be sure that faculty read the definition of service-learning that was presented to them. It is possible faculty relied on their definitions or preconceived notions of what service-learning is when filling out the survey. It is, therefore, possible that faculty consider experiential education opportunities such as internships and co-op placements to be service-learning.
Given the healthy number of faculty who claimed to have been using service-learning in their classes, we can also assume that faculty that is already interested in service-learning, or experiential learning would have taken the time to fill out the survey, again skewing the results. We can assume for example that those who are well-versed in service-learning are more motivated and interested in seeing service-learning on campus.
Recommendations
Service-Learning Framework: One of our initial goals is to develop a service-learning framework for the college including a definition, guiding values and learning outcomes based on best practice. These elements are to be informed by both the faculty survey and work done by the service-learning task force. Data from the study can be used to advise the framework by first recommending two types of service-learning courses to focus on including working on a small community project and a problem-based course. The survey also tells us some of the barriers perceived by faculty, and it is important to build supports in place to either relieve the restrictions or make the process more manageable for faculty. For example, the faculty has indicated that they are not prepared to integrate service-learning outcomes into their courses, and they don't necessarily know where to begin; the framework should include a list of recommended learning outcomes for faculty to consider, as well as a step-by-step guide on getting started. Eventually, the framework could be used to help curriculum developers and administrators weave service-learning within the larger curriculum framework in individual schools.
Faculty Support, Faculty Support Person: Faculty tells us that service-learning is too time-consuming. They also say that they need help. One way to mitigate this concern is to have a dedicated faculty support person to take on some of the administrative duties required. As well, the faculty support person can help faculty to design and implement service-learning course and how to then assess the outcomes.
A faculty support person can also spend time demonstrate the value of service-learning to the college community through training, social media, blog site, and workshops. This can help to ensure faculty understands how service-learning differs from internships and field placements and how each overlap. It is recommended that the faculty support person spends time more time engaging faculty online. Studies have shown that faculty usually find their information online, often through list-serves and through each other (Seifert, 2015).
As mentioned above, faculty have indicated needing support from their departments. What will need to be investigated is what faculty mean when they say support as this was not delineated through the initial survey. Typically departmental support usually means funding and recognition for effort, as well as mentoring support from other faculty or associate deans.
Service-Learning Repository: Faculty also mentioned needing and wanting service-learning support from another faculty. They would like to be able to meet with a faculty member who has experience and can help them navigate the college and administration, as well as design and management of the course. One way to first ensure that mentors are available is to develop a service-learning repository that includes the courses that have on-going, well established service-learning components. This repository can help to highlight the work that is being done on campus, as well as inform the course guidebook in the future. For example, it may be useful to have courses that embed service-learning demarcated on the course handbook so students can make a thoughtful choice to engage in a service-learning course, perhaps leading to a certificate of community engagement, similar to the Global Citizenship Certificate.
The community of Practice: As mentioned earlier, faculty are interested in learning about service-learning from another faculty. A community of practice is another suggestion to help bring together service-learning practitioners across campus.
References
Chambers, T. (2009). A continuum of approaches to service-learning within Canadian post-secondary education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(2), 77-100.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education, 3-7.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London, UK: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Retrieved from www.LSRC.ac.uk
Conference Board of Canada. (n.d.). Employability Skills 2000+. Retrieved 07 24, 2015, from Conference Board of Canada: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/learning-tools/employability-skills.aspx
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Forest, J. J. (2006). Teaching and learning in higher education. International Handbook of Higher Education, 18, 347-375.
Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In B. Taylor, & Corporation for National Service, Expanding Boundaries: Serving and Learning (pp. 2-6). Cooperative Education Association.
Gemmel, L. J., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). A comprehensive framework for community service-learning in Canada. Canadian Alliance for Community Service-Learning.
Howard, J. (2001). Service-learning course design workbook (Vol. Companion volume to "Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning"). Ann Arbor, MI: Edward Ginsberg Center for Community Service and Learning.
Humber College. (2014). Strengthen, sustain, maximize: 2014-2015 Business plan. Toronto: Humber Strategic Planning and Institutional Analysis. Retrieved from humber.ca/content/publications
Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kilgo, C. A., Sheets, J. K., & Pascarella, E. T. (2014). The link between high-impact practice and students learning: some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s208
Lennon, M. C., Frank, B., Humphreys, J., Lenton, R., Madsen, K., Omri, A., & Turner, R. (2014). Tuning: Identifying and measuring sector-based learning outcomes in postsecondary education. Toronto, ON: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Maas Weigert, K. (1998). Academic service learning: Its meaning and relevance. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 3-10.
McEwen, M. K. (1996). Enhancing student learning and development through service-learning. In B. Jacoby, Service-Learning in Higher Education (pp. 53-91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MTCU. (2009). Essential Employability Skills. Retrieved 07 24, 2015, from Postsecondary Education Partner's Gateway: http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/pepg/audiences/colleges/progstan/essential.html
Sattler, P., & Peters, J. (2013). Work-integrated learning in Ontario's postsecondary sector: The experience of Ontario graduates. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.



Interest To Incorporate CSL Based on Faculty Status




Faculty Status

Level of Interest (%)



Motivation to Incorporate CSL Based On Faculty Status



Faculty Status

Level of Interest (%)