Community-Based Transformational Learning: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Student Experiences and Challenges 9781350095816, 9781350095847, 9781350095823

Citation preview

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Understanding Student Experiences of Higher Education Edited by Paul Ashwin and Manja Klemenčič As the number of students attending higher education has increased globally, there has been an increasing focus on student experiences of higher education. Understanding how students experience higher education in different national, institutional and disciplinary settings has become increasingly important to researchers, practitioners and policy makers. The series publishes theoretically robust and empirically rigorous studies of students’ experiences, including a broad range of elements such as student life, engagement in degree courses and extracurricular activities, experiences of feedback and assessment, student representation and students’ wider lives. It offers a richer understanding of the different meanings of being a student in higher education in the 21st century. Also available in the series Negotiating Learning and Identity in Higher Education, Edited by Bongi Bangeni and Rochelle Kapp Everyday Mobilities in Higher Education, Kirsty Finn and Mark Holton Understanding Experiences of First Generation University Students: Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Methodologies, Edited by Amani Bell and Lorri J. Santamaría

Community-Based Transformational Learning An Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Student Experiences and Challenges Edited by Christian Winterbottom, Jody S. Nicholson, and F. Dan Richard

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2020 This paperback edition published in 2021 Copyright © Christian Winterbottom, Jody S. Nicholson, F. Dan Richard and contributors For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. xviii constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Tjaša Krivec All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any thirdparty websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN: HB: 978-1-3500-9581-6 PB: 978-1-3502-1059-2 ePDF: 978-1-3500-9582-3 eBook: 978-1-3500-9583-0 Series: Understanding Student Experiences of Higher Education Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents List of Contributors Series Editors’ Foreword Foreword Acknowledgments

vii xv xvii xviii

Part I Guiding Frameworks 1 Introduction: What’s in a Name? Jody S. Nicholson, F. Dan Richard, and Christian Winterbottom 2 Investigating the Effectiveness of a Community-Based Activity on Community-Service Attitudes Jennifer M. Barton, Jody S. Nicholson, and Heather Barnes Truelove 3 Half-Stepping: Empathy Development in an Introductory Community Service-Learning Course on Ex-offender Reentry F. Dan Richard 4 From Head Start Challenge to Advocacy Rebecca Marcon 5 Community-Based Learning and Identity Status: The Complexities of Community Engagement in a First-Year Seminar Leslie Kaplan 6 Facilitating Significant Learning: Community-Based Pedagogy in a Public Speaking Course Traci Mathies

3

15

31 47 63 80

Part II Interdisciplinary Upper-Level Learning Experiences 7 Nursing Student Engagement in a Program-Wide CommunityBased Learning Curriculum Connie Roush, Barbara J. Kruger, Edessa Jobli, Linda K. Connelly, Cindy Cummings, and Judy M. Comeaux 8 Collaborative Community Engagement Triad Model to Enhance Student Learning Experiences for a Web Application Capstone Course Karthikeyan Umapathy 9 It Was More than a Toy Mary Lundy and Juan Aceros 10 Reading Matters: Mentoring Children in Low-Income Communities Marnie Jones and Jennie B. Ziegler 11 Community-Based Learning and Sports Management Kristi Sweeney and Megan Schramm Possinger

97

110 128 147 159

vi

Contents

12 Voice in Digitally Designed Community-Based Learning Experiences Suzanne Ehrlich 13 Preservice Teachers as Book Buddies in an Urban Classroom: Transformational Learning Experiences in Public Schools Katrina W. Hall

169

178

Part III International Learning Experiences 14 Students to Practitioners through Transformational Cultural Immersion Angela Mann 15 Examining Cultural Competency in Healthcare in Belize Mary Lundy and Lauri Wright 16 Belize: A Community-Based Transformational Learning Experience Susan Syverud, Deborah Reed, and John Kemppainen 17 Haiti Study-Abroad: A Challenging, Rewarding, and Transformational Experience Jennifer Renée Kilpatrick and Kaitlyn Millen 18 Community-Based Transformational Learning through StudyAbroad: Experiences of Early Childhood Students Mentoring in the United Kingdom Christian Winterbottom

247

Index

263

193 205 219

232

Contributors Juan Aceros received his MS degree in Mechanical Engineering and PhD degree in Electrical Engineering from Northeastern University, USA. Prior to joining the University of North Florida, USA, Dr. Aceros worked at Brown University on the development of devices for recording and transmitting cortical signals from the brain. Dr. Aceros’s current research efforts are focused on creating novel biomedical devices for disease diagnosis and treatment, and adaptive and assistive technology for improving the quality of life of individuals through invasive and noninvasive approaches. Dr. Aceros works extensively with clinical collaborations across the medical community in Jacksonville, including various hospitals and the school district. Jennifer M. Barton is a doctoral student in the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin, USA. She received her BS and an MS in Psychology from the University of North Florida, USA. Jennifer combines perspectives from developmental and social psychology to examine the ways in which parents engage in health behavior change to promote their children’s physical health. Her other research interests include psychometric evaluation, nutrition education, and the consequences of childhood obesity. Jennifer currently serves as assistant instructor and teaching assistant of undergraduate courses in human development and family sciences. Judy M. Comeaux is Associate Professor at the University of North Florida School of Nursing, USA, and Director of the Regular Prelicensure Program. She has been at the University of North Florida School of Nursing for the past sixteen years and has taught predominantly in the areas of fundamentals and pediatrics. Dr. Comeaux is Advanced Practice Registered Nurse specializing as Pediatric Nurse Practitioner. In spring 2016, she was named the University of North Florida 2016 Mentor of the Year. Since 2012, Dr. Comeaux has been the coleader of six School of Nursing study-abroad programs, one of which she developed. Linda K. Connelly is Primary Care Nurse Practitioner, and has a PhD, in Philosophy of Nursing from Barry University, Miami Shores, Florida, USA. Linda’s areas of clinical expertise are emergency and surgical nursing. Her

viii

Contributors

research interests include disaster preparedness, nursing simulation, and care of veterans. Linda served Army Nurse Corps for twenty-five years, retiring as a Colonel. In the reserves, Linda served as Deputy Commander of the 345th Task Force in Iraq, Office of the Surgeon General of the Army, Chief of the Army Nurse Corps. Presently she is a faculty at the University of North Florida Brooks College of Health School of Nursing. Cindy Cummings is Associate Professor and Program Director for Accelerated Nursing at the University of North Florida, USA. She has an EdD from the University of North Florida, USA and an MSN from the University of Maryland, USA. She is also a certified healthcare simulation educator and a certified nurse educator. She has been at the University of North Florida for the past ten years and has taught predominantly in the areas of adult health, critical care, and leadership/professional development. Suzanne Ehrlich is Assistant Professor in the University of North Florida’s Educational Technology, Training and Development program, and presents on the topics of online discussion protocols, universal design for learning for improved access, and leveraging technology to support learners in postsecondary settings. Dr. Ehrlich serves as a committee member for Designers for Learning. Her latest publication includes her coauthored publications titled Accommodation in the Online Course Environment for Students Who Are Deaf/Hard of Hearing, Modality of Instruction in Interpreter Education, and her coauthored volume Interpreter Education in the Digital Age. Katrina W. Hall is Associate Professor of Literacy and Early Childhood at the University of North Florida, USA and Faculty in Residence at Seaside Charter Public Charter Schools, in the University of North Florida’s College of Education and Human Services Professional Development School network. Dr. Hall’s research focuses on teaching the whole child through practices that encompass the emotional, social, physical, cognitive, and academic domains. Her first line of work deals with literacy practices in K-12 public schools. A second area includes a focus on environmental stewardship, classroom environments, and nature contact within a framework inspired by principles of Public Waldorf Education. Edessa Jobli has an MD from Far Eastern University, Philippines, and an MPH from University of North Florida, USA. Dr. Jobli has twenty years of experience in health education and promotion, research, and evaluation. She is a faculty at the University of North Florida’s, USA Department of Public Health and teaches

Contributors

ix

graduate and undergraduate courses in health research and program evaluation. Dr. Jobli is a scientific research reviewer for a number of federal evidence-based registries and has several publications and presentations on community-based and health-related research projects and public health initiatives. Marnie Jones, now Professor Emerita of English, most recently directed the University of North Florida’s, USA Center for Community-Based Learning. Her last task was to lead 240 campus leaders, faculty, staff, and community partners to craft a 200+ page book documenting the University of North Florida’s, USA commitment to community engagement for the Carnegie Foundation. Five years ago she designed the course Reading Matters, now an important feature of the English major. The Hicks Honors College has a required service leaning component of its curriculum because of her leadership in the 1990s. In 2017, she received the Engaged Faculty Award, a statewide award in Florida for “institutionalizing community engagement on campus.” Leslie Kaplan earned her BA in English and Philosophy from Tufts University, USA her MA in English from Oxford University, UK and her PhD in Folklore and Folklife from the University of Pennsylvania, USA. She is currently Associate Director of the Honors Program. Dr. Kaplan has been including service learning in all her classes since 2010 and has been doing research on its impact since 2014. She was Community Scholar in 2014–15, and in 2015 won second place in the Florida Campus Compact State University System recognition for her project with Lutheran Social Services. John Kemppainen served as Faculty Administrator for International Initiatives at the University of North Florida, USA College of Education and Human Services, until his retirement in June 2018. He also served as an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Leadership, Sports Management and School Counseling. During his twenty-three-year tenure at the University of North Florida, USA, Dr. Kemppainen was active in the international efforts of the college and led more than twenty study-abroad trips to Belize and Honduras. He served as co-author and Principal Investigator of a three-year study grant to Belize from 2015 to 2017. He continues to volunteer for the college after retirement. Jennifer Renée Kilpatrick is Assistant Professor at the University of North Florida, USA where she teaches deaf education, exceptional student education, literacy education, TESOL, and ASL courses. She has taught deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) students, as well as students with varying exceptionalities, in Virginia,

x

Contributors

Tennessee, and Florida in a variety of settings, including in resource classrooms, inclusion settings, and residential schools for the deaf. Her research focuses on Deaf Education teacher preparation, professional development for the teachers of the deaf, and the language and literacy development of D/HH students. Barbara J. Kruger is Associate Professor at the School of Nursing, Brooks College of Health, University of North Florida, USA and teaches undergraduate at community-public health nursing and doctoral-level evidence-based practice courses. She holds degrees from the University of Florida, University of South Florida, Boston College, and St. Anselm’s College. She has received numerous university and local awards for teaching, community scholarship, and service. She has been leading the development of the University of North Florida, USA Community Nursing Home-base Model since its inception. The program is recognized as a best practice curriculum by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mary Lundy is Associate Professor in the Doctor of Physical Therapy program at the University of North Florida, USA as well as a licensed pediatric physical therapist with more than twenty-five years of clinical practice experience as well as sixteen years of experience in academia. Her research interests include pediatric rehabilitation, the impact of service learning as a pedagogy, and interdisciplinary education. She enjoys creating community-based learning experiences because they foster student growth, fulfill a need in the community and offer students real-world learning experiences. Dr. Lundy has published and presented her scholarly work at national conferences in the areas of service learning, interprofessional education, and student reflection strategies. Angela Mann is Assistant Professor at the University of North Florida, USA and is a licensed psychologist in the state of Florida, a nationally certified school psychologist, and behavior analyst. She serves on the Board of Directors for the National Association of School Psychologists and the Florida Association of School Psychologists. Dr. Mann’s research centers upon issues of social justice related to disparities in access to education for children with challenging behaviors and developmental disabilities, as well as improving strategies for implementation of evidence-based practice for addressing challenging behaviors in schools. Rebecca Marcon is a developmental psychologist and Professor of Psychology at the University of North Florida, USA. Her research interests include school readiness, social and language development, early intervention, and public policy. Dr. Marcon is actively involved with Head Start programs serving young children

Contributors

xi

in northeast Florida. She has served as a member of the Early Childhood Research Quarterly Editorial Board and as Research in Review Editor for Young Children. She was Co–Principal Investigator for the Florida PERKS project, funded by US Department of Education to improve quality of voluntary prekindergarten programs and child outcomes in Florida’s highest need communities. Traci Mathies is an instructor of communication at the University of North Florida. Traci Mathies has over 20 years of university teaching and curriculum development experience in the field of communication. She received her undergraduate degree in California, her graduate degree in Colorado and spent many years teaching in Oregon. While living on the west coast, she volunteered in the local prison leading chapel services, doing one-on-one mentoring and working on a team to decrease recidivism. She also volunteered with adults with cognitive disabilities and spoke at many women’s conferences. In the last 10 years while living in Jacksonville, she has volunteered at many local nonprofits helping people with food insecurity, serving women rescued from human trafficking, advocating for people with cognitive disabilities and mentoring people who are struggling with traumatic events. Kaitlyn Millen is currently pursuing her PhD in Special Education at the University of Northern Colorado, USA. Her research is focused on selfdetermination and students who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH). Kaitlyn has a long-standing interest in community-based transformational learning as she led outdoor education programs and international expeditions with students for many years and study-abroad programs with the University of North Florida more recently. Kaitlyn also worked as a classroom teacher with D/HH students for three years. She received her MA in Education of the Deaf from Smith College in Northampton, USA. Jody S. Nicholson is Associate Professor at the University of North Florida in the Department of Psychology at the University of North Florida, USA. Her community-based research examines health behavior change that parents engage in for their children, with an emphasis on nutrition and physical activity for low-income families. Her scholarship of teaching and learning investigates the effectiveness of community-based engagement on student outcomes, as well as inter-individual differences that enhance the transformative nature of community work. Nicholson codeveloped a brief version of the communityservice attitude scale (Nicholson, Barton, Truelove, 2016) to aid instructors in investigating how community engagement might influence their students’ attitudes and beliefs around civic engagement.

xii

Contributors

Megan Schramm Possinger is Assistant Professor in the Richard W. Riley College of Education and Senior Research Associate, both at Winthrop University, USA. Her work as a methodologist is focused on examining the cultivation of teacher expertise and facets of K-12 learners’ growth, as well as the efficacy of pedagogical practices and experiences, such as service learning, used to advance undergraduates’ skill sets and corresponding preprofessional development. She also conducts research on the associations between the beliefs, behaviors, and cognitions of undergraduates and their academic work ethic, and is examining the considerations for use of relatively new predictive modeling analytics. Deborah Reed is Associate Instructor in the Exceptional, Deaf, and Interpreter Education department at the University of North Florida, USA and teaches in a professional development school context. She is an advocate for inclusion, diversity, and acceptance. Dr. Reed has partnered with the University of North Florida, USA Center for Community-Based Learning as a community and engaged scholar, and is committed to service-learning pedagogy because of the impact it has on her students. Dr. Reed’s research agenda includes a focus on service learning in professional development schools, civic engagement within the context of teaching students with disabilities and working with students with moderate/severe disabilities. F. Dan Richard is Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Community-Based Learning at the University of North Florida, USA. He has served as co-editor of the International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement and is co-founding director of the Florida Data Science for Social Good, an internship program for data scientists with a social conscience. He received his PhD in Experimental Social Psychology from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. He has maintained several multiinstitutional collaborative research projects focusing on the long-term impacts of service learning and civic engagement. Connie Roush is Associate Professor at the University of North Florida School of Nursing, USA. She has been an educator for thirty years, teaching primarily family and community health nursing. Dr. Roush received her BS in Nursing from the Catholic University of America, MS in Family Health Nursing from the University of San Diego and PhD in Nursing from the University of Washington. She has been involved in development, implementation and evaluation of the community home-base curriculum since 2005, focusing on qualitative analysis of student, faculty, and community partner narratives.

Contributors

xiii

Kristi Sweeney is Associate Professor and Director of the Sport Management Program at the University of North Florida, USA where she also serves as Chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. Dr. Sweeney teaches sport finance, resource development for nonprofit organizations, facility management, and oversees internships. Her research interests include sport philanthropy, community-based learning, women and diversity in sport, and consumer behavior in professional sport. Her community-based learning research, published and presented internationally and nationally, is focused on how best to quantify the outcomes of community-based learning in order to better assess student learning and evaluate community impacts. Susan Syverud served as Assistant/Associate Professor in the Department of Exceptional, Deaf, and Interpreter Education in the College of Education and Human Services at the University of North Florida, USA for fourteen and a half years. She served as Professor in Residence at the University of North Florida, USA Urban Professional Development School Woodland Acres Elementary for eleven years and assisted in the development of an international universityschool partnership in Belize. Dr. Syverud led or coled six study- and teachabroad programs to Belize. She was also an active member of the Consortium of Belize Educational Cooperation for four years. She served as Cochair of College Administrator/Faculty Experience of Consortium of Belize Educational Cooperation, which is a committee dedicated to meeting the professional development needs of administrators and faculty in tertiary institutions in Belize. She was the University of North Florida, USA International Leadership Award in 2017. Her professional passions include preventing reading failure, increasing the achievement levels of students with disabilities and other struggling learners, and developing university-school partnerships both locally and abroad. Dr. Syverud is currently teaching in the Green Bay Area School system. Heather Barnes Truelove is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of North Florida, USA. She is a dedicated teacher who incorporates a wide variety of strategies in the classroom, including problem-based learning, community-based learning, and experiential learning. Her research interests center on the social psychology of pro-environmental behavior, focusing on proenvironmental behavioral spillover, climate change adaptation, and factors that influence pro-environmental behavior. She earned her PhD in Experimental Psychology from Washington State University and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment and the Consortium for Risk Evaluation and Stakeholder Participation.

xiv

Contributors

Karthikeyan Umapathy is Associate Professor at the University of North Florida, USA School of Computing, USA. He is the 2018–20 recipient of the FIS Distinguished Professor in Computing Award. He is Codirector of Florida Data Science for Social Good. He received his PhD in Information Sciences and Technology from the Pennsylvania State University. He provides a real-world software development experience for students by identifying collaborative projects from nonprofit and small business organizations. His research work spans the entire spectrum of the Web from user behavioral aspects to designing applications, as well as standards that form the backbone of the Web. Christian Winterbottom is Associate Professor at the University of North Florida, USA. He earned his BA in English at the University of Bedfordshire in England and his MA and PhD in Early Childhood Education at Florida State University. For four years, he taught preschool and elementary school students in Japan and when he moved to Florida he worked extensively with Preschools and Head Start programs. He currently teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in early childhood education and in community-based learning. His research is primarily focused on working with marginalized populations and reconceptualizing early childhood pedagogy through praxeological learning methodologies. Lauri Wright Assistant Professor at the University of North Florida, USA co-director of the Doctorate in Clinical Nutrition, Director of the Center for Nutrition and Food Insecurity, and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics. Through her research and with the Center, she develops programs for food insecure individuals, works globally with malnutrition, and directs nutrition programming for people with AIDS. Wright develops community-engaged experiences to improve student learning and health issues in the community. She formerly worked as a clinical dietitian for the Veterans Administration, providing medical nutrition therapy for veterans with chronic disease. Jennie B. Ziegler is currently Writing Instructor and Outreach Consultant at the University of North Florida, USA where she has been a faculty member since 2014. She received her MFA from the University of Arizona, USA and publishes widely in nonfiction. As a University of North Florida, USA Community Scholar, she teaches a variety of topics, including creative writing, professional communications, and grant writing, as well as transformational learning initiatives such as Reading Matters. Her research topics include communitybased transformational learning, children’s literature, fairy tales, women’s studies, working class culture, and the environment.

Series Editors’ Foreword The “Understanding Student Experiences in Higher Education” book series publishes theoretically robust and empirically rigorous studies of students’ experiences of contemporary higher education. The books in the series are united by the belief that it is not possible to understand these experiences without understanding the diverse range of people, practices, technologies and institutions that come together to form them. The series seeks to locate students’ experiences in the context of global changes to higher education and thereby to offer a rich understanding of the different global and local meanings of being a student in higher education in the twenty-first century. The edited volume Community-Based Transformational Learning: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Student Experiences and Challenges by Christian Winterbottom, Jody S. Nicholson, and F. Dan Richard brings together the latest thinking about and practice of integrating community-based and servicebased learning in higher education curriculum. The volume is framed under the approach of community-based transformational learning approach which, developing from the traditional approaches, places a heightened emphasis on disruption and reflection as two intermediary stages leading to transformative student learning and community impact. This is a timely and relevant theoretical contribution to the understanding of students’ academic experiences in higher education. The thick descriptions of the interdisciplinary and international case studies in the book collectively offer a broad range of community-based transformational learning approaches and issues. These case chapters open with a personal vignette of a student involved in the courses, a meticulous description of the community-based activity and its challenges, and end with empirical analysis of its effectiveness. The chapters engage with an impressive array of literature on community-based and service learning and their application to teaching in various disciplines, as well as with broader literature on student development and teaching and learning in higher education context. As such, Community-Based Transformational Learning: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Student Experiences and Challenges adds significantly to our understanding of

xvi

Series Editors’ Foreword

student experiences and potential for student learning through communitybased learning approaches in higher education, which are not only applicable to the University of North Florida where these cases are practices but more broadly in the United States and globally. Paul Ashwin and Manja Klemenčič Series Editors

Foreword Alan Tinkler

Christian Winterbottom, Jody S. Nicholson, and F. Dan Richard are insightful editors who recognize the need to expand and extend conversations about community-based learning to ensure that such learning is transformational in nature. Their dedication to the scholarship of learning has resulted in a superb volume, a volume that offers insights into the theory and practice of community-based transformational learning where students learn to (1) foster responsibility, (2) appreciate meaningful engagement, and (3) amplify knowledge (with knowledge being attentive to both disciplinary and transdisciplinary understanding). To put this a slightly different way, this volume values education that asks students to investigate who they are and what they ought to do (which are foundational to consequential higher education). The scholars who contributed to this volume understand that curriculum matters since thoughtful design ensures that students are engaged in meaningful, authentic, and transformational learning. Many of these essays recall the important contributions of John Dewey and Paulo Freire, and this collection extends that work in important ways. Central to this volume is the recognition that learning is a complex endeavor and that as such it is best done within communities, not on the periphery. This volume articulates the need for structured supports to ensure that students learn from their community-based experiences. The supports extend to a recognition that learning is in partnership with people and communities for it is those partnerships (and the important work of maintaining those partnerships) that allow students to realize meaningful learning outcomes. By affirming transformational learning, the editors and authors of this volume have situated themselves as advocates for student learning and for community voice. They have also committed themselves to rigorous research and scholarship to allow their lessons to be shared. This is particularly crucial at this moment given the complex social problems in America and across the globe.

Acknowledgments The editors would like to acknowledge the University of North Florida’s Center for Community-Based Learning for the invaluable leadership and support the Center provided during the development of the community-based transformational learning experiences provided to students at the University of North Florida and during the writing of this book. Moreover, without the collaboration and support from our numerous community partners, many of the projects described in the chapters would not have been possible. We value the partnership and the willingness of our community partners to step into the coeducator role, which made the experiences for our students that much more valuable. The editors would also like to thank the mentors and colleagues both in academia and the community who have contributed to their professional and personal growth along their journey in community engagement.

Part One

Guiding Frameworks

1

Introduction What’s in a Name? Jody S. Nicholson, F. Dan Richard, and Christian Winterbottom

Nearly 100 years ago, the conceptualization of teaching and learning in the United States was challenged and advanced by the work of John Dewey (Dewey, 1933). Dewey’s theoretical framework continues to inspire the connection between the community and education in modern pedagogical practice. Despite the popularity of Dewey’s experiential education model, universities are still grappling with how to integrate community-based learning (CBL) in higher education (Winterbottom & Mundy, 2016). CBL is a pedagogical practice that has been outlined as student volunteerism, experiential learning, and curriculum for academic credit (Mooney & Edwards, 2001). CBL models have also incorporated problem-based service learning, direct service learning, and community-based research (Mooney & Edwards, 2001; Dallimore, Rochefort, & Simonelli, 2010). In this book, we posit that for students to have meaningful experiences at university, the CBL experiences should have transformational components integrated into the community-based activities. Figure 1.1 illustrates the approach in which community-based settings, experiences, and motives, built in reciprocal partnership with the community, lead to community impact and student learning through a transformational learning framework. The pedagogical approaches of service-learning advocacy (Mooney & Edwards, 2001), community-based research (Dallimore et al., 2010; Strand, 2000), and praxeological learning (Winterbottom & Mazzocco, 2016) could be considered synonymous with community-based transformational learning to many faculty, administrators, and students. Indeed, these activities include service learning, CBL, community engagement thinking and education, each of which has an extensive literature on its effectiveness and best practices.

4

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Figure 1.1 The transformational pathway for students engaged in community-based transformational learning.

Components of Community-Based Transformational Learning The foundations of CBL experiences (including service learning as well as community engagement thinking and educational practice) extend well beyond the beginning of the twentieth century (Speck & Hopp, 2004). The term “service learning” was first created in the 1970s (Sigmon, 1979) and was understood as a learning experience in which members of academia and the community receive mutual benefit. The concept that community service and volunteering in and of itself could be a learning experience dominated the early conceptions of service learning. As a way to refine the concept of service learning as an educational practice, Bringle and Hatcher (1995) defined service learning specifically as a curricular, course-based experience, where course content was connected to activities that serve the needs of the community, where students reflect on those experiences, and the experience results in an “enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility” (p. 112). Curricular-based service learning often is contrasted with extracurricular or cocurricular service and engagement experiences, which might not connect with course content or student learning objectives. In this manner, models of service learning and community engagement have been varied, each emphasizing different components of community engagement connected to student learning. The often-nuanced differences among these approaches are important to researchers and experts in each perspective but may be less of a concern to those looking to facilitate community engagement for student benefits. The concept of community-based transformational learning (CBTL) broadens the reach of each of these approaches. The nuanced

What’s in a Name?

5

components of CBTL can help those researching and applying this approach to analyze how to design a successful experience, or how to tease apart why a community experience was unsuccessful in leading to desired student outcomes. In CBTL, transformational experiences occur in authentic community-based settings. The challenges and disruptions faced by students are authentic to the community within which they are situated, and the reflection occurs either with others in the community or with community as the context for those reflections. In this book, we present many different kinds of CBL experiences and approaches; however, each chapter presents a course experience with a potential transformational learning component, connecting to the work of influential theorists in this field. Thus, the majority of the examples provided in this book are related to course-based experiences. This is not to imply that other forms of community-based and service-learning experiences cannot be transformational. Instead, we would argue that community-based experiences are transformational when they incorporate transformational elements as outlined by transformational learning theory. Mezirow (2000) focused on experiential learning in adults, where new perspectives are gained from practical experience and reflective practice. Kiley (2005) built on Mezirow’s work to describe the transformational components of international service learning within the context of global citizenship. Freire (1970, 2000) had a distinctive community-engaged, contextual, and emancipatory perspective to this type of experiential learning, whereas Boyd and Meyers (1988) recognized the importance of integration on new perspectives into one’s personal and professional identity. We will expand upon each of these theorists, with examples from the work in this book, to convey their influence on our CBTL framework. Mezirow (2000) identified ten stages of transformational learning; however, the transformational learning approaches can be summarized into three major components. The first component is that experiential learning involves experiences outside the classroom, and for transformational learning, the experience must be different from the traditional and typical experience of the students. These challenging experiences produce a disruption (Mezirow’s second component) in the student’s existing understanding of the world, an epistemic challenge, that the model and framework the students had prior to the transformational experience is insufficient to explain. Critical to how the students’ made sense of this disruption is the third component of Mezirow’s work, where students are able to integrate new knowledge into their existing knowledge frameworks through the process of reflection. The successful integration occurs when the level

6

Community-Based Transformational Learning

of reflection is commensurate with the level of disruption and when reflection touches on the personal or professional dimensions of identity. For example, in this book, Richard (Chapter 3) outlines the disruption of student perspectives associated with a simulation experience that asks them to experience the realities of ex-offender transition. The students reflect on how they would adjust to the challenges faced by ex-offenders if they were to transition from jail to society. The students address the personal and emotional dimensions of their experience as they empathize with the difficulties of everyday life of an ex-offender. Thus, practical experience outside the classroom, reflection, and integration produce a transformational learning experience for students. Kiley (2005) identified transformational dimensions of service learning, which could be considered the foundation for CBTL. His model emphasized the importance of reflection to process the experience of difference, disruption, and challenge that is part of CBL environments, especially in the context of international engagement. In this book, authors, such as Winterbottom (Chapter 18), have examined student reflections on a course with a collaborative study-abroad with a university in the UK. The transformational experiences of the students included traveling and teaching in classrooms in a country with different cultural expectations. In addition, the study-abroad included an unexpected component of being in a city that had just experienced a major terrorist attack. In contrast to Kiley’s international focus, Freire (1970, 2000) proposed an emancipatory approach to community engagement and transformational learning within the local community. His approach addressed the social structures that maintain and reinforce oppression that perpetuate challenges of the poor. For Freire, the goal of CBL is to disrupt the notions, understandings, and biases that exist because of these oppressive structures and to provide a challenging and awakening experience that leads students to social action. Kaplan (Chapter 5) provides an application of Freire’s pedagogy in which first-year college students were provided a potentially shocking experience with a local refugee population to discover their civic identity. The course was designed to provide students with an awakening experience to the plight or challenges of the refugee population and discover their civic identity and agency in empowering those individuals to address their needs. The chapter highlights that some students may not be prepared for the disruptive transformation that could result from a community experience that challenges their preconceived ideas about immigrants. Boyd and Myers (1988) focus their transformative pedagogy on framing personal competency, emotional learning, and professional identity. In

What’s in a Name?

7

their theory, students transform through stages, with increasing awareness, personal reflection, and integration at each stage of professional and personal development. This transformative approach is more developmental and incremental than Mezirow (2000) and Freire (1970, 2000) and is reflected in Chapter 2. The authors expand upon the benefits and challenges of integrating community engagement in introductory psychology courses, applying a stage theory related to community engagement. What is in a name? When describing CBTL, the name requires nontraditional pedagogical practices, incorporates community engagement that serves community needs, integrates reflective practice, and embraces challenging and disruptive aspects that lead students to a broader understanding of their role in the community (see Figure 1.1). Although many aspire for service learning and CBL to reach transformational outcomes, teaching practices implemented at the higher education level do not always achieve these objectives. For example, students who experience a disruptive experience in the community-based setting but who do not have structured reflection around those experiences could end up reinforcing prior stereotypes about people in the community who are different from themselves (Endres & Gould, 2009; Mitchell, Donahue, & Young-Law, 2012).

About the Book This book was designed with multiple types of readers in mind to facilitate and ameliorate the development and refinement of CBL experiences. The book focuses on curricular community-based and service-learning experiences as opposed to cocurricular community service. In service learning, students relate communitybased service experience to course objectives using structured reflection and learning activities in a regular academic course; CBL includes planning, activity, and reflection, all of which are interconnected with service learning. Some may want to learn from a chapter in a specific discipline—the book ranges from STEM-based programs (psychology, Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 14; computer science, Chapter 8; and engineering, Chapter 9) to public health disciplines (nursing, Chapter 7; physical therapy, Chapter 9) and education (Chapters 11, 14, 15, and 16). Multiple chapters present an interdisciplinary experience (Chapters 9, 10, and 15). The interdisciplinary nature of community engagement work has the potential for being transformational for students’ professional and civic identities (Hatcher, 2008; Schon, 1983). Alternatively, readers from different

8

Community-Based Transformational Learning

disciplines may be more interested in the types of experiences provided—and the experiences covered within the chapters are generalizable to many disciplines and programs. Within every chapter, readers of this book can glean information on how to design CBTL experiences, the types of community partners to use, and how to evaluate student outcomes. Each chapter is formatted to present the reader with a theoretical background that guided the authors in how they developed and evaluated their CBTL experience. These theories are also generalizable to multiple disciplines and experiences. The theories provide the framework by which the author designed and/or evaluated their experiences. In addition, to assist our readers in developing effective community-based transformational experiences for their students, each chapter outlines the design of the experience provided, as well as challenges faced during the process of design, implementation, and/or assessment. Finally, the majority of chapters include quantitative or qualitative data by which to provide conclusions on why, how, or for whom their experience was transformational. The experiences presented in this book were not transformational for all students involved, and authors provide insight into their learning experience so the lessons they learned might be helpful to readers in formulating or refining their own transformational experiences. Chapters are placed in three broad areas specifically: (1) Guiding Frameworks, (2) Interdisciplinary Upper-Level Learning Experiences, and (3) International Learning Experiences.

Guiding Frameworks To begin, six chapters have been chosen which collectively provide some guiding frameworks for developing, implementing, and evaluating CBTL efforts. First, Chapter 2 presents on a short-term community experience in introductory psychology courses that speaks to the benefit of a community-based experience over a non-community-based course activity, as well as provides evidence that assignment design needs to be carefully considered and some courses may be more effective in achieving desirable student outcomes than others. While this chapter presents the experiences of instructors developing and refining a CBTL experience, Chapter 4 presents a twenty-year initiative with a practicum experience with low-income preschool children. This long-running CBTL experience provides a guiding framework for long-term engagement with community partners and the iterative process of refining community experiences.

What’s in a Name?

9

Chapters 3 and 5 present two formidable student experiences with populations with which students likely have had little contact: refugee families and ex-offenders in a reentry program. These courses offer perspectives on critical elements instructors should consider when designing and redesigning a course. For example, a CBTL experience should be designed considering that students will be differentially amenable to and impacted by community experiences. In addition, the chapters focus on empathy development as a measurable outcome for CBTL experiences and provide critical insight into the importance of carefully constructing reflection experiences. Each chapter provides the guiding framework that community engagement provides a meaningful experience that can make course content more meaningful. Chapter 6 presents how providing students with a community experience to speak about in a public speaking course helped them become more engaged, and less apprehensive, about their speaking assignment. We feel each of these six chapters may help readers think differently about the design and implementation of their community experiences, with some providing thought-provoking ideas that will facilitate development, assessment, and refinement of community-engaged assignments. As is true throughout the book, while authors aspired for transformational experiences, not all achieved this result.

Interdisciplinary Upper-Level Learning Experiences The next section covers a variety of courses that have integrated CBTL in upper-level courses, such as senior-level, capstone (i.e., final required course in program) and internships. For example, students in a capstone course for a computer science degree (Chapter 8) experienced a collaborative triad model of engagement, where community partners, faculty experts, and industry mentors helped students address the technology needs of nonprofit organizations. In Chapter 7, the nursing faculty at the University of North Florida provide the argument for the need for nursing to operationalize service learning and to identify relevant and measurable outcomes in order to build the evidence to support service learning in nursing education. Similar forms of collaboration are illustrated in the chapter by Lundy and Aceros (Chapter 9), who work with students in physical therapy and engineering to build adaptive toys for disabled children. This chapter provides a unique collaboration between an undergraduate engineer and graduate physical therapy program in which students help others to expand their skill set beyond their degree program to better approximate

10

Community-Based Transformational Learning

career expectations. In Chapter 10, Jones and Ziegler dramatize the collective experience of English majors in order to document the transformative power of community-engaged learning. Chapter 11 examines students in a sports management program which requires students to assess the needs of their nonprofit partners, evaluate different ways to solve a variety of real-world issues, adapt their approaches by engaging in “reflection-in-action,” and work effectively in groups. Ehrlich, in Chapter 12, offers a different perspective on CBTL as she provides an overview of digital communities in the context of CBTL, whether near or far. In the final chapter in this section, Hall (Chapter 13) provides an illustration of preservice teachers enrolled in a literacy methods course who worked with a public charter school which comprised mainly students from economically disadvantaged families. This section of the book highlights the interdisciplinary nature of CBTL, and when engaged in upper-level learning experiences (where a lot of course work is involved), faculty, the community, and the students working together can provide meaningful learning collaborations.

International Learning Experiences Finally, readers will be presented with five community-based transformational experiences provided to students through unique cultural community experiences in Jamaica (Chapter 14), Belize (Chapters 15 and 16), Haiti (Chapter 17), and the United Kingdom (Chapter 18) where students worked with the local population to make a difference in the community and themselves. One commonality with these experiences is each was conducted across a one- to twoweek period in conjunction with a six-week summer course. These short-term immersion experiences were designed to provide formative cultural experiences for students who can often not afford the time or money necessary for a semesterlong study-abroad experience. In the Jamaican chapter (Chapter 14), Mann explores CBTL as it occurs in the context of a cultural immersion experience and discusses the importance within psychological training of introducing students to an increasingly diverse world. Being culturally responsive includes understanding the influence of cultural beliefs on the conceptualization of psychological disorders, being aware of persistent stigma surrounding mental health and accessing mental healthcare, and recognizing practitioner bias and other barriers to mental health service delivery. In a similar manner, Chapter 17 examines the impact of international practicum experiences for preservice teachers who completed a practicum in two schools

What’s in a Name?

11

for the deaf in Haiti. This experience brought to light for the students the cultural differences that influence practitioners in their career choice in another country as well as differential resources within that country, and how to adapt to both. In the two Belize chapters, the authors examine the experiences of students from two differing perspectives. Chapter 15 examines how an international service-learning course of twelve graduate students and three faculty traveling to San Ignacio, Belize, provided primary healthcare screenings and intervention to a community as part of a weeklong experience. In the second Belize chapter (Chapter 16), Syverud and colleagues explore an international internship that provides candidates for an education degree with an opportunity to have guided practice in their chosen profession while learning about another educational system. In the final chapter, Dr. Winterbottom examines the transformational experiences of preservice teachers traveling to the United Kingdom for the first time and how this experience serves as a springboard for students to further their careers in education, gain leadership roles, and travel to other countries to teach. Each chapter in this section reports on how gaining a different cultural perspective can be transformational for students. Moreover, the chapters highlight how transformational experiences can have an impact on students’ future aspirations when they are engaged outside of their comfort zone.

Book Themes The individual chapters from practitioner scholars within this edited volume provide a variety of examples, yet these examples can be viewed across a number of common themes. In terms of theoretical frameworks, the included chapters represent a broad spectrum of theoretical perspectives that guided faculty in delivering their CBL experience. Readers will recognize theories common to the experiential and CBL (e.g., Dewey, 1933; Mooney & Edwards, 2001) as well as transformational learning literature (e.g., Freire, 1970; Mezirow, 2000). In addition, readers also might be inspired by theories more popular to fields like developmental psychology (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and education (e.g., Lawson, Çakmak, Gündüz, & Busher, 2015; Smith, 1975). The selected chapters provide extensive illustration of how college educators matched theory with practice. Readers will discover the developmental process that faculty go through to increase the efficacy of their CBTL experiences. Based on the wisdom across chapters, readers will appreciate that the first iteration of a community-engaged course will not reach all of the desired outcomes, and that revisions over time

12

Community-Based Transformational Learning

will be necessary. Chapters represent faculty committed to modifying their courses across multiple semesters to meet the needs of community partners and to provide transformational experiences for students. Along these lines, one theme that emerged across chapters is that it is ill-advised to consider a CBL assignment as just another course assignment; it is, on the contrary, infused throughout the entire course. This book provides many encouraging examples related to CBTL, but outcomes vary based on the unique challenges and various configurations of CBL experiences. For example, the study-abroad chapters all present positive experiences for both students and faculty; however, other chapters provide more varied outcomes that are likely typical for CBTL course, where mixed results might be expected and faculty have integrated assessment in their experiences to monitor their CBTL learning outcomes. For example, Chapter 2 presents encouragement for including CBL in psychology courses, yet the authors recognize that CBTL may be more influential in some courses over others. In this chapter, the authors were encouraged to refine and continue their communityengaged assignment not because students demonstrated growth due to the assignment but because there was evidence that the CBTL assignment prevented decline of community-based attitudes. In this manner, a theme in the chapters is that an honest depiction of CBTL represents successes, failures, and a process of tailoring assignments and experiences across multiple iterations of a course. This edited volume allows for consideration of lessons learned across a variety of CBTL experiences. In a time when higher education across the globe is increasingly under attack (Levine, 2014), CBTL as described in this book shows a different side of education. In this book, authors describe the experiences they, their students, and the community faced when dealing with often complex issues. Several themes about the overall benefit and challenges with CBTL emerge within these chapters. First, CBTL experiences require students to move beyond their comfort zone and to be led, consciously and purposefully, into a state of being uncomfortable. These challenging and potentially transformational experiences provide an opportunity for students to address the personal, interpersonal, and civic dimensions of service learning in an explicit way. Students develop intercultural competence, empathy, perspective taking, confidence, and professional identity. Readers will discover that CBTL experiences require students to work with other students, disciplines, experts, and community members who look different than themselves, who have different skill sets, and perhaps different goals. Students may be required to actively listen and highlight voices from individuals who typically have not

What’s in a Name?

13

been able to use them. These challenging experiences provide tremendous opportunities for personal development as well as academic rigor. Second, CBTL takes time, patience, planning, and flexibility. Many authors note that addressing desired transformational student outcomes usually takes additional time beyond typical course preparations and can often span multiple academic semesters. CBTL experiences require faculty to challenge students to move beyond counting required hours to evaluate and reflect on the quality of the experience for personal growth. Because of the necessity and import of reflection for CBTL to be truly transformational, faculty should carefully consider when, how, and with whom reflection is implemented across the semester. Students are a moving target, as they are maturing while gaining experiences that encourage personal and professional growth; setting students up for success after a CBTL experience may be seen not as change after the course ends but as making them more open to future community experiences. Scholars may ask serious questions about the dosage of CBTL (i.e., length of time spent directly with the community), in that certain quality experiences may require less time, but some short-term experiences may not provide sufficient experiences for the desired learning outcomes. Readers may reflect on how these higher education faculty addressed the challenges of quality and time across different CBTL configurations. In addition to dosage, course characteristics like size and complexity should be considered when deciding if a community experience will be effective and how these experiences should be designed. None of the authors in this book are novices to CBTL; however, they once were and with dedication they have provided truly transformational experiences for the students and for the community.

References Boyd, R. D., & Myers, J. G. (1988). Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 7(4), 261–84. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 2, 112–22. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dallimore, E., Rochefort, D. A., & Simonelli, K. (2010). Community‐based learning and research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 124, 15–22. Dewey (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.

14

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Endres, D., & Gould, M. (2009). “I am also in the position to use my whiteness to help them out”: The communication of whiteness in service learning. Western Journal of Communication, 73(4), 418–36. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hatcher, J. A. (2008). The public role of professionals: Developing and evaluating the Civic-minded professional scale (Doctoral dissertation). Kiley, R. (2005). A transformative learning model for service-learning: A longitudinal case study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 5–22. Lawson, T., Çakmak, M., Gündüz, M., & Busher, H. (2015). Research on teaching practicum–a systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 392–407. Levine, P. (2014). A defense of higher education and its civic mission. The Journal of General Education, 63(1), 47–56. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, T. D., Donahue, D. M., & Young-Law, C. (2012). Service learning as a pedagogy of whiteness. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(4), 612–29. Mooney, L. A., & Edwards, B. (2001). Experiential learning in sociology: Service learning and other community-based learning initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 29(2), 181–94. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professional think in action. New York: Basic Books. Sigmon, R. L. (1979). Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist: National Center for Service-Learning, ACTION, 8(1), 9–11. Smith, F. (1975). Comprehension and learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Speck, B. W., & Hoppe, S. L. (Eds.) (2004). Service-learning: History, theory, and issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Strand, K. J. (2000). Community-based research as pedagogy. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 85–96. Winterbottom, C., & Munday, M. F. (2016). Redefining early childhood epistemology: Exploring service-learning pedagogy in an early childhood context. In K. Heider (Ed.), Service learning as pedagogy in early childhood education, theory, research, and practice (pp. 15–31). New York: Springer. Winterbottom, C., & Mazzocco, P. J. (2016). Reconstructing teacher education: A praxeological approach to pre-service teacher education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(4), 495–507. DOI:10.1080/1350293X.2014.975940

2

Investigating the Effectiveness of a Community-Based Activity on Community-Service Attitudes Jennifer M. Barton, Jody S. Nicholson, and Heather Barnes Truelove

In her Social Psychology syllabus, Bridget saw she was required to complete a community-based experience. She was leery—what exactly did this mean? She hesitantly signed up for a Habitat for Humanity build. As the semester went on, Bridget was fascinated by the professor’s lectures but kept seeing her volunteer date creeping up with some trepidation. How would assisting in building housing for low-income families help her learn more about Social Psychology? The day arrived and Bridget was assigned to a group that was helping drywall a house. As the day progressed, she asked a girl in her group, Sadie, if she was also a UNF student. Sadie’s answer floored her—she was not a student—she was going to live in the house they were building! Sadie explained how she was working two jobs to support her teenaged brother and her two-year-old daughter. After further discussion, they realized they both graduated from the same high school—not three years apart! Their lives were so similar, yet so different. When Bridget got home, she sat down to write about how her experience applied to topics discussed in Social Psychology. If she was honest, she could highlight prejudice and stereotypes; Sadie was not at all the type of person who she thought lived in Habitat housing. In making a social comparison, Bridget thought about how she stressed about little things—parking at school, her next exam—and Sadie had so much more to worry about. She thought back to class, when her professor discussed the importance of considering situational influences on individual outcomes. What were the critical differences between her life and Sadie’s? Bridget was grateful for her parents’ support and the invisible safety net they provided. Sadie was amazing. She didn’t have any of this and she just figured it out. When Bridget finished, she thought about how silly it was that

16

Community-Based Transformational Learning

she was wary of this assignment. Getting out in the community opened her eyes to the true application of the course material. She knew she would be much more open to similar experiences in other courses.

Targeting Community-Service Attitudes in Introductory Psychology Courses Psychology is the study of the science of mind and behavior. Education in psychology should be concerned with civic responsibility, personal growth, and social issues to complement its foundation in preparing students for careers through scientific thinking and application (Bringle, Ruiz, Brown, & Reeb, 2016). Consequently, a call has been made to engage students in realworld issues through action learning with the community (Bringle et al., 2016; Davidson, Jimenez, Onifade, & Hankins, 2010; Kagan, 2008). “[This approach] is a particularly important stance for students in psychology, working with real world issues, as they are, themselves, actors in the process, and have relevant direct or indirect experience upon which to draw” (Kagan, 2008, pg. 30). This is not a recent revelation in the field. In 1916, John Dewey, serving as the president of the American Psychological Association (APA), linked civic understanding and moral development to face-to-face interactions with the public. The APA has this belief integrated in their current Guidelines for the Undergraduate major (American Psychological Association, 2013), which provides five learning goals for undergraduates in psychology programs: (1) demonstration of fundamental knowledge and application of theory and research in the psychological sciences; (2) enhancement of scientific inquiry and critical thinking skills; (3) increased awareness of ethical and social responsibilities in an increasing diverse world; (4) improved oral and written communication skills; and (5) refined professional skills relevant to careers in psychology. Each of these learning goals is enhanced through community-engaged activities. This chapter will review the potential benefits of incorporating servicelearning components into psychological courses, Social Psychology and Lifespan Development, as well as present findings from a project on service learning. The project presented in this chapter examined the effects of community-based learning activities on community-service attitudes, using Schwartz’s (1977) model of altruistic helping behavior. According to Schwartz’s model, people’s decisions to help others progress through four phases: (1) activation (awareness of a need to act), (2) obligation (feelings of a moral responsibility to act), (3) defense (assessment

Investigating the Effectiveness of a Community-Based Activity

17

of the costs and benefits of acting and revaluation of the need and responsibility to act), and (4) response (intention to act) (Shiarella, McCarthy, & Tucker, 2000). Community-service attitudes encompassed in phases 1 through 3 have been linked to future intentions to engage with the community. For example, feeling connected to the community, assessing benefits of helping, and seriousness of community need were associated with greater intention to engage, while assessing the costs of helping was associated with less intention to engage (Hellman, Hoppes, & Ellison, 2006). By promoting attitudes, such as connectedness, benefits, and seriousness, students may be more likely to set intentions to help their community, which may increase the likelihood of behavioral action. Service learning can provide real-world experiences in application of knowledge, theory, and research in psychology. Service learning is unique in that it combines academic and practical experiences into a single task (or multiple tasks: Davidson et al., 2010)—namely, participating in an activity that benefits the community while promoting academic learning. The experience of service learning may allow for individuals to interact with populations they have never been around and therefore have a greater understanding of course material (Wilsey, Arnold, Criado, & Mykita, 2013). This is critical, as surfacelevel understanding of some course topics can lead to reinforcing stereotypes or minimizing the severity of issues (McCluskey-Fawcett & Green, 1992). Furthermore, without concrete experience, students often overestimate their competency in knowledge acquisition and their mastery of the material remains untested (Bringle, Clayton, & Bringle, 2015). Community-engaged activities acknowledge that knowledge acquisition is necessary through other individuals besides textbooks and professors; community members and classmates can be cocreators of knowledge instead of merely passive recipients (Bringle et al., 2016). Both scientific and critical thinking and communication skills are challenged in more applied settings. Textbooks and course instruction cannot convey the complexities surrounding these learning goals as well as real-life situations. Providing students with experiential learning activities, instead of hypothetical cases of such events through lecture or textbook reading, can help students better understand themselves and recognize personal strengths and weaknesses (Wehbi, 2011). For example, courses may outline how to develop a psychological research study to investigate how well a program is impacting its clients, but implementing such a study with a community organization would help students more fully grasp the complexities inherent in designing research (e.g., implementing random assignment, collecting data from participants, and considering the reliability and validity of surveys chosen for the evaluation). In addition, communicating these

18

Community-Based Transformational Learning

complex concepts to the community organization and clients in a manner that is understandable and accurate forces students to question their understanding of each concept and consider how to explain it to individuals who do not have the same training. Finally, students are challenged to think “on their feet” in a real-world setting and deal with more ambiguous situations, challenging their thinking and communication skills, as well as their professional skills. In addition to critical thinking and communication skills, service learning provides a realistic experience in understanding ethical and social responsibilities by helping dispel myths students may hold and better orient them to their role and ability in social change. Specifically, the APA Guidelines charge that psychology students should be able to recognize and understand sociocultural diversity that can be highlighted through service learning and immersion in different cultural groups (Chew et al., 2010). For example, mutually beneficial relationships between community partners and universities can exemplify democratic values such as fairness, inclusivity, and mutual participation; matching the needs and goals of both parties in this relationship dispel the notion that students are descending from the “white tower” to save the community in need (Bringle et al., 2015). Service learning can help students identify their social responsibilities and develop a sense of self-efficacy toward being civically engaged (Bringle et al., 2016; Reeb, Folger, Langsner, Ryan, & Crouse, 2010). Developmental psychology (i.e., Lifespan Development) focuses on typical expectations across the lifespan for human development in physical, cognitive, and psychosocial domains, while acknowledging and introducing individual variation and diversity in development. Service learning allows for students to interact with populations with which they have had little direct contact, apply research and theory learned within the course, and consider how it relates to their own development (Bringle et al., 2016). Courses in developmental psychology that have utilized service learning have established positive outcomes such as deeper understanding of course content and higher exam scores, as well as gains in personal growth (Bringle et al., 2016; Lundy, 2007). In a developmental psychology course, students who worked directly with older individuals in an urban setting had increased interest in and understanding of course content and felt they had worked against some preconceptions they held for individuals of this population (Wilsey et al., 2013). Students who participated in fifty hours of community engagement with children and families reported feeling greater mastery of the course material (McCluskey-Fawcett & Green, 1992); on a more anecdotal level, the instructors for this assignment reported true transformational moments such as students changing and/or getting confirmation for their career choices.

Investigating the Effectiveness of a Community-Based Activity

19

Social Psychology focuses on the impact of the social environment on human behavior. While the science has focused more on basic research, pairing a Social Psychology course with service learning allows for an enriched experience so students can see theory and concepts in practice, real-world application, and reflect on ways to contribute to social change (Bringle et al., 2016). Direct contact with community members has been recommended to illustrate complex and pivotal concepts presented in Social Psychology texts, along with designing experiences where students collaborate with diverse populations (Keen & Hall, 2009). For example, social injustice, prejudice, and bias are complex topics that may be best understood when highlighted through a service-learning experience (Bringle et al., 2016). Students who engaged in social justice issues through a community-engaged format demonstrate more complex cognitive development than those who focused on the material without the applied experience (Wang & Rodgers, 2006). In addition, these types of service-learning experiences have been linked to increased learning outcomes, higher grades and course satisfaction, selfefficacy related to social and civic responsibility and academic self-efficacy, and civic concern (Bringle et al., 2016; Novak, Markey, & Allen, 2007; Warren, 2012).

Description of Course Experiences Students in introductory psychology courses (Social Psychology and Lifespan Development) were required to participate in a course assignment involving applying course content to an experience outside the traditional classroom. One option for this experience was to watch a movie outside of class time and relate the experience to course content. The second option was to volunteer briefly with a community organization (two to eight hours of service). Students taking Lifespan Development completed play dates at a residential treatment facility for children with extreme behavior and emotional disorders or worked with clients at a day training program for adults with severe developmental disabilities. Both experiences would help students identify how the clients served by these programs were not displaying typical physical, cognitive, and emotional development for their chronological age. In Social Psychology, students volunteered in the kitchen at a homeless shelter, helped on a build for Habitat for Humanity, or volunteered with an organization whose mission addressed community beautification. The goal of partnering with these organizations was to provide students an opportunity to get exposure to key topics discussed in Social Psychology.

20

Community-Based Transformational Learning

All organizations were local, though two were connected to a national organization. For some organizations, students had to complete volunteer applications or sign a legal waiver provided by the University General Counsel to acknowledge that they were engaging in an activity off-campus. Students were required to get a form notarized for the Daniel House volunteer application, but many students could get the form notarized for free through their bank, and a reduced rate was available on campus for $5. Multiple organizations were chosen not only to let students select the one in which they were most interested but also for logistical purposes. Students in both courses are often nonmajors, can have limited transportation, and have a range of other demands to their schedule outside of coursework. Additionally, the organizations often had a limit to the number of volunteers for a given time (e.g., ten volunteer maximum for the Sulzbacher Center, HabiJax, and Daniel House experiences). Experiences were chosen because of existing relationships the faculty had with the organization, and how they provided direct and unique experiences related to the learning objectives. For example, learning objectives targeted in Lifespan Development included (1) recognizing normal cognitive, physical, and socio-emotional development across the lifespan and (2) applying knowledge of research and theories of development to community issues and current events. In Social Psychology, the volunteer experience related to the following course objectives: (1) encouraging critical thinking about social psychological concepts and everyday human interactions; (2) providing students with an understanding of how social psychological principles can be applied to everyday life to address personal, interpersonal and societal problems; and (3) providing students with an opportunity to engage in the local community to enrich students’ intercultural competence, promote effective citizenship, and facilitate integration and connections between social psychological theory and community needs. In Social Psychology, students applied more specific topics (i.e., altruism, prejudice, and social dilemmas) discussed in the course through their community experience as compared to the Lifespan Development course, where students could apply the experiences to multiple topics and issues discussed in class. The community-based experiences, while short, required direct contact with the community organization. Prior to the experience, Lifespan Development students had a reading to complete to get background on the client population; Social Psychology students had to (1) complete an article review of a peerreviewed research article related to the topic (i.e., altruism, prejudice, or social dilemmas); and (2) create a mock advertising flyer for the organization using the social psychological principles of persuasion. After the experiences, students in

Investigating the Effectiveness of a Community-Based Activity

21

Lifespan Development were required to complete a one- to two-page paper that (1) explained what they did during their experiences; (2) related their experience to course material (with textbook citations to support their connections); and (3) reflected upon what they gained from the experience and outlined any challenges they encountered. In Social Psychology, students completed a reflection worksheet where they answered eight specific questions related to the experience and how it related to course topics and a peer-reviewed research article they had read on the topic. In addition, they were asked to discuss whether volunteering changed their views about a particular group, social problem, and their perspective about their role in the community. For both courses, this assignment equated to approximately 20 percent of the final course grade.

Challenges Faced in Using Community Engagement in Psychology Courses Engaging students in CBTL early in their career through introductory psychology has merits and challenges. Many of the challenges relate to the nature of the students enrolling in these courses and the size of the classes. Students in these courses are more heterogeneous in background and majors, which provides the benefit of potentially introducing a wide variety of students to CBTL. This benefit is countered by the challenge that nonmajors taking the course as a prerequisite may be less amenable to “extra” assignments and less engaged in the material. Furthermore, these introductory courses typically have more students than upper-level courses, which also contributes to less oversight in the experience and processing of it. Utilizing CBTL in survey courses may provide a challenge due to the sheer number of topics that must be covered in combination with the number of students enrolled (Social Psychology: 115/section; Lifespan Development: 50/ section). The amount of material that has to be covered in introductory survey courses and the number of students who would have to be involved in a reflective discussion does not set up the ideal environment in which to process the students’ experiences in the community. This could result in some students reinforcing stereotypes by not having the ability to process their experiences in a more cognitively complex manner. Moreover, students are completing community experiences over the semester because class size eliminates the possibility of one volunteer time when all students complete an experience. This makes talking about the experience in the large class difficult. If the experience is discussed too soon, some students have not completed their volunteer hours; if a discussion is

22

Community-Based Transformational Learning

postponed until the end of the semester, then not all students will remember what they did to be able to contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion. Thus, reflection assignments that occur in close proximity to the community-based experience would help students make meaning from their experience. Another major challenge is coordinating scheduling and overseeing students in completing their community hours. A large proportion of students work outside of class, so it is difficult for them to find time to volunteer, especially if it is at a time different from normal class and is off-campus. Moreover, transportation is an issue for some students, which was overcome by encouraging carpooling and having a group on the learning management system for each volunteer date where students who do not know each other can message each other to make travel arrangements. Long-term faculty relationships with organizations are often contingent on relationships with specific people who work at the organization. If a staff member leaves, then coordinating volunteering is difficult and sometimes volunteer experiences completely stop. Furthermore, due to the sheer number of people volunteering, miscommunication and student error is likely; a well-developed relationship at an organization often makes a resolution to these issues easy and without consequence to the long-term University-organization relationships. Unfortunately, many of the organizations used for these classes have high staff turnover, which can result in some student issues or miscommunication requiring immediate and careful response from the faculty member. One way most of these challenges were overcome, or at least minimized, was through the adoption of a graduate teaching assistantship directly devoted to faculty who engage in community-based work. The graduate student worked on coordinating scheduling between the organizations and students, as well as collecting necessary paperwork, so that faculty could devote time to more delicate challenges related to the assignment.

Examining Community-Service Attitudes by Course Topic and Assignment Across four semesters, two introductory psychology courses, Social Psychology and Lifespan Developmental Psychology, offered a CBTL component as part of their coursework. Students completed the Community-Service Attitudes Scale Brief version (CSAS-B: Nicholson, Truelove, Barton, & Moulder, 2016) at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester. The full version of this measure was originally developed by Shiarella et al. (2000) based on Schwartz’s

Investigating the Effectiveness of a Community-Based Activity

23

model of altruism (Schwartz, 1977; Schwartz & Howard, 1982, 1984). In 2016, a brief version was developed by Nicholson and colleagues to ease administration, which reduced the number of items from forty-six to twenty-four. The resulting eight components map on to Schwartz’s four phases (i.e., activation, obligation, defense, and response) in his model of altruism (Schwartz, 1977; Schwartz & Howard, 1982, 1984). Students’ change in attitudes across components of each phase was assessed using hierarchical regressions based on two predictors: (1) Course (i.e., Social Psychology vs. Lifespan Development) and (2) CBTL (CBTL vs. on-campus viewing of a movie). Demographic (i.e., gender and ethnicity) and personality characteristics (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness) were included as covariates in the analyses. By controlling for these characteristics, we are acknowledging individual differences between students that may affect their community-service attitudes at the end of the semester. For example, openness to experience has been linked to being more accepting of new ideas or experiences (see Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). Thus, students high in openness may be more receptive to the experience and demonstrate positive changes, while students low in openness may be less receptive, or even resistant, to the experience. There were a total of 609 students included, though there were 26.5 percent students who completed either the pre- or post-survey and 73.5 percent who completed both the pre- and post-surveys. To address the missing data, the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) method in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) was used, allowing data for all cases to be used for model estimations. We ran a series of hierarchical regressions with course and CBTL predicting each component of Schwartz’s (1977) model of altruistic helping behavior based on student scores at the end of the semester. We further investigated the results by examining changes over time within students from the start of the semester to the end of the semester for each of the model’s stages. Activation. The activation phase includes the first three components of Schwartz’s (1977) model: (1) awareness of community need (awareness); (2) ability to provide relief or respond (response efficacy); and (3) feelings of connectedness (connectedness). Neither the course nor CBTL was associated with the activation phase. Obligation. The obligation phase includes the fourth component in Schwartz’s (1977) model, normative helping behaviors (norms), which was significantly associated with CBTL. Participating in a CBTL activity stabilizes students’ attitudes of normative helping behaviors; those engaged in the CBTL activity

24

Community-Based Transformational Learning

maintained similar attitudes related to normative helping behaviors, while watching a movie resulted in more negative attitudes compared to before the experience. Defense. The defense phase includes components 5–7 of Schwartz’s (1977) model: “5” perceived costs of engaging with the community (costs; reverse-scored so that higher scores mean perception of lower costs); “6” perceived benefits of engaging (benefits); and “7” seriousness of community need (seriousness). The defense phase appears to be associated with course and CBTL. Students enrolled in Social Psychology reported greater perceptions of benefits associated with engaging as compared to Lifespan students, but this difference was due to students maintaining beliefs over the course of the semester, while those in the Lifespan course demonstrated a decline in this CSAS attitude by the end of the semester. Both Social and Lifespan students increased in the seriousness of community need attitude, but Social Psychology students demonstrated a greater increase, almost double what was reported by Lifespan students. In comparing those who completed a CBTL experience to those who watched the movie, those engaging in a CBTL experience maintained their attitudes related to the costs associated with engaging while there was a decline in students in the non-CBTL experience. Response. The final phase of Schwartz’s (1977) model, response, includes the eighth component: students’ intentions of engaging with the community (intention), which was significantly associated with CBTL. Students who completed the CBTL activity reported greater intention to engage with the community in the future, while students in the non-CBTL condition showed relatively no change.

Discussion A community-based approach was shown to be effective in enhancing psychology students’ community-service attitudes, which is in line with a current call in this discipline to engage students in real-world issues (American Psychological Association, 2013; Kagan, 2008). Of APA’s (2013) five learning goals for undergraduates in psychology, the current study directly applies to “increased awareness of ethical and social responsibilities in an increasingly diverse world,” but could have indirectly influenced the other four goals. Additionally, students’ community-service attitudes were also affected by whether they were enrolled in Social Psychology or Lifespan Development. Together, this evidence suggests

Investigating the Effectiveness of a Community-Based Activity

25

that gaining community experience and course type (i.e., Social Psychology vs. Lifespan Development) had a positive influence on community-service attitudes for three phases of Schwartz’s model of altruism (i.e., obligation, defense, and response). Participating in the CBTL activity was linked to some community-service attitudes (i.e., norms, costs, and intentions). The CBTL activity may have served as a protective factor against natural decline in community-service attitudes over time. Specifically, those who completed the CBTL activity experienced little to no change in norms and costs at the end of the semester, compared to students who watched the movie. Engaging with the community may reinforce attitudes of norms and costs, but without this community experience, student’s attitudes may diminish over time. Further, students who completed the CBTL activity reported greater intentions to engage with the community in the future than those who completed the non-CBTL activity. This may suggest that direct experience with the community is crucial for whether students have intentions to engage with the community in the future. Faculty should also consider how the types of experiences they are providing their students directly map on to key learning objectives and topics of the course. The Social Psychology course demonstrated greater success in improving some community-service attitudes (i.e., benefits and seriousness) as compared to the Lifespan Development course. Some courses, like Social Psychology, may have better effects due to course topics related to social justice being very applicable to community-based experiences (Wang & Rodgers, 2006). Students in the current study were provided direct experiences with specific course topics in Social Psychology, like altruism and prejudice, while the Lifespan Development course asked the students to apply the experience more broadly. As opposed to focusing in-depth on one topic in the Social Psychology course, allowing students to apply the experience more broadly to course material could lead to surfacelevel understanding, reinforced stereotypes, and/or minimization of the impact of certain issues (McCluskey-Fawcett & Green, 1992). Furthermore, gaining concrete experience in specific topics minimizes the chances that students are leaving the course with an inflated perception of their understanding of course material (Bringle et al., 2015). Faculty may want to consider creating experiences that tie directly to specific course topics instead of more broadly. Previous research has demonstrated an impact of service learning in developmental psychology (Bringle et al., 2016; Lundy, 2007), so the current study does not suggest Lifespan Development is a poor course for applying CBTL. Rather, it is likely that the current format of the assignment may need to

26

Community-Based Transformational Learning

be changed so there is a direct application to a specific topic in the course, rather than allowing students to choose from topics broadly in applying the experience to course content. One encouraging aspect of the significant change demonstrated in Social Psychology is that is the larger course of the two introductory-level psychology courses; Social Psychology is capped at 115 students, while Lifespan Development is capped at fifty students. The high number of students was listed as a challenge that could result in poor student reflection, but the direct relevance of the CBTL experiences to Social Psychology may counteract this challenge. Proper reflection of an experience is critical for CBTL to be effective (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999). This was highlighted with the current data with the increase in students’ perception of the costs of going out in the community is important. Awareness of the reality of the costs of community engagement (i.e., less time to work, do schoolwork, spend time with family, less free time or energy) does not necessarily mean a decrease in involvement as long as this is countered with processing how the benefits outweigh the costs. For example, there was a small decline in both attitudes toward costs and benefits over time, but these differences become more pronounced when considering whether students completed the CBTL activity or not, such that students who did not engage with the community demonstrated greater declines in costs and benefits. A potential lesson to be learned from the current data is that perceptions of costs and benefits are not mutually exclusive; students can acknowledge the costs associated with engagement, but the community benefits reaped from their engagement outweigh these costs. A direct match of experience to course topic and a community-based experience were more effective in improving attitudes associated with later phases in the model. Perhaps most importantly, Social Psychology and communitybased approaches were effective in improving students’ attitudes related to defense, which suggests that these students may have greater feelings of moral obligations despite the personal costs associated with community engagement, compared to students enrolled in Lifespan Development and those who watched a movie. The defense phase reflects how students perceive the situation in terms of seriousness of community problems, community benefits from their actions, and personal costs of engaging with the community (Schwartz & Howard, 1984). In theory, when perceived seriousness and benefits are low, but costs are high, an individual may have a diminished moral obligation to engage. Without moral obligation, it is unlikely that the behavior will persist, thus undermining the final phase (i.e., response). The Social Psychology course, as discussed earlier, appeared to be more relevant for attitudes related to social justice, such

Investigating the Effectiveness of a Community-Based Activity

27

as understanding problems within the community and how their actions can help others, whereas the CBTL activity illuminated the personal costs related to engaging with the community. However, despite perceived costs being greater for the CBTL group, these students reported greater intentions to engage with the community in the future compared to their non-CBTL counterparts. A primary limitation associated with the current data is measurement and assessment timing. Students completed the full version of the CSAS (Shiarella et al., 2000) which is a forty-six-item self-report measure at the beginning and end of the semester, in addition to other relevant self-report measures (i.e., personality, empathy). In general, measures that exceed twenty items can be daunting for participants, but this may be especially true for students at the end of the semester. The end of the semester is a stressful time where students are juggling multiple responsibilities such as studying for exams, writing papers, and other forms of work. These stressors may affect how students are responding to these self-report measures. To combat these issues, researchers created a condensed version of the CSAS (using the current data), which reduced the total number of items from forty-six to twenty-four (Nicholson et al., 2016). For future research, we suggest that students should be assessed one week before the CBTL activity and one week after the CBTL activity to avoid the end of semester period. A secondary limitation is that we measured intention to engage in volunteering in the future but not actual behavior. It is well known that intention is related to behavior (Sheeran, 2002), though other factors (e.g., attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) can impact whether intentions to take an action result in actual action (Ajzen, 1991). This study mostly focused on attitudes toward the behavior (CBTL), with promising results. Future work should also focus on perceived behavioral control (i.e., self-efficacy) as this has been shown to influence not just intention but also actual behavior performance (Armitage & Conner, 2001). In line with this finding, instructors should consider incorporating activities to directly increase self-efficacy around volunteering to help students feel capable of performing the required actions. Finally, although this work benefited from a longitudinal examination over the course of a semester, future work should extend the study period to test the longterm effects (e.g., over the course of a college career) of CBTL activities in early psychology courses on actual volunteering behavior post graduation. The current study investigated the effectiveness of an introductory community-based approach to improving students’ community-service attitudes. The findings suggest that participating in a CBTL activity enhanced attitudes in three phases from Schwartz’s (1977) model: obligation, defense, and response.

28

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Specifically, students who completed the CBTL activity demonstrated positive changes in attitudes related to norms, costs, and future intentions. Although students’ perceptions of costs were high, this did not necessarily deter students from reporting future intentions to engage with the community. Further, course type was associated with the third phase of the Schwartz (1977) model: defense. Students enrolled in Social Psychology demonstrated positive changes in their perceptions of the severity of problems in the community and how their actions can benefit others. Overall, these findings are promising in that they suggest that participating in a CBTL activity and being enrolled in Social Psychology produced changes in community-service attitudes. Future research should consider how to target the first phase (i.e., activation) of Schwartz’s (1977) model, and how to tailor the Lifespan Development CBTL activity to better reflect the course learning objectives and redesign the assessment timeline to reduce student burden.

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major, version 2.0. Washington: American Psychological Association. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–99. Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P. H., & Bringle, K. E. (2015). From teaching democratic thinking to developing democratic civic identity. Partnerships: A Journal of ServiceLearning & Civic Engagement, 6(1), 1–26. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in service learning: Making meaning or experience. Educational Horizons, Summer, 179–85. Retrieved from https://digital commons.unomaha.edu/slceeval Bringle, R. G., Ruiz, A. I., Brown, M. A., & Reeb, R. N. (2016). Enhancing the psychology curriculum through service learning. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 15(3), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716659966 Chew, S. L., Bartlett, R. M., Dobbins, J. E., Hammer, Elizabeth Y., Kite, M. E., Loop, T. F., . . . Rose, K. C. (2010). A contextual approach to teaching: Bridging methods, goals, and outcomes. In Undergraduate education in psychology: A blueprint for the future of the discipline (pp. 95–112). Washington: American Psychological Association. Davidson, W. S., Jimenez, T. R., Onifade, E., & Hankins, S. S. (2010). Student experiences of the adolescent diversion project: A community-based exemplar in the pedagogy of service-learning. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 442–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9337-6

Investigating the Effectiveness of a Community-Based Activity

29

Hellman, C. M., Hoppes, S., & Ellison, G. C. (2006). Factors associated with college student intent to engage in community service. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 140(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.140.1.29-39 Kagan, C. (2008). Broadening the boundaries of psychology through community psychology. Psychology Teaching Review, 14(2), 28–31. Keen, C., & Hall, K. (2009). Engaging with difference matters: Longitudinal student outcomes of co-curricular service-learning programs. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11772130 Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63(3), 169–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.169 Lundy, B. L. (2007). Service learning in life-span developmental psychology: Higher exam scores and increased empathy. Teaching of Psychology, 34(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280709336644 McCluskey-Fawcett, K., & Green, P. (1992). Using community service to teach developmental psychology. Teaching Psychology, 19(3), 150–52. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Nicholson, J., Truelove, H. B., Barton, J. M., & Moulder, R. G. (2016). Measuring college students’ community service attitudes validly and efficiently: Development of a short version of the community service attitudes scale. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 8(4), 18–28. Novak, J. M., Markey, V., & Allen, M. (2007). Evaluating cognitive outcomes of service learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 24(2), 149–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090701304881 Reeb, R. N., Folger, S. F., Langsner, S., Ryan, C., & Crouse, J. (2010). Self-efficacy in service-learning community action research: Theory, research, and practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 459–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 10464-010-9342-9 Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–79. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1982). Internalized values as motivators of altruism. In Valerian J. Derlega, & Janusz Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research. New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1984). Internalized values as motivators of altruism. In Development and maintenance of prosocial behavior: International perspectives on positive morality (pp. 229–55). New York: Plenum Press. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/147927 72143000003 Shiarella, A. H., McCarthy, A. M., & Tucker, M. L. (2000). Development and construct validity of scores on the community service attitudes scale. Educational and

30

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021 970510 Wang, Y., & Rodgers, R. (2006). Impact of service-learning and social justice education on college students’ cognitive development. NASPA Journal, 43(2), 316–37. Warren, J. L. (2012). Does service-learning increase student learning? A meta-analysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(2), 56–61. Wehbi, S. (2011). Reflections on experiential teaching methods: Linking the classroom to practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(5), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1 080/08841233.2011.614205 Wilsey, S. A., Arnold, N. Y., Criado, M. M., & Mykita, A. (2013). Experiential teaching in an adult development course: Promoting an understanding of intergenerational interactions. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 41(2), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2013.757983

3

Half-Stepping Empathy Development in an Introductory Community Service-Learning Course on Ex-offender Reentry F. Dan Richard

Half-Stepping Steven was an honor’s student in my “Is Revenge Sweet?” course, and was the only African American student enrolled in the course. As a result of being the only representative from this minority group, he often felt uncomfortable with the discussions, and he felt some pressure from having to represent the views of his minority group during the challenging conversations about race, crime, and recidivism; however, he managed to speak up if a different perspective was needed. The students worked with the local ex-offender reentry program, the Jacksonville Re-Entry Center (JREC), which supports individuals who are being released from prison. The goal of the partnership between the students and JREC was to help students understand the challenges ex-offenders face as they make this critical transition back to the community. Another goal is to help students understand the impact of lasting resentment and feelings of revenge experienced by the broader community on those who have been recently released from prison. As an outreach service project, the students created a video for JREC that could be shown to community members and those who are ex-offenders but returning citizens. Steven had a small role in helping make the videos. These videos would help JREC communicate with both funders and clients about the value of the center for ex-offenders. The videos included interviews with individuals who had made successful transitions from jail to the community. Steven was assigned Camera 2. As the ex-offenders told their stories of struggles and the challenges

32

Community-Based Transformational Learning

they faced during their transition, Steven had a transformational moment of self-awareness. After the interview was over, during the debriefing, he said, When I think about all the challenges these guys face on a daily basis, they have no margin for error. Every decision can be a tipping point to send them back to prison. I realize that I have not been giving my all to my studies. I have been “half-stepping” my first year in college. I can do better. It is important for me, given the opportunities in front of me, to do better.

In learning more about his community and the people in it, Steven learned to take his career seriously and to be a story of success instead of a story of failure. Realizing he needed to change, Steven took the first step in transforming his future. How fortunate that Steven had this transformational revelation in his first year of college through an introductory general education course. This chapter will describe this course, an introductory community-based transformational learning course that incorporates empathy with ex-offenders through simulation in reaching learning goals of critical thinking and civic action through empathic concern.

Empathy Development in College Courses Steven’s story highlights the benefits of connecting with others and learning about oneself through empathy. Empathy is a central personal quality associated with positive human interaction (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). Allemand, Steiger, and Fend (2015) found that adolescent development of empathy was associated with adult social functioning twenty years later. As illustrated by Steven’s story, empathy contains both cognitive (i.e., the ability to take the perspective of others) and emotional components (i.e., to connect with and feel the emotional states demonstrated by others). Despite the importance of empathy in human social functioning, Konrath, O’Brien, and Hsing (2011), in a meta-analysis of the construct, identified a decline in empathy among college students between the years of 1979 and 2009. The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) recognized the importance of addressing empathy development through intercultural competence. AAC&U identified empathy as one of the components of Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, one of the Liberal Education America’s Promise (LEAP) essential learning outcomes for undergraduate general education (AAC&U, 2009). In addition to general education outcomes, the American Psychological Association (APA, 2013) identified five student learning goals for undergraduate

Half-Stepping

33

education in Psychology, psychological knowledge, critical thinking, ethical and social responsibility, communication, and professional development. Aspects of the goal of ethical and social responsibility include subgoals that students would “build and enhance interpersonal relationships” and “adopt values that build community at local, national, and global levels” (pg. 26–27). The British Psychological Society (BPS, 2017) in their standards for ethics education recognized the importance of ethical sensitivity and “‘ethical mindfulness’ which incorporates an awareness of the rights and needs of others” (pg. 10). Thus, general education outcomes as well as disciplinary-specific outcomes in Psychology reflect the value placed on developing empathy in college students. Community-based service learning provides an opportunity to address the personal and transformational aspects of empathy as a learning objective.

Service Learning and Transformational Learning Service learning focuses on students addressing the recognized needs of members of the community (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). The cognitive and emotional aspects of empathy should be critical for recognizing the needs within the community and addressing those needs through service. Oswald (1996) found that those who experienced greater levels of perspective-taking and empathic concern were more likely to help others by volunteering hours of their time. Decades of research on the connection between empathy and helping behavior revealed that there is broad support for their connection (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). Empathy, however, does not always lead to action on behalf of others. Further research by Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, and Siem (2006) demonstrated that the empathy-helping connection was strongest for others who were similar rather than dissimilar to the helper. This aspect of empathy can be particularly problematic in the higher education service-learning context in which those being helped might be quite dissimilar to college students, the ones providing the service. Getting students to exercise and develop this link between empathy and helping, thus, in the higher education service-learning context might require a dislodging of prior notions of those who are different from us and notions of when one should help others. This shift in perspective is consistent with Mezirow’s transformational learning theory, where a disorienting event provides an opportunity for an adult learner to question assumptions and integrate a new understanding into existing knowledge (Mezirow, 2000). Mezirow expressed the importance of empathy in making the necessary human connections that lead

34

Community-Based Transformational Learning

to transformational learning. Kiely (2005) adapted Mezirow’s transformational learning theory for the international service-learning context. An important component of the learning process according to Kiely is the personalization of learning. Personalization occurs when students connect their disruptive experience with their emotions. Kiely explains that when students come face-toface with poverty in Nicaragua, that the students experience a range of emotions, but the deep, internal emotions bring about empathy and commitment to action. The transformational elements of community-based service learning, according to Kiely, activate and integrate personal and emotional content around feelings of empathy with others. Not only has empathy been described as part of the learning process but also empathy has been a targeted outcome in service learning and community engagement (Lundy, 2007). Lundy found that students completing a servicelearning project showed increased measured empathy compared to students who completed interviews with community members only or those who completed a research project with no contact with community members. Although it would seem to be a natural fit for service learning and community engagement to address the personal dimension of empathy, others have questioned whether empathy would directly lead to positive outcomes within the service-learning context. Herzberg (1994) noted that students might anticipate the types of personal development targeted by many service-learning programs and feign connection with community members during the service experience in order to gain a good grade from their professors. Rosenberger (2014) echoed this concern and suggested that students need more than emotional empathy and need deeper awareness to develop a critical consciousness around critical social issues within the service experience. “Is Revenge Sweet” is an introductory, general education college course that addresses social science research methods. The course connects research on the nature and consequences of revenge with the social consequences of lingering forgiveness and lasting resentment on the part of the community toward ex-offenders once they have served their time and are released from prison. The service-learning aspect of the course requires students to identify the needs of the JREC, a reentry portal for individuals in the Jacksonville, Florida, area, and to meet the needs of this community organization. To prepare students for service, students complete a weeklong simulation designed to evoke empathy with ex-offenders and the challenges they face as they make the transition from jail to the community. The students then tour JREC through a simulation process called “Welcome Home,” in which students walk through the first day of a

Half-Stepping

35

returning citizen. These simulations provide the necessary disruption identified by Mezirow (2000), which then allows the student to challenge preconceived notions and develop new perspectives. The student is encouraged to reflect on their experiences, which helps them connect with their experiences and make meaning from them (Ash & Clayton, 2004; Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). The following sections will highlight the elements of this course and analyze student reflections from this experience.

Is Revenge Sweet? Students in introductory college courses must adjust to a number of new expectations. In this introductory general education course, students are required to learn critical thinking skills in the context of social science. The course provided an opportunity to address a topic of immense social need, recidivism (i.e., the rearrest of ex-offenders after release from prison or jail). Over 400,000 adults are arrested in Florida each year (Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 2015). Approximately 100,000 Floridians are in federal or state prisons, and an additional 150,000 adults are in local or county jails, with another 230,000 under some form of probation or parole (US Department of Justice (2014a). Of those released from incarceration, 23 percent will be convicted on another crime within one year, and 45–50 percent will be convicted of a new crime or rearrested for parole violation within three years (US Department of Justice, 2014b). Transition programs, like the one at JREC, address the need for dealing with dynamic factors that are associated with lower rates of recidivism. Aftercare programs (programs that support those released from prison/jail) focus on immediate needs of the returning citizen such as food support, housing, and employment. Communities that continue to hold ex-offenders responsible for past crimes (i.e., those that hold on to feelings of revenge) make the transition for these returning citizens difficult. For example, Vuolo, Lageson, and Uggen (2017) note the unnecessary challenges faced by ex-offenders in applying for jobs after incarceration, as they face required self-reporting of past offenses. Many citizens, as well as many college students, are unaware of the challenges faced by these ex-offenders. To heighten student awareness of these challenges, the “Is Revenge Sweet?” course provides an organized set of experiential learning activities mixed with simulations designed to help students connect with the emotional challenges faced by ex-offenders. At the beginning of the semester, the Director of JREC

36

Community-Based Transformational Learning

visits the students in the classroom to provide an orientation around the challenges with re-offenders and the role of the JREC program. Students later visit the center for a tour, on which they discover more of the needs of the JREC program and the ex-offenders who receive services from the program. Prior to this tour, however, students complete a weeklong simulation called “A Week in the Life of a Returning Citizen.” During the “Week in the Life” simulation, students do not attend regularly scheduled class, nor do they have other assignments other than the simulation. Each student in the class is assigned one of four scenarios. Each scenario contains a story about an ex-offender, the case upon which their weeklong simulation is based. Students are to take the perspective of this recently released ex-offender. The introduction to one of the scenarios is as follows: Mike Green: You never knew your father. Your mother had bipolar disorder, which resulted in an unstable home growing up. When you were young, you occasionally lived with your grandmother. You found a way to survive when you were younger by hanging out with friends. You were involved in a convenience store robbery at the age of twenty-two. During the robbery, things went wrong and the clerk was shot and seriously injured. You did not shoot the clerk, but you were arrested and spent the past ten years in prison. Upon release, your sixtyseven-year-old grandmother agrees to take you in on the condition that you not make trouble for her.

For each scenario, students must respond to daily challenges through reflection assignments. For an example of a daily challenge, on the third day of the week, students assigned Mike receive an email reporting the following: Calamity 1:  Your grandmother is quite helpful. She has been giving you tough love, which is what you need right now. She also is somewhat of a clean freak. While you were out yesterday, she cleaned your room and threw away your medication (for bipolar disorder). You have approximately five days to re-fill your medication without negative effects on your mental health. It will cost you $10 to fill your medication.

In their reflection assignments, students must make decisions on how to address these challenges as they arise. In addition to these daily challenges, students are required to choose an ongoing challenge for the entire week, a challenge that would be typical for a returning citizen: (1) go without a cellphone for one week; (2) eat for one week only food that can be found in a convenience store; (3) go for one week wearing only two changes of clothing. Students also must track their spending and have a budget of $50 for the entire week. Students are allowed

Half-Stepping

37

to cheat on these requirements but must reflect on why these challenges were so difficult for them to achieve. Students respond to reflection questions at the end of each day. The reflection questions ask students to identify the temptations they experienced, what choices they made, and what they imagine the likely consequences of those choices might be. At the end of the week, 50 percent of the students (at random) are informed that because of a violation of their parole, they have been rearrested. Students reflect individually on these experiences and the emotions they would experience. The following class period, students debrief as a group on the difficulties they experienced with the simulation and how ex-offenders might be affected by these dramatic events. As part of the discussion, students reflect on how they adjusted to these challenges that seemed atypical and on how very typical these events would be for someone recently released from prison. Following the “Week in the Life” simulation, students visit JREC in the community. The staff at JREC provide another simulation for the students, the “Welcome Home” simulation. The staff walk students through the experiences of the day of release for an ex-offender. They move from felony registration, to reviewing the conditions of their parole, to visiting the clothing closet, to the food pantry to select groceries for the week, to meeting with a Job Coach about their job prospects. At each stage, the staff review the typical conversations and challenges they would experience as a recently released ex-offender. Through this simulation, students better understand the needs of the center in providing the needs of ex-offenders. In the following eight weeks of the semester, students meet in groups on campus to plan an outreach project for JREC. Outreach projects include videos that can be used by the center, informational presentations that can be deployed in the lobby waiting area, or clothing drives to secure jeans or workbooks for ex-offenders. The students deliver the products of the outreach projects at the end of the semester and engage in group dialogue about the learning experience with the JREC staff.

Challenges Connecting College Students to Ex-offenders Students are not inclined to spend time with ex-offenders to understand their perspective. Ex-offenders are not inclined to spend their precious time normally spent looking for jobs, traveling across the city using public transportation, meeting with their parole officers, to meet with college students. One advantage of the partnership with JREC is that some of their employees are ex-offenders.

38

Community-Based Transformational Learning

These staff members provide unique perspectives on the transition from jail to engaged citizen. It is because of this potential disconnect and the inability to have college students spend time with ex-offenders that the simulation approach was selected. The “Week in the Life” simulation helps students practically understand the day-to-day challenges faced by ex-offenders despite the fact that students have little direct contact with them. Creating real-life scenarios can be difficult. Students likely will not know the difference between a scenario based on a shallow representation of ex-offender life to one that is more nuanced. Community members, including our community partners at JREC, likely would experience the lack of empathy and perspective from students who fail to grasp the significant challenges faced by ex-offenders. The scenarios and calamities used for the “Week in the Life” simulation were constructed from six years of partnering with community organizations that address recidivism and ex-offender reentry, including the life stories of ex-offenders themselves. The most significant concern about the involvement of the community partner is to ensure that the community partner is receiving needed support for their program while at the same time not being burdened by the presence of a group of students on the tour. Given the long-standing partnership with the program, we were able to collaborate on the syllabus, the learning objectives, and the “Welcome Home” simulation. This partnership led to the center staff welcoming the students, as the time spent with them was valuable to the community agency. The “Week in the Life” simulation helped prepare students for the dimensions of challenge experienced by ex-offenders. The experience also helped students become advocates for the important work of JREC, as they recognized the complexity of supporting those who are making transitions from jail to the community. This mutual benefit made the time spent on the tour and the on-site simulation relevant to students and valuable to the community partners. Students do not spend much time at JREC. Each student group spends no more than one hour and fifteen minutes on-sight. The lack of sustained direct contact with those being served could pose a challenge for student learning outcomes (Brown, 2011). The visit from the program director prior to the student visit and simulation helps connect students to the program director and to the needs of the program. In addition, as students prepare proposals for outreach projects, they share these proposals with the center director, and the director provides constructive feedback on the proposals. Students then revise these proposals based on the feedback on the projects. The majority of the time spent on community service is spent by students working on projects for the community

Half-Stepping

39

agency while on the university campus. This is why providing a quality simulation is important, as students have little direct contact with those being served.

Student Reflections on Ex-offender Simulations To address the role of empathy in student community engagement with ex-offenders, the final “Week in the Life” reflections were analyzed for themes that emerged from the students’ expressed experience and perspectives. Student reflections from two semesters of the “Is Revenge Sweet?” class was subjected to a theoretical (i.e., top-down) theme analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) for perspectives related to community-based transformational learning (Kiely, 2005), especially the personal connection of empathy. The reflection responses might contain references to emotional as well as cognitive perspective taking. Transformational elements considered in the analysis included the disorienting events and the process of revising prior beliefs based on experience (Mezirow, 2000). Participants were seventeen students (76 percent female) enrolled in an Honors General Education course. Students were majority white and traditional aged college students. The majority of the students were in their first year of college, however, a small number of students were in their second year in college. Students completed reflection assignments each day of the “Week in the Life” simulation. The data comes from the final day of reflection. Students were asked about their experiences during the week, what experiences were most challenging, which most supportive of their learning, and what new perspectives they gained from the experience.

Empathy with Ex-offenders Students were prompted to think about how their perspectives had changed as a result of the community-based experience. Many students mentioned both emotional and cognitive aspects of empathy in completing the simulation assignment. Students recognized the emotional states they were experiencing as a result of the simulation and connected those emotions to how an ex-offender would feel when in that same situation. One student noted, I could understand the regret my persona may have had and the anger that my victim may have had. By trying to understand them and put myself in their shoes, I got a better feel for what it may be like to be an ex-offender or the victim of one.

40

Community-Based Transformational Learning

This student recognized the connection between the cognitive forms of perspective taking and how those were connected with emotions toward others who were different from her. Vescio, Sechrist, and Paolucci (2003) identified the separate but unique contributions of cognitive perspective taking and emotional empathy in reducing prejudice toward others. Mezirow (2000) notes that these “meaning perspectives” (pg.16) involve cognitive and emotional elements. Students connected emotionally with the sense of helplessness often experienced by ex-offenders. One student who had the calamity of being offered a job but not being able to purchase the necessary shoes to accept the job identified the emotional impact this must have for ex-offenders struggling to find employment without resources to secure those positions: The most surprising part of this assignment for me was getting a job that I couldn’t have unless I paid a substantial amount of money for shoes. It kind of goes along with the saying “you have to have money to make money.” It made me feel helpless in that I was trying to find a job in order to make money, and I had to have money already in order to do that. It makes me wonder how ex-offenders are able to make it work at all, unless they have a lot of family/friend support.

The emotional connection with the challenges of ex-offenders can result from what Kiely (2005) describes as “sharing stores,” (pg. 8), a way of emotionally connecting with community members. The simulation provided an avenue for this college student to connect with the experiences of an ex-offender on an emotional level. Another student identified the cognitive perspective taking abilities that developed as part of the community-based experience: This class has helped me because it has made me more aware of just how much the events in our lives may shape us. Most offenders are victims themselves, victims of circumstance, and this victimization has led them to harm others or break the law. From this I will take away that everyone has a lot going on in their life and so a bad action or rude comment made by someone is not who they are, I could just be interacting with them on a bad day.

This student was able to personalize their experiences and engage in a process of reexamination of their own strengths, weaknesses, and patterns of responding (Kiely, 2005). Another student explains, I no longer automatically assume that a person who is exhibiting negative behaviors is mean or lazy; I now attempt to understand where that person is coming from. This enables me to resolve problems rather than compound on them with by returning others’ negative behaviors in response. I have learned that when you consider multiple perspectives, addressing conflict with others is

Half-Stepping

41

a much easier task. This knowledge will certainly help me as I pursue a career and face the daily task of working with others.

Students were able to reframe their negative experiences with others and approach them with a new context of empathy. Similar to what is expressed by this student, research demonstrates an association between emotional empathy and forgiveness of others (Macaskill, Maltby, & Day, 2002). Mezirow (2000) describes the reframing process as the transformation stage, where students become “critically reflective of their assumptions and aware of their context” (pg. 19). Students recognized that their initial perspectives were limited, and the simulation provided an opportunity to challenge their preconceived notions about ex-offenders for a new understanding of the context of their situation. As one student noted, I finished this assignment with a deep sense of respect for returning citizens and the trials they experience. In order to be successful, they have to be extremely self-motivated and disciplined. A positive outlook on life wouldn’t hurt either, especially when the possibility of gaining employment seems slim to none. When we were told how many released offenders were re-arrested within three years, I was surprised. The initial thought after hearing that is, “Well, maybe some people are just cut out to be criminals.” In reality, the road of re-integration is steep and rocky and to be honest, I don’t blame the people who veer off of it.

This student’s reflection highlights the shifting of perspectives and emotions in the process of transformational learning outlined by Kiely (2005). The disruption experienced by the student around recidivism rates and the simulation experience provided an opportunity to reframe their prior understanding and come to a new, different conclusion about the context of ex-offenders.

Transformational Elements of Community-Based Learning Kiely (2005) connected service learning with transformational learning and identified essential elements that support transformational learning in community-based settings. Consistent with Mezirow’s (2000) theory, students expressed the experience of disruption. Students reported being surprised by their own reactions to the challenges facing them during the simulation. A student who chose to take the ongoing challenge of eating food found at convenience stores noted her own surprise at her reaction once the challenge was over: What stuck with me the most was the intense feeling of relief I got on Sunday, when I didn’t have to budget my food anymore. It was a relief to be able to eat whatever I was in the mood for without worrying about making up the money on another day.

42

Community-Based Transformational Learning

The physical aspects of the simulation seemed to have the biggest impact on student challenge and disruption, producing a high dissonance state (Kiely, 2005). When students struggled with the challenge, the experience helped them re-center their expectations and find new ways of connecting with others who were different from them. One student expressed that their own failures helped them appreciate the way others can fail as well, noting: With the addition of the challenges, I was able to take a more first-person perspective. In seeing how difficult these stupid little challenges are for me, I can definitely see how difficult these sort of problems, and more, are for someone who has just got out of prison and has almost nothing.

The students were able to personalize (Kiely, 2005) the simulation experience and connect their personal awareness with those of ex-offenders. They realized that broader patterns of human behavior were in operation, something Mezirow (2000) calls “subjective reframing” (pg. 23), where students come to understand broader systems at work. Students realize that ex-offenders are part of a broader system and that their challenges with crime likely reflect more than just personal failings of ex-offenders. This subjective reframing allows students to discover their own limitations and to take actions to shift their perspective to match a new reality. As one student noted, Adapting these perspectives has made it easier for me to stop assuming what people must be feeling about situations, and think about differences in their backgrounds that may have lead towards different perspectives. I would have to say this has actually helped me in communicating with my superiors as well (professors, bosses, etc.). . . . This has made me feel more comfortable around people who are different from me, ranging from classmates to ex-offenders.

Students were able to translate their new perspectives into new commitments for action and connection with others in the future. One student identified the limitations of their previous perspectives and planning for a different set of actions toward others in the future, noting: Taking this class has taught me to realize that everyone has their own story. What I mean by this is that I have no idea what someone has gone through, unless I take the time to get to know him or her. I should not simply judge someone just based on their looks or the initial personality. . . . Hopefully in the future I will not be so quick to judge and will try to relate with people better . . . being able to see where they are coming from.

Half-Stepping

43

This student identifies a revised action, a change in future behavior as a result of the simulation experience. Kiely (2005) describes this way of problem solving as “processing” (pg. 13) where problems and solutions are explored. The forming of new patterns of behavior reflects the concept of new “habits of mind” (Kegan, 1994; Mezirow, 2000, pg. 17).

Conclusions Service learning and community engagement has as its focus on the connection of academic learning with personal and civic aims. Butin (2007) notes this combined purpose of service learning, indicating that its goal is to “broadly link the personal to the social and the classroom to the community” (p. 117). In the current chapter, I outlined how empathy was involved in connecting college students to the challenges faced by ex-offenders hoping to make a successful transition to the community. Students participated in simulation activities to help them connect with community members who have a unique experience and who could not spend time with students to share those perspectives. The physical aspects of the simulation seemed to be particularly powerful in challenging students’ assumptions and leading to emotional as well as cognitive empathy. The emotional aspects of empathy seem to work well with the disruptive, reflective, and personalization aspects of transformational learning. Empathy has been targeted as part of the service learning process as well as an outcome. Empathy development fits many approaches in service learning in the United States, including frameworks such as critical service learning (Mitchell, 2008), civic engagement (O’Connor, 2006), and international service learning (Kiely, 2005). Other conceptions of community engagement and service learning, however, might be challenged by the use of empathy as a strategy. In Australia, community service and engagement opportunities in higher education tend to be more focused on campus-industry partnerships and community-engaged research (Winter, Wiseman, & Muirhead, 2006). Given that empathy is a core social capacity and that this capacity would connect humans in a variety of relationships across domains (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987), one would expect that empathy would be a relevant component in a number of contexts. These contexts could extend beyond the social engagement and service environments typical of opportunities in Europe and the United States to many contexts where action is best informed by a social conscience (Langstraat & Bowdon, 2011).

44

Community-Based Transformational Learning

The conception of empathy, however, might require further development. In a recent study by Bringle, Hedgepath, and Wall (2018), researchers identify differences between compassionate empathy and empathy motivated by social justice. The researchers describe the emotional response to observing others experiencing injustice as empathic anger. More research is needed to determine how the empathic experience of different emotional states might result in different types of actions on the part of community members. In this project, we were able to demonstrate helping behavior among students for individuals who were dramatically different than them. Carefully constructed learning experiences connected with meaningful reflection activities show promise for helping students connect emotionally with other people who are perceived as different. These carefully constructed learning experiences help shift student perspectives about, as well as their actions toward, those suffering injustice in their communities.

References Allemand, M., Steiger, A. E., & Fend, H. A. (2015). Empathy development in adolescence predicts social competencies in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 83(2), 229–41. American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: Version 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/ undergrad/index.aspx Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 137–54. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2009). Intercultural knowledge and competence VALUE rubric. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/ value/rubrics/intercultural-knowledge Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 2, 112–22. Bringle, R. G., Hedgepath, A., & Wall, E. (2018). “I am so angry I could . . . help!”: The nature of empathic anger. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 6(1), Article 3. Brown, M. A. (2011). Learning from service: The effect of helping on helpers’ social dominance orientation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 850–71. Butin, D. W. (2007). Justice-learning: Service-learning as justice-oriented education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 177–83. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological bulletin, 101(1), 91–119.

Half-Stepping

45

Florida Department of Law Enforcement. (2015, June). Crime Data & Statistics, http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/992c4917-9aa5-41c1-99a7-6fe94866791c/ Data---Statistics-(1).aspx Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. College teaching, 45(4), 153–58. Herzberg, B. (1994). Community service and critical teaching. College Composition and Communication, 45(3), 307–19. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modem life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kiely, R. (2005). A transformative learning model for service-learning: A longitudinal case study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 5–22. Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 180–98. Langstraat, L., & Bowdon, M. (2011). Service-learning and critical emotion studies: On the perils of empathy and the politics of compassion. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 17(2), 5–14. Lundy, B. L. (2007). Service learning in life-span developmental psychology: Higher exam scores and increased empathy. Teaching of Psychology, 34(1), 23–27. Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(5), 663–65. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Meizrow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65. O’Connor, J. S. (2006). Civic engagement in higher education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(5), 52–58. Oswald, P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic concern and altruistic helping. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(5), 613–23. Rosenberger, C. (2014). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service learning. In Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 39–60) New York:. Routledge. Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 943–56. The British Psychological Society (2017). Code of ethics and conduct. Leicester, UK: The British Psychological Society. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014a, September). Prisoners in 2013. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf

46

Community-Based Transformational Learning

US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014b, April). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. http://www.bjs. gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 455–72. Vuolo, M., Lageson, S., & Uggen, C. (2017). Criminal record questions in the era of “ban the box.” Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 139–65. Winter, A., Wiseman, J., & Muirhead, B. (2006). University-community engagement in Australia: Practice, policy and public good. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(3), 211–30.

4

From Head Start Challenge to Advocacy Rebecca Marcon

Matt is a psychology major who always liked children and thought a career that involved working with children would be interesting and rewarding, but he didn’t know how to make that happen because he did not want to be a teacher. Flyers posted around campus with a picture of a young child building with blocks caught his attention. He attended the information session and decided to give it a try. Former interns told him it was the best class they had ever taken and his professor told him he would be a different person at the end of the internship than he was now. Matt decided to keep an open mind and agreed with his professor’s advice that he would get from the experience what he put into it. The six-hour orientation and training with the agency that operated his Head Start center was overwhelming because everything was new to him and there were so many regulations to remember for this federal program. During training for his first rotation, Matt learned that he was not alone and his fellow interns were just as anxious. As they practiced some of the things they would be doing in the classroom and learned practical tips for engaging young children, Matt’s anxiety changed to excitement and he was eager to get started. When Matt entered the Head Start classroom on his first day, he became an instant celebrity, with children jockeying for his attention and wanting to do everything all at once with him. The twenty children suddenly seemed like fifty because he did not yet know them as individuals or what each of their stories was. Using some of the tips he had learned in training and watching how the other adults interacted with the children helped Matt to playfully redirect children so that he could give them individual attention and learn right alongside them. On the playground he was quickly drawn into their play and even ended up resolving a few disputes by guiding the children to talk things out. By the end of the day he was exhausted but happy and excited to be part of Head Start.

48

Community-Based Transformational Learning

As the weeks went by, the challenges grew and so did Matt’s heart as he learned of the many hardships these three- and four-year-old children had already endured. During his internship Matt also spent five weeks in the community explaining the program while soliciting donations and posting flyers to recruit more families and children. He went on home visits and updated the center’s job board and community resources folder with information families could use. He saw how hard these families were trying and how a lack of education and other twists and turns of life had landed them in very difficult situations. In his other college classes Matt was surprised to find himself speaking up in discussions when classmates argued that poor people were lazy and should just get a job rather than rely upon the government to help. Matt explained it wasn’t as easy as all that and the obstacles that stood in the way were hard to overcome at times so families need a safety net. Because of his Head Start experience Matt now saw things differently. He was proud to be part of Head Start and frequently shared how Head Start gives children a fair chance to make for themselves a more hopeful life. On Matt’s last day as a Head Start intern he knew he was going to miss the people he had been lucky enough to work with and all the lively children who had taught him so much. In his final reaction paper Matt wrote that he was, indeed, a different person than he had been just a few months earlier. He felt more comfortable, confident, understanding, and believed he was an overall better person. He now had a purpose and a direction for his life and accepted a position after graduation with a nonprofit organization that involves working with at-risk youth living in an impoverished area of the city that he would have previously ignored.

Applying Psychology to Make a Difference in the World Psychology continues to be a popular undergraduate major that attracts a wide range of students with interests in both the arts and the sciences. In the United States, psychology is consistently in the top five, with 6 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in this discipline (NCES, 2018). In the United Kingdom, psychology is the second most popular major (HESA, 2018). In the 1980s only five Chinese universities offered degrees in psychology but there were close to 200 by 2007 (Han & Zang, 2007). Similar trends are noted around the world. Fortunately a range of employment opportunities exists for psychology majors (cf. US Census Bureau, 2012) because most do not become professional,

From Head Start Challenge to Advocacy

49

academic, or experimental psychologists. In the United Kingdom, 80 percent of undergraduate psychology majors do not become psychologists (Trapp et al., 2011). Although 45 percent of psychology majors in the United States pursue an advanced degree, not all are in psychology and most do not earn the terminal degree in the discipline (Carnevale, Cheah, & Hanson, 2015). What can be done to increase the likelihood that the growing number of college graduates with bachelor’s degrees in psychology will find work in jobs closely or somewhat related to their major? A report on the future of undergraduate psychology in the United Kingdom (Trapp et al., 2011) strongly encouraged some form of applied placement as part of the psychology degree because it gives students an advantage in future employability, benefits their personal development, and increases employers’ awareness of the potential of psychology students (Moores & Reddy, 2012; Reddy & Moores, 2006). In designing principles for a quality, twenty-first-century undergraduate education the American Psychological Association recommended an applied learning experience for all psychology majors (e.g., student internships, externships) as part of a coherent curriculum that prepares graduates “to enter and succeed in the workforce and thrive in their daily lives” (APA, 2011, p. 7). This not only enhances transfer of learning to actual community problems and concerns but also provides an opportunity for students to acquire “skills that they can use in their personal lives, families, careers, and communities” (APA, 2011, p. 21). This chapter describes how the author created a comprehensive internship with Head Start so that upper-level psychology undergraduates could apply their knowledge of developmental psychology to community-based experiences with children. These students experience how the bioecological theory of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), created by one of Head Start’s founders, is realized in a context of poverty. Through this enriching practicum experience, psychology students become part of implementing federal policy to reduce poverty through local early intervention efforts and, in doing so, grow in confidence that they can make a difference in the world. For over twenty years, undergraduates at the University of North Florida have received college course credit for work with Head Start children and families in five northeast Florida counties, which include urban, suburban, and rural communities. Head Start is a federal program for low-income preschoolers established in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty. It is a comprehensive, two-generation program with reported short- and long-term benefits (e.g., Chor, 2018; Garces, Duncan, & Currie, 2002; Lee, Zhai, BrooksGunn, Han, & Waldfogel, 2014; Ludwig & Phillips, 2007). Housed in the US

50

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start uses a developmental approach to promote school readiness, health, and family well-being of children ages birth to five and adapts services to meet local community needs. The comprehensive nature of the Head Start program makes it an ideal placement for psychology undergraduates. The program allows students to practice a wide range of professional and discipline-related skills as well as to explore many different career paths during a single semester. For example, our Head Start interns get direct experience with teaching, social work, behavioral therapy, speech and language therapy, early intervention and mental health consultation, screening and assessment of physical/cognitive/social domains, case management, and nonprofit community outreach. It is rare for psychology majors to have such a diverse experience with professionals across multiple disciplinary training paths all working together to address the needs of local families. In addition to applying knowledge, developing skills, and exploring possible career paths, Head Start internships such as the one described here could also help students grow in appreciation of their own development (Bringle, Reeb, Brown, & Ruiz, 2016). Through this experience, students become aware of issues related to poverty, as well as their attitudes toward children in poverty and their own commitment to addressing poverty. Elisa and Gambone (1998) found students, whose ten visits at Head Start were supported by four on-campus training/supervision sessions, came to better understand risks to personal development that are associated with environmental threats and to realize that not all Americans have equally available support and opportunities needed to develop their full potential. After spending time in a Head Start classroom, student attitudes toward Head Start were significantly more positive, with undergraduates believing more strongly than before that Head Start should be supported and that families and children it serves do deserve this support (Conner, 2004). More prolonged experience with Head Start children (eighteen to thirtysix visits) helped students feel they were making a difference in children’s lives as they saw improvement in children’s development (Primavera, 1999). Psychology majors reported a greater sense of responsibility about poverty following just 20 hours in Head Start classrooms (Blackwell, 2013). Students also believed they had grown as a person and reported being more patient and tolerant, as well as feeling more competent for having accomplished something worthwhile and being a resource to the community (Primavera, 1999). Although social problems such as poverty are indeed complex, well-structured experiences in a Head Start setting can provide psychology majors with direct evidence that their efforts make a difference for others and for their community.

From Head Start Challenge to Advocacy

51

Placing undergraduates in a different context than they are used to, a context that is different from the one in which they grew up, is key to the transformational learning that takes place in the Head Start internship described in this chapter. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) macrosystem (overarching blueprint of a society, its ideology, culture) is pervasive and usually goes unnoticed by the developing individual because it permeates all other contextual systems within which a person develops. Oftentimes it is not until we encounter a different macrosystem that we begin to examine how much our own has influenced who we have become. In this fifteen-week internship, psychology majors are immersed for ten hours a week in the macrosystem created by chronic and lifelong poverty. Within this setting students form relationships with and learn from staff, children, families, and other people and institutions within the Head Start neighborhood. Within the Head Start setting students have an opportunity to develop new ways of seeing themselves (cf. Boyd & Meyers, 1988) as they move from feeling like an outsider to feeling like an insider and part of the Head Start mission. With immersion, students quickly see needs of children and families growing up in poverty, but they often get stuck and need supportive guidance and scaffolding to move forward both personally and professionally. This takes time; there are no shortcuts.

Scaffolding for Transformation in Head Start Internships To be considered for the Head Start internship, students must have completed an upper-level course in lifespan developmental psychology and must attend an information session. This prior coursework provides students with knowledge of normative development and influences that can impact the development of children and families they will be working with at Head Start. Knowing about the interacting influences of nature (heredity) and nurture (environment) on human development can help students to understand the complexity of programmatic challenges Head Start faces in accomplishing its goals. Approved students (twenty to twenty-five per semester) register for a semester course and select their internship schedule. The professor for the course (the internship director) assigns students to locations based on each student’s top five center preferences and center needs. All centers are operated by Episcopal Children’s Services (ECS) which is the 2019 federal grantee for twenty-six Head Start/Early Head Start (www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs) centers providing services to low-income infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their families in twelve northeast Florida

52

Community-Based Transformational Learning

counties. Students intern at one of the ten centers operated by ECS in the five counties proximal to our university. The internship director and community partner jointly train and supervise student interns. Selecting a quality program. ECS was selected as the community partner because this agency has been a recognized leader in early childhood education for more than fifty years and has operated Head Start centers in northeast Florida for twenty-two years. Although Head Start sets fairly high and uniform stands for its services, there is still notable variability in quality across programs (Barnett & Friedman-Krauss, 2016). It is well known that high-quality programs are essential for achieving positive outcomes for children and families, whereas poor quality programs can have unintended negative consequences for young children’s development (Melhuish et al., 2015; Vandell et al., 2010). In setting up this internship, it was essential that students be exposed to quality Head Start programs so that they see the positive outcomes of early intervention that is developmentally appropriate and sensitive to community needs. Higher quality programs use evidence-based practices that align well with what students learn in college courses about effective ways to optimize children’s development. The quality of local programs can be checked through Head Start’s federal designation renewal system. Preparing students. Because Head Start is a federal program, students must fulfill a number of requirements before they may begin their internship. Interns must pass a Level II background check that includes fingerprinting, and receive clearance from each state where they may have lived in the past five years. ECS pays the screening cost for our interns, but students are responsible for any outof-state clearance fees. Interns must sign a statement of good moral character that affirms they have not been arrested for any of fifty-three disqualifying acts or alternatively provide evidence that they have been granted an exemption if their record contains one or more of these disqualifying offenses. A screening survey for tuberculosis is required, with subsequent testing mandated if any responses are affirmative. Other federal Head Start grantee agencies may have additional screening requirements (e.g., physical exam) and these can be costly for students. The university also has requirements associated with the Head Start internship. As part of our memorandum of agreement, the university requires all Head Start interns to sign an acknowledgment of risk form. For this specific internship, the risks include working with minors; exposure to a variety of diverse schools and homes located in neighborhoods experiencing poverty; working with children’s severe behavior challenges which could result in injury; and interactions with children and families that could possibly expose interns to lice and/or illnesses

From Head Start Challenge to Advocacy

53

such as pink eye, scabies, hands-foot-mouth disease, and other communicable diseases. During orientation staff frankly discuss each potential risk with students, answer questions, and provide strategies for preventing or minimizing these risks. With these precautions in place we have only had one case of lice in twenty years that was traced back to Head Start, no illnesses or communicable diseases other than colds, no crime-related incidents, and limited injuries to interns, although a few interns have been bitten, hit, or kicked by children with severe behavior challenges. Orientation. Prior to beginning this semester-long experience, the professor and ECS jointly provide Head Start interns with a six-hour orientation (i.e., overview of Head Start mission, philosophy and policies, requirements of interns, professionalism) and specialized training for their first five-week rotation. This initial session takes place at ECS central headquarters, with ECS staff traveling to the university for subsequent class meetings and rotation trainings. Following the initial training, Head Start interns spend ten hours each week at a Head Start or Early Head Start center where they complete three five-week rotations: education, family and community, and mental health/health. Each rotation has an extensive checklist of direct-contact activities for interns to accomplish under supervision of a Head Start teacher or family advocate or center manager. The community partner and professor jointly developed these rotation checklists and together review and revise intern tasks after each academic year to ensure that student and agency needs continue to be met. Expectations and requirements. In addition to on-site hours at Head Start and in the community, students spend an average of two hours each week (1) engaging in reflective journaling, (2) responding to questions in assigned reading, The successful internship: Personal, professional, and civic development in experiential learning, (3) conducting an individual neighborhood assessment and later carrying out an in-depth community assessment with other Head Start interns working in the same community, (4) providing weekly progress updates, (5) reading a supplemental book about Head Start history and its implementation, Head Start: The inside story of America’s most successful educational experiment or Something better for my children: The history and people of Head Start, and (6) attending monthly class meetings. Each student’s final course grade is based upon successful completion of on-site hours, class assignments, midterm and final evaluations provided by on-site supervisor, and a final reaction paper documenting accomplishment of course goals, personal goals detailed in learning contract, and reflection on personal impact of this community-based experience.

54

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Challenges in Providing Transformational Learning Experiences for Head Start Interns Most challenges associated with a Head Start transformational learning experience are unavoidable, yet each can be overcome by remaining flexible, seeking cooperation from others, and remembering why it is important to create this experience for students. Time management and building trust are some of the greatest challenges for the professor who develops a Head Start internship. Time commitment, maturity, and insufficient experience are some of the greatest challenges for students who enroll in a Head Start internship. Faculty challenges. Much of a professor’s time commitments are upfront, before students ever step foot in a Head Start center. The faculty member must be able to plan ahead and be aware of deadlines set by the university and the Head Start partner. Planning for the upcoming semester (e.g., recruiting new group of interns), for example, typically is underway by midterm of the current semester. Being organized is essential. Building trust with a potential Head Start partner is challenging even for faculty with strong interpersonal skills. Just getting a foot in the door with Head Start programs could be difficult if a faculty member does not understand this program’s history and why there could be hesitancy to engage with outsiders who may or may not share Head Start’s philosophy and mission. Since its inception, Head Start has been threatened by those who would like to see this federal program eliminated. The program has survived for over fifty years by cautiously building trusting partnerships they can count on in times of need. Being responsive to this need for trusting relationships, I was respectful and receptive when meeting with the local Head Start leadership and allowed my own advocacy for the Head Start mission to shine through. Faculty can demonstrate their commitment for their community partner interests by responding swiftly to correct student actions and by working on student biases that might interfere with the mission of the program. As valuable as the internship could be for students and for the agency, it must not interfere with the central mission of Head Start. Student challenges. Students will also be surprised by the actual amount of time this internship will consume. Honesty during the recruitment phase is the best way to overcome this challenge. Supportive guidance of students is needed as they assess if they can invest sufficient time needed to learn and grow from the experience. During the internship some will need help with time management and other issues. It is important to support rather than solve their concerns. Lack of experience and immaturity common in the developmental period of

From Head Start Challenge to Advocacy

55

emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000) is a challenge that is best addressed with scaffolding that adjusts amount of support in response to performance. With guidance and encouragement of a more skilled partner (i.e., professor, Head Start staff ) Head Start interns do come closer to reaching their potential than they would do without help (Vygotsky, 1978). This approach takes longer than simply providing a solution that a more experienced person knows will work, yet it is key to creating a transformative opportunity for students. When immersed in the Head Start community, most students quickly see the multitude of needs that children growing up in poverty have. Although Head Start focuses on building up strengths that can buffer risks and reduce needs, most interns are overwhelmed because they do not yet have the skills, experience or maturity to address so many needs. This causes many interns to freeze, become immobilized, and even give up. Once students become overwhelmed it is difficult to coach them back to taking even small steps toward making a difference, so taking a preventative approach is useful. During orientation, the instructor shares the starfish story (that rescuing one starfish on a beach of many stranded starfish is important to the one that was rescued) and encourage students to find their starfish (or more likely to let their starfish find them) and to make a difference one starfish at a time. Whenever a Head Start intern starts to feel overwhelmed, a reminder of the starfish story jolts them back into action.

Outcomes of the Head Start Internship Experience The recommendation that all psychology majors have an applied learning experience as part of a coherent curriculum was made with the expectation that this would better prepare graduates for success in the workforce and their daily lives (APA, 2011). The Head Start internship provides undergraduates with such an experience. Themes emerged from students’ anonymous written responses to an open-ended course evaluation focusing on the greatest strength and greatest weakness of the Head Start experience. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 provide themes and illustrative examples of student reflections. Among themes describing positive outcomes were application of knowledge, personal growth, career-related preparation, and unexpected benefits. Among themes describing weaknesses of the experience were workload, staff confusion over role of interns, and travel. Approximately 25 percent of students reported no notable weaknesses associated with the Head Start internship. Typical of these students was a comment by one

56

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Table 4.1 Positive Outcomes Reported by Students in Semester Reflections Outcome Application of Knowledge

Student Response

Impact

Nearly two-thirds of They were able to use and students mentioned the apply knowledge from their value of real experiences education and expand upon it. to learn from that they They believed the Head Start couldn’t get in other internship had added greatly to courses. their undergraduate learning experience. Personal Half of students reported They said the experience Growth personal growth and taught them a lot about self-improvement. themselves and that they had improved themselves. They felt more confident in their abilities and more responsible because they had been encouraged to be independent. For many this was a life-changing experience. For example, a student wrote, “Life changing!!! I don’t think I am able to describe on paper how I’ve grown during this class. I feel happy and whole.” Career One in four reported the Those who emphasized this Related experience had helped outcome said it either confirmed with career direction and their desire to work with children acquiring skills they will or it motivated them to do so need for a future career. when this was not something they had previously considered for a career. Sense of An unexpected outcome They felt part of a team, both at their Community was that one in three Head Start center and with other and had gained a sense of interns. The relationships they Connections community and had formed with Head Start were made connections important to them. with classmates, staff, children, and/or families. Support and Nearly two-thirds of This helped them to accomplish Encouragement students valued goals they had set for themselves the support and and to grow in ways they had not encouragement they had anticipated. They felt inspired. received (primarily from the professor). (Continued )

From Head Start Challenge to Advocacy

Outcome Making a Difference

Head Start Advocates

57

Student Response Impact At the end of the internship, Students now knew they have the one in three realized they ability to bring about positive had made a difference in change. In all likelihood, each the lives of others. intern had made a difference because countless beneficial interactions, events, and interventions would not have taken place if each intern had not been in their Head Start community. This is an outcome that may take more time to sink in before students fully realize the impact they have had. It is also possible that students don’t realize that small differences count, too. In this open-ended Some students were strongly assessment when encouraged by this experience students could have to continue working with Head written on any aspect of Start. For others the program their experience, one in will forever have a place in their seven mentioned they hearts. It appears that roughly were proud to be part of 15 percent of interns are likely Head Start. to become strong advocates for Head Start in the years to come.

who said, “I loved this whole experience and even with the workload I’d do it all again in a heartbeat.” This review of anonymous feedback from students about the Head Start internship supports reports from professional psychology associations in the United States and the United Kingdom that strongly encourage an applied placement for psychology majors as part of their undergraduate degree program. Specifically, the Head Start internship supports student learning and development in the areas of career direction and preparation, knowledge transfer and application of learning to real-world issues, and personal development, despite challenges such as travel times and increased workload.

Conclusions Immersing students in the community through an intensive internship directly related to their academic field of study is beneficial. For psychology majors,

58

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Table 4.2 Challenges Reported by Students in Semester Reflections Challenge

Student Response

Workload

Nearly one-third of the students thought the internship was very time-consuming compared to other classes. This concern included number of required weekly hours at Head Start centers and academic assignments.

Staff Confusion

Travel

Impact

Student procrastination and difficulty balancing an internship with other obligations contributed to some students getting behind on academic requirements designed to enhance understanding of their on-site responsibilities. Although this is an upper-level internship for students approaching graduation, one in three may not yet have acquired time and workload management skills they will need upon entry to the workforce and in their daily lives following graduation. During their internship, Although the Head Start grantee agency one in five students had communicated expectations to reported some Head center directors, not all directors had Start staff members shared this information with each were confused about member of their staff. Consequently, the role of interns and interns needed to show initiative were uncertain about in educating Head Start staff about what to do with these rotation checklists, personal learning advanced college goals, and the difference between a students. volunteer who is there to help and an intern who is there to learn. Although the agency could indeed ensure that the role and value of interns is more consistently communicated with all staff, this weakness reported by students may also reflect a lack of skills students will need for success in the workforce and their daily lives. It would be erroneous to assume that others will always know why you are there and that they will readily make your interests and goals a priority in their own work responsibilities. Waking up early and This challenge reflects more on students’ having to travel some lack of future work habits than on distance through the Head Start opportunity they were morning traffic was offered. The Head Start internship was reported by one in good practice for what they will be seven students as a doing on a daily basis once they enter weakness of the Head the workforce. Start internship.

From Head Start Challenge to Advocacy

59

Head Start is an ideal placement because it is a comprehensive, two-generation program that uses a developmental approach to promote school readiness, health and family well-being of children aged zero to five, and adapts services to meet local community needs. The comprehensive nature of Head Start allows students to practice a wide range of professional and discipline-related skills, as well as to explore many different career paths in the course of a single semester. Immersion in the macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) created by chronic and lifelong poverty, coupled with well-structured experiences, individualized support, and time to form relationships with and learn from staff, children, families and other people and institutions within the Head Start neighborhood, provides Head Start interns with an opportunity to develop new ways of seeing themselves. When students open their selves to the fullness of the experience, they grow. Head Start is found in all fifty states so starting a similar program for psychology majors is possible if there are centers within an hour’s drive of the university and the Head Start grantee believes they could establish a trusting relationship with the professor who will send students into their Head Start community. Outside of the United States it would be important to look for comprehensive programs that focus on the whole child and hopefully their family as well. One such program might be the Care for Child Development program (WHO/UNICEF, 2012). The World Health Organization established this program to be an intervention that goes beyond screening. Care for Child Development incorporates guidance for parents on child development to stimulate the child’s development and encourage positive contact between child and caregiver. This program is widely implemented in low- and middle-income country settings around the world. Immersing students in these types of comprehensive programs serving at-risk children and families is a worthwhile applied learning experience that provides an opportunity for transformation. A more extensive communitybased experience like the Head Start internship described in this chapter has the potential to help students with career direction and preparation, apply learning to actual community problems, and benefit personal development. Systematic research is needed to identify exactly what components of the Head Start internship bring about these positive benefits. It would also be important to examine individual characteristics of students that facilitate or hinder their progress toward reaping these benefits. Identifying effective strategies to help professors and supervisors develop scaffolding skills needed to support individual

60

Community-Based Transformational Learning

students could be useful. Finally, the unexpected benefit of acquiring a sense of community and connections is worth exploring further, especially as our newest generation of college students born from 1997 onward has been identified as the loneliest generation (Cigna, 2018). This is an exciting time for faculty who are interested in providing, as well as systematically studying, community-based transformational learning.

References APA. (2011). APA principles for quality undergraduate education in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–80. Barnett, W. S., & Friedman-Krauss, A. H. (2016). State(s) of head start. New Brunswick, NJ: The National Institute for Early Education Research. Blackwell, K. A. (2013, April). Head start service learning in a child development course. Poster Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development Teaching Institute, Seattle, WA. Retrieved August 3, 2018 from http://www.kblackwell.com/files/blackwell-2013SRCDTI.pdf Boyd, R. D., & Myers, J. G. (1988). Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 7, 261–84. Bringle, R. G., Reeb, R. N., Brown, M. A., & Ruiz, A. I. (2016). Integrating service learning into the curriculum: Developmental psychology. In R. G. Bringle, R. N. Reeb, M. A. Brown, & A. I. Ruiz (Eds.), Service learning in psychology: Enhancing undergraduate education for the public good (pp. 119–28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carnevale, A. P., Cheah, B., & Hanson, A. R. (2015). The economic value of college majors. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Cigna. (2018). Cigna’s US loneliness index. Retrieved from August 19, 2018, https://ww w.multivu.com/players/English/8294451-cigna-us-lonelinesssurvey/ Chor, E. (2018). Multigenerational Head Start participation: An unexpected marker of progress. Child Development, 89, 264–79. Conner, D. B. (2004). The effects of course-related service projects in a child development course. College Student Journal, 38, 462–71.

From Head Start Challenge to Advocacy

61

Elias, M. J., & Gambone, G. (1998). Bringing undergraduate service-learning into a high-risk, urban environment. In R. G. Bringle & D. K. Duffy (Eds.), With service in mind: Concepts and models for service learning in psychology (pp. 151–60). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie, J. (2002). Longer-term effects of Head Start. American Economic Review, 92, 999–1012. Han, B., & Zhang, K. (2007). Psychology in China. The Psychologist, 20, 734–36. HESA-Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2018). What do HE students study 2016/17? Retrieved from August 3, 2018, https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/ students/what-study Lee, R., Zhai, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., Han, W, & Waldfogel, J. (2014). Head Start participation and school readiness: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study-birth cohort. Developmental Psychology, 50, 202–15. Ludwig, J., & Phillips, D. A. (2007). The benefits and costs of Head Start. National Poverty Center Working Paper Series 07–09. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Melhuish, E., Ereky-Stevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K., Tawell, . . ., and Leseman, P. (2015). A review of research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) upon child development. CARE project; Curriculum Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Available from http://ecec-care.org/resources/ publications/ Moores, E., & Reddy, P. (2012). No regrets? Measuring the career benefits of a psychology placement year. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 535–54. NCES-National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Bachelor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by field of study: Selected years, 1970–71 through 2015–16. Retrieved from August 3, 2018, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/ tables/dt17_322.10.asp Primavera, J. (1999). The unintended consequences of volunteerism: Positive outcomes for those who serve. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 18, 125–40. Reddy, P., & Moores, E. (2006). Measuring the benefits of a psychology placement year. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 551–67. Trapp, A., Banister, P., Ellis, J., Latto, R., Miell, D., & Upton, D. (2011). The future of undergraduate psychology in the United Kingdom. York, UK: Higher Education Academy Psychology Network. US Census Bureau. (2012). Pathways after a bachelor’s degree in psychology. Retrieved from August 3, 2018, https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2012/comm/ pathways-series/psyc_majors.html Vandell, D. L., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., Steinberg, L., Vandergrift, N., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age

62

Community-Based Transformational Learning

15 years? Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child Development, 81, 737–56. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. WHO/UNICEF. (2012). Care for child development: Improving the care of young children. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

5

Community-Based Learning and Identity Status The Complexities of Community Engagement in a First-Year Seminar Leslie Kaplan

Susie came from a small town. Her parents worked as a high school biology teacher and a car salesman. Her family took religion seriously and she was raised to feel the responsibility to help others. Although a biology major, she decided to act as a mentor to a family that arrived as refugees as her service project in the Honors First Year Colloquium class, and was matched with a family who arrived as refugees from Ethiopia. She was confident in her ability to help since she had logged over 200 hours as a volunteer in high school. Although the experience did not translate directly to her career interests, and she had not yet had a wide range of experience with diversity, she was motivated by personal values to want to be of service. On the first day of volunteering, however, Susie and her fellow mentors were slow getting out of the car, eyeing the African men hanging out on a staircase and letting pass several Asian men on bikes who were staring at them the whole time. As they entered the apartment, they were intimidated by the strong smells of spices that seemed to permeate the house and even the hallway outside, and sat on the saggy couch in the living room quietly, taking in the shabby surroundings. The mother, Falasha, listened as the social worker introduced the students, and then brought out a beautiful coffee pot. She poured each girl a tiny cup full of sweet, strong coffee, and smiled, saying nothing. Suddenly, the front door banged open, and the family’s four children came bursting into the living room, filling it with noise and energy. Within minutes the children were eagerly chatting with the students and translating for their mom. On the last day of the project, Susie waved to the Asian man who leaped off his bike to kick the soccer ball back onto the field, and the African men on the stairwell smiled.

64

Community-Based Transformational Learning

For a moment she remembered her initial trepidation about the neighborhood and the family and laughed at herself for how narrow her views of others had been before she had contact with this very different family. Then Falasha called from the door; it was time for Susie’s cooking lesson. Susie continued to visit her family throughout her college career, and as a senior, helped the oldest daughter navigate the college application process. She attributes her increased empathy, openness to new experiences, and comfort with the unknown to the experiences in the community that she gained through the First Year Honors Colloquium.

Community Experiences with Refugees in a Freshman Honors Seminar Community-based learning is valuable to students both personally and professionally (Astin & Sax, 1998). In fact, two of the top-tier skills that both business executives and hiring managers desire in recent graduates are practiced in service learning: working effectively in teams and real-world application of skills and knowledge (Hart, 2018). Large majorities of business executives and hiring managers see many kinds of applied and project-based experiences as offering graduates a benefit in the hiring process, particularly at nonprofit companies (Hart, 2018). A meta-analysis of service-learning research suggests that the effects on academic outcomes were moderate, on personal outcomes were small, and on social outcomes were in-between (Conway, Amel, & Gerwien, 2009). All of these data suggest both the importance of this kind of experience and the kind of skills students should expect to develop in their university courses. The context of the current community-based transformational learning (CBTL) activity is a freshman seminar course required for all incoming honors students. Honors education is becoming pervasive in American higher education, with some form of separate honors education at 1,503 of 2,550 nonprofit undergraduate institutions (Scott & Smith, 2016). The ubiquity of honors education suggests that an exploration of the benefits and challenges of CBTL on an honors population may be of general interest. In fact, CBTL is often a central pillar of honors education, with over a third (37 percent) of the 573 universities surveyed nationally by the National Collegiate Honors Council reporting a service requirement and 48 percent reporting service-learning classes (Scott, Smith, & Cognard-Black, 2017). The report also notes that service learning is most common at public universities, with 44.7 percent of public

Community-Based Learning and Identity Status

65

four-year universities having a service-learning requirement versus only 18.2 percent of private universities (Cognard-Black & Savage, 2016). An implicit discomfort with the inherent elitism of a differentiated “honors experience” at universities founded on the goal of equalizing access to higher education may be driving public honors colleges and programs to emphasize the community benefit of these exclusive experiences more than at private universities. This impulse may account for the difference between the likelihood of requiring communitybased experiences within honors: a focus on service may be foundational for many honors programs and colleges at public universities. The community-based experience in the Hicks Honors College at the University of North Florida is located in a “first year experience” class that includes not only a required service-learning component but also multiple other learning assignments and goals. “First Year Experience” describes a range of courses, orientations, bridge programs, and experiences to help incoming students transition to the culture of a particular academic organization, or to higher education in general (Barefoot, Griffin, Betsy, & Koch, 2012). These typically include a range of goals: exposure to the university’s culture, support for higher retention and/or graduation rates, improved academic performance, better utilization of campus resources, as well as opportunities to create relationships between students and between students and faculty, and practice for critical thinking. This first year experience includes all of these goals. The report notes that honors students are a population that is particularly likely to have special first year seminars designed for them; they were the largest single group for whom a special first year seminar was created (43 percent) (Barefoot et al., 2012). There is theoretical grounding for why first year experiences are utilized early in the university experience. In particular, ego identity development in adolescents suggests how and why both a first year experience and a community-based experience might be transformational for freshmen. Most theories related to identity development are based on Erikson’s psychosocial theory of development, such as Marcia’s refinement of that theory into a typology (Bosma  & Kunnen, 2001, p. 39, 41). Marcia’s (1966) Identity Status Theory divides people into four statuses based on their identity development; each status is based on whether they have achieved a core belief related to their identity (i.e., commitment) and whether they have actively explored and considered the basis for that belief (i.e., exploration). Students can be classified as: (1) foreclosed (strong commitment without exploration), (2) diffused (no commitment, and no exploration), (3) moratorium (no commitment but active exploration), and (4) achievement (strong commitment after a process of

66

Community-Based Transformational Learning

exploration). As young people move from an identity based on their context (family, local culture) to one formed after exploration, shifts between these statuses could move them from foreclosure or diffusion, to moratorium, and finally to achievement (Marcia, 1966). This process is very active during adolescence (ages seventeen to nineteen), and starting college is a “triggering event” as students leave home and family and enter a different social and intellectual world in which career and social exploration are expected (Waterman, 1999; Waterman & Waterman, 1971). Socially, the peer group expands, and college also offers new and different experiences and ways of thinking, intensifying the possibilities for exploration and challenges to existing identity. Research by Waterman and Waterman (1971) showed that more than 75 percent of students changed statuses in either vocation or ideology in the freshman year of college, suggesting the centrality of the need to explore in this population. However, that leaves 25 percent who don’t change status. Kroger (1995) found similar results: fewer than 50 percent of students in either diffusion or foreclosure can be described as “firm” vs. “developmental” in their identity status as they are not likely to shift status in one to six years. Three-quarters of the first year students in the Hicks Honors College are likely to change identity status. Offering students a course that explores multiple levels of identity, including the national, local, university, and honors communities, as well as their individual vocational and political identities, allows them a structured opportunity for discussion and reflection about identity development on multiple levels (as described by Freire, 2000). The current chapter presents how freshmen respond to a community-based experience in relation to empathy and personality changes, which were chosen due to the connection between personality traits and identity development during adolescence (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993; Luyckx, Soenens, & Goossens, 2006). Assessing this requires multiple types of data, as well as examining differences between students that explain how and why transformation may occur. The anecdotal evidence of this first year experiences often suggests the transformative power of contact with diverse others for some students, building their openness and empathy, and the initial research questions was, “In what way are the students transformed?” However, the results suggest a more complex picture of “transformation.” This chapter examines the unexpected results of changes in empathy in light of identity development theory, personality differences, and difference in “cohort personalities.” Although course changes are being made and longer-term evaluation will be conducted, this early evidence suggests the complexity of the challenges of communitybased learning with freshmen.

Community-Based Learning and Identity Status

67

Course Design: A Course within a Learning Community Since 2010, the First Year Honors Colloquium class is required for all honors students at the University of North Florida in the first semester of freshman year. The topic of the class is immigration and national identity and also includes units on choosing a major and planning a college career. It is designed as a first-year seminar that hones students’ academic and leadership skills. Furthermore, this is not just a freshman class. It is also a freshman learning community in which twothirds of the students live together and participate in extracurricular activities as well as take class together. Students meet each other before the class begins, in a three-day retreat which includes a mix of social, academic, and recreational activities. The large lecture breaks down into small discussion sessions run by students only one to three years older than the freshmen, and there is a heavy social and community element to the class sessions. Students hear a series of ninety-minute lectures from faculty and community members with expertise in various disciplines that contribute to their understanding of the phenomenon of immigration and the challenges it offers to national identity. Students then attend a discussion breakout group for the remaining ninety minutes. There are typically between 150 and 220 students in the class, so there are between 9 and 12 breakout sections with 15 to 20 students. They also engage with each other outside the classroom, strengthening the sense of themselves as a community. Each student is expected to offer about thirty hours of service in an interlocking service project benefiting Jacksonville’s refugee community. The service project offers students an opportunity to see the “real world” impact of the academic topic, and also gives them a chance to develop their ability to work in groups and build leadership skills. Each breakout section focuses on one part of the service project and at orientation students choose how they want to participate in the project when they register for a particular breakout group. Some students choose greater interaction and work directly with the refugee population on a regular basis through mentoring children (and their families), coaching sports in an after-school program, or tutoring adults in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes at local churches. Most of these greater interaction experiences are commitments lasting two to three hours a week for ten to twelve weeks. Those working with children are tasked with both helping with language and homework but also less formally introducing the children to American culture, culminating in a couple of events on campus to celebrate some peculiarly American holidays like Halloween and Thanksgiving.

68

Community-Based Transformational Learning

The rest of the groups participate in projects with less interaction where they meet the children on campus twice over the semester. One of these groups is tasked with planning the campus events for the children to celebrate Halloween and Thanksgiving. The children are transported to campus for these two celebrations. The events group organizes food, games, and activities. They also assign the other students to be volunteers at the events to maximize interaction between students and children. The clothing drive group collects, washes, and the personally distributes gently used winter jackets and soccer balls at the events, giving them the chance to act as “fashion consultants” helping the kids find their size and style. Another group is responsible for fundraising $1500, which is used to purchase food and supplies for the two events. Another group acts as a granting agency, raising money and then selecting a project to fund from proposals submitted by the local agencies and other refugee support groups, funding mainly projects to increase access to transportation over the last three years. Another group is responsible for the public relations both on- and off-campus for all aspects of the project, and the last one creates a documentary film about the local population of families who arrived as refugees, or about the student project itself. In this manner, students can self-select into a group that interests them, but depending on their interests they may interact more or less directly with the families. The semester culminates with a celebration of the students’ work at a poster showcase. Groups of two to five students create a poster to share their experience. Other students, alumni, faculty, and community members are invited to see the poster presentations and celebrate with the students. The students can see how their part contributes to the larger whole, along with the reactions to their efforts from faculty, alumni, and community members. The faculty witnesses the students’ discussion of their meaningful, intellectual CBTL endeavor. The alumni observe how the project has evolved since they participated. The community partners appreciate the impact on the students, a perspective they don’t often get to view.

Challenges with Evaluating the Community Experience There is an established literature on measuring the effectiveness of service learning that reveals the challenges of assessment (Conway et al., 2009; Eyler & Giles, 1999). In the case of this study, the challenges seem to fall into two categories related to evaluating the effectiveness of the community experience: measuring

Community-Based Learning and Identity Status

69

change and isolating factors that are most influential in creating positive change in the students (i.e., variables to measure). It is hard to measure the kind of changes that are hypothesized and it is even more difficult to isolate the variables of the community-based experience in the context of an actual class. The first challenges are about structuring ways to measure and evaluate change. The surveys focused on in the chapter include empathy and personality measures, but these do not take into account the students’ stage in identity development, which may affect students’ openness and ability to change. Because the students are in a period of intense development, the research timeline may be too short to capture the full change; they may be still in crisis at the end of the first semester, so it is narrow in time. This is true both in terms of identity development and in terms of long-term skills: students may not realize the value of the experience until later in college. Finally, there needs to be a control group, as well, to clarify how much of the changes are due to normal processes and how much is due to the particular experience of this course. A second set of challenges is related to the community-based experience in context of the other activities in the class. There are many structural elements that obscure the impact of the variables but are required by other goals of the course or that are important for the students’ learning. The course is large, it is part of a living-learning community, it is mandatory, and it is not directly connected to anyone’s chosen field of study. Students self-select into the service projects which have varying levels of intensity, and those differences may affect the impact of the experience. It is also necessarily a complex course as it is the entry into the university’s honors college, so it includes multiple elements beyond the community-based experience. The impact of the other elements of the class is a common challenge when assessing the impact of a communitybased experience. Such a large class may not be the right venue to try to encourage empathy since its structure, with a distant professor, works against personal connection. More opportunities for individual meetings with the professor might help to bridge the gap between professor and students. In addition, the class is built on an intense cohort model, composed entirely of first semester freshmen, two-thirds of whom also live together in a living-learning community. Jaffee (2007) argues that peer learning cohorts can have unintended consequences, including “unruly student behavior, student resistance to learning, and studentfaculty conflict” (p. 5). He also observes that sometimes the group can develop a class consciousness where they “work in unison to redirect learning objectives or demand reductions in workload” (p. 13). The dynamics of the cohort may

70

Community-Based Transformational Learning

complicate the self-reported survey data. There have been years when there has been unruly behavior and conflict with students, as well as years there has been more enthusiasm for the experience. All of these variations among students make it difficult to isolate variables when examining the effectiveness of the course. The course is mandatory for all honors freshmen. The element of choice is offered only in the selection of service project, which may increase what students gain from the experience but simultaneously makes it more challenging to measure those gains. Those who mentor or teach English or coach soccer spend three hours a week in small groups with the families while most of the other groups interact only twice a semester with the children, and in a big group setting. Because students are not randomly assigned to their service project, it is not clear whether intensity affects outcomes or outcomes reflect the personal characteristics of the students who chose a more or less intense experience. A final structural element of the class is its complexity. In addition to incorporating a significant CBL component, it also challenges students in multiple other ways: it includes a heavy work load, difficult critical thinking quizzes, an emphasis on synthesis, and a unique grading system. The multiple goals and complex structure make it difficult to isolate the community-based learning element or the course as a whole might be initially overwhelm students, particularly in the first semester of the first year. A third challenge is the differences in the students themselves. This large, first year seminar functions like kindergarten does at the beginning of primary school, as it socializes a wide range of students with varying K-12 experiences and skills to the expectations of college and honors. All students are in their first semester of college and none have yet been weeded out, so the range of preparedness for college-level work is at its widest. The greatest attrition in the program is during the first semester when around 15 percent of students will leave honors because they have been unsuccessful in many or all of their classes. This also suggests the diversity of developmental stages in this group of students. On top of the differences in initial developmental stage, some research suggests distinct developmental pathways through which adolescents move through identity development, creating “stable differences between individuals in developmental trajectories” (Bosma & Kunnen, 2001, pp. 58–9). It may be that not all students are ready for a community-based learning experience which requires a certain level of empathy, openness, and maturity. Although the students are diverse, the course offers few opportunities to individualize the experience to account for academic preparation or developmental stage. In several articles written in the context of studying

Community-Based Learning and Identity Status

71

abroad, another type of experiential learning that seeks to increase empathy and openness to new experience, researchers have noted that some people who score low on openness may get overwhelmed by too much contact with an unfamiliar culture and withdraw or resist the experience (Leung & Chiu, 2010; Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). Another experiment suggested that choice may be an important factor in how much participants gain from an experience with a different culture (Cho & Morris, 2015). A single mandatory communitybased learning experience working with a culturally unfamiliar population may not be effective for students in particular developmental pathways or who are low in openness.

Examining Effectiveness through Multiple Sources of Data Two main research questions were examined utilizing two data sources: How does a community-based experience affect freshmen students differently than upper-level students in terms of psychological constructs important for identity development (i.e., empathy, personality)? Do students respond differently to community-based experience based on existing student beliefs, characteristics, and/or “cohort personalities”? 1. Survey data measuring change to student characteristics. Over three years (2015–17), students completed a battery of psychometrically validated surveys related to student-identity constructs of empathy (i.e., Empathy Assessment Index (Lietz et al., 2011); Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006); Ethnocultural Empathy Sale (Wang et al., 2003)) and personality (i.e., Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Corry, Merritt, Mrug, & Pamp, 2008); Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Narcissism subscale (Jonason & Webster, 2010); Openness to New Experience, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness subscales from the Big Five; John & Srivastava, 1999) that were administered at the beginning and end of the semester to assess change. These surveys had different response rates, as some measures were administered by the professor for course credit (80 percent + response rate: Basic Empathy Scale, Ethnocultural Empathy Scale, Narcissistic Personality Inventory) and some were administered by an independent researcher for extra credit (40–50 percent response rate: Empathy Assessment Index, Big Five). The data collected by the independent researcher allowed for a comparison to be made between the freshmen in the honors experience and upper-level students completing community-based learning experiences in other courses.

72

Community-Based Transformational Learning

2. Faculty ratings of student artifacts. Over the last four years (2014–17), all students have been required to create a group poster presentation and reflection essay at the end of the semester. Each service project group was categorized as being greater or lesser engagement depending on how much contact students in that group had with the families to measure the effect of intensity. Two faculty raters assessed each poster and reflection essay according to two American Association of Colleges and Universities Value Rubric outcomes: empathy and openness (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2018). The faculty raters were not associated with the course but taught other community-based courses at the same university. How does a community-based experience affect freshmen students differently than upper-level students in terms of psychological constructs important for identity development (i.e., empathy, personality)? The data from 2015 to 2017 surveys of the honors freshmen can be compared to a large sample of upper-level students (i.e., juniors and seniors) engaged in other community-based learning activities at the same university. There were some differences between the two populations at the start; for instance, the honors freshmen demonstrated significantly less empathy on three out of five subscales at the beginning of the semester (Self-other awareness, emotional regulation, perspective taking; Lietz et al., 2011). Differences between the two populations were further exaggerated at the end of the semester. In terms of personality, the first year honors students’ agreeableness (John & Srivastava, 1999) increased a statistically significant amount, although was still lower than the juniors and seniors. However, the honors first year students remained less empathetic at the end of the semester, significantly so in terms of affective response to the emotions of others (Lietz et al., 2011). This again was the opposite of the experience of the juniors and seniors, and there was more change in each direction than the juniors and seniors. Do some students come to the experience with more optimal characteristics and do some respond differently to community-based experience based on existing student characteristics and “cohort personalities”? Differential student response was examined in two ways. First, students were compared on personality and empathy characteristics at the beginning of the semester and when examining change across the semester based on whether they self-selected into a group that offered greater or lesser contact with people who arrived as refugees (i.e., weekly meetings to play soccer vs. meeting twice a semester at a big group event on campus). Student characteristics were different between groups from the start. In the pre-survey, those who chose a lesser-contact group were higher on

Community-Based Learning and Identity Status

73

narcissism (Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Narcissism subscale; Jonason & Webster, 2010) and individuals selecting into greater-contact experiences were higher on emotional connection (Basic Empathy Scale: Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). Regardless to which contact group students self-selected, freshmen seemed to be worse off after the experience (negative change) for empathic acceptance of cultural differences (Ethnocultural Empathy Scale; Wang et al., 2003) and affective response (Empathy Assessment Index; Lietz et al., 2011), but the decline in the greater contact group was a significantly greater decrease in acceptance of cultural differences than the lesser contact group. However, there is conflicting evidence in the faculty ratings of student artifacts. Those in the greater contact groups scored significantly higher in both empathy and openness than those in the lesser contact groups. As this was measured only at the end of the semester, it is not clear whether these characteristics were impacted by the service project or if the raters were seeing the existing differences between the empathy and openness of students who chose projects with greater contact started with higher empathy and openness. There is no data for other students outside the course so it is impossible to compare them to a larger sample. Second, students were compared based on year cohorts on the pre-survey and when examining change in empathy and personality across the semester. While the student characteristics in terms of major, grade point average, test scores, and home zip codes do not change significantly year to year, there are marked differences between cohorts on several measures, particularly between the 2016 and 2017 cohorts. The 2016 cohort stands out in that this cohort began with higher scores on exhibitionism/entitlement (NPI: Corry et al., 2008) but had the most positive change in empathic perspective taking (Ethnocultural Empathy Scale; (Wang et al., 2003)), and this increase was significantly different from the 2017 cohort, who exhibited negative change. The 2017 cohort declined the most in acceptance of cultural differences, which was a significant difference from the 2016 group.

Influencing Identity Development through Community-Based Experiences This chapter began with an anecdotal story that suggests that for some, the community-based work is the most transformational experience of their college career. However, survey data suggest that in the aggregate, freshman students

74

Community-Based Transformational Learning

declined in empathy at the end of the semester. The original intent of the research was to document the kind of transformation that was clear in the anecdotal evidence, but when some results demonstrated negative change, the question turned to the possible causes of that change and whether it suggested that the community-based experience or the class in which it is situated needed to be altered. The answer is not a simple one and represents a typical dilemma that professors face when trying to create transformation in their courses through community engagement. The simplest starting point is the challenge of measurement, both what is being measured and when. It is clear that in the self-reported surveys, researchers should ask questions that isolate the community-service element from the rest of the course to help isolate the variables. The data suggest the importance of including both self-reported surveys and faculty coding of artifacts as each seemed to tell a different story, suggesting that students and faculty may see changes differently and students may present change more authentically by coding essays instead of evaluating their self-reports. Timing is also important. One possibility is that there are problems with when the surveys are administered. Doing the posttest at the end of the semester before the poster celebration could be poor timing for collecting positive-student transformation. Students report being stressed out and exhausted, with a more negative view of the community experience before they see the total impact and community response to their efforts at the poster celebration. Furthermore, there is some evidence to support the idea that a later follow up might yield different results. Honors students are asked to take a survey measuring their attitudes to a variety of features of the honors experience after seven, nineteen, thirty-one, and forty-three months. There is one relevant question which asks students if they felt that the Honors Colloquium experience was worthwhile. Although the response rate is low (25 percent encouraged through the raffling off of gift cards), 80.8 percent agreed that the Honors Colloquium experience was worthwhile, suggesting that although students may not appreciate the course immediately, their appreciation may increase with time. However, the variability of student readiness found in the results also may be playing a role. Waterman notes the discomfort or anxiety produced by the uncertainty of identity exploration (moratorium), which might explain the overall declines in positive characteristics of empathy (Waterman, 1982, 1999). Kaplan and O’Connor (1993) argue that as an individual enters a new stage they must regress in terms of the balance they achieved in the previous stage in order to move into the next stage. They argue that “successful development involves

Community-Based Learning and Identity Status

75

not the avoidance of the negative or dystonic ego qualities at each stage but the very plunging into each of them as the natural sequela of the preceding life event” (p. 155). In the case of college freshmen, the life event of entering college triggers a forward regression into moratorium. It may be that the results are indicative of moratorium, a necessary crisis leading to identity achievement. Measures could be added to examine whether students’ stage of identity development impacts the results. The students could also be surveyed at points later in their college careers to see if their views change as they progress through their identity development. There are two opportunities when a better response rate could be obtained: at seven months all students are finishing their second required honors class, and at graduation there is a required survey to which these surveys could be added. These two changes to the research methodology would answer the questions of whether results differ according to identity development trajectories. If the addition of longer-term data suggests that the negative results are not temporary or dependent on identity-development status, another possibility is that the course as a whole is doing too many things to effectively measure one change. Although empathy and openness were the focus of the research, other measures were included in the surveys. The broadest statistically significant negative change occurred in terms of students’ academic motivation. On five subscales related to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, students became significantly less motivated (extrinsic motivation, identified, introjection, accomplished, knowledge), and the results approached significance on a sixth (intrinsic motivation). In other words, in the week before the end of the semester, students were less intrinsically and less extrinsically motivated academically than they were at the beginning of the semester, which was not the case for the juniors and seniors. This suggests that the course may overwhelm some students with too much at once in the first semester and they feel frustrated and perhaps defeated in that last week of the semester. This is valuable information and is being used to make some changes to next year’s class to reduce some of the complexity in an attempt to see if the declines in academic motivation can be reversed, and if that has any effect on the results for empathy. If the data suggest that response depends on developmental stage, and so is more appropriate for some students than for others, this raises the question of whether deeper structural changes are in order. Psychologists suggest that for those who are in “firm foreclosure,” the requirement to face cultural difference and mandatory exploration may not be helpful, so the experience may still not help all students. Kroger (1995) argues that if exposed, the firm foreclosed can react against information that challenges their ideas or life-direction. Students in this

76

Community-Based Transformational Learning

state may react against the community-based experience or the exploratory nature of the first year seminar as a whole as an unwelcome challenge to their certainty. Possible structural changes to the class could also be considered to accommodate those students. If there are different pathways through identity development, and students may go through each stage in a diffusion or foreclosure status, a onesize-fits-all first year experience may not be appropriate for all students (Bosma & Kunnen, 2001). Specifically to help those students who progress on a foreclosure pathway, more choice in the course might elicit less backlash (Leung & Chiu, 2010, 2008). This suggests that some changes to the structure of the course to offer more choice might make the experience more impactful for a particular subset of students based on their stage in identity development. The impact of the cohort design of the class may exaggerate the negative results, as seen in the results that showed the existence of distinct cohort personalities. Jaffee (2007) argues that freshman cohorts by themselves can reinforce a high school mentality and high school behaviors which makes it harder for them to adjust to college expectations. They may develop “groupthink” that creates an “illusion of unanimity” and “belief in the inherent morality of the group” creating an echo chamber for a negative evaluation of the class (p. 10). He notes that tension between the roles of friend to the peer group vs. student to the faculty member results in conflict, and one response to that kind of conflict can be withdrawal or apathy, or distancing oneself from the student role. Exacerbating the problem in the case of this class, the living-learning component intensifies the cohort experience which benefits the students by creating strong social bonds but may simultaneously negatively affect their evaluation of the academic aspects of the class. Jaffee noted that a living-learning cohort identity can sometimes coalesce creating a kind of “class consciousness” where the students work together in unison to influence the direction of the course, often in an adversarial way toward the professor. Marcia’s (1966) theory of ego-identity development also suggests that during the process of exploration in adolescence, where there is a hefty dose of autonomy seeking, students may engage in these unruly behaviors as a result of the process of moving from foreclosure to achievement (i.e., while they are in the status of moratorium). To address both of these cohort impacts, Jaffee argues that strengthening relationships between professor and individual students can reduce the negative impact, which argues for smaller first year seminar classes or that faculty find ways to increase both formal and informal exchanges with their students to reduce “social distance” (p. 17). There are positive impacts to the cohort model so it should not be summarily jettisoned, but some changes could be made to try to mitigate the negative effects.

Community-Based Learning and Identity Status

77

In light of the identity development theories and evidence presented in this chapter about the influence of a community-based experience on the honors first year students, the question arises of when and whether to make changes to a CBL experience that yields some negative results. The answers are complex. Identity development theory suggests that short-term negative results may capture a negative moment in what is in the long run a positive development, and so students need to be tracked over a longer term. In this manner, the experience may be transformative for the students in the long-term but seen in the short-term as negatively influential on components of identity like empathy and personality. It also suggests that because there are multiple identitydevelopment trajectories, any experience that challenges students to explore their identity may not be welcome for some students in a particular trajectory. This study suggests that freshmen seem to respond differently than upper-level students. Different freshmen seem to come to the experience with more optimal personality characteristics and may get more out of the experience. Even the personality of a particular year cohort can influence how much students gain from the experience. There is variability in both the readiness of individual freshmen and in the impact of the cohort making decisions about change a challenge.

References Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2018). Intercultural knowledge and competence VALUE rubric. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/value/ rubrics/intercultural-knowledge Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Alexander W. Astin Linda J. Sax, 39(3), 251–63. Retrieved from http:// digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered Barefoot, B. O., Griffin, Betsy Q., & Koch, A. K. (2012). Enhancing student success and retention throughout undergraduate education: A national survey. Brevard, NC: The John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21(1), 39–66. https:// doi.org/10.1006/drev.2000.0514 Cho, J., & Morris, M. W. (2015). Cultural study and problem-solving gains: Effects of study abroad, openness, and choice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 944–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/job Clancy, S. M., & Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Identity, self, and personality: Identity status and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3(3), 227–45.

78

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Cognard-Black, A. J., & Savage, H. (2016). Variability and similarity in honors curricula across institution size and type. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 17(1), 93–113. Conway, J. M., Amel, E. L., & Gerwien, D. P. (2009). Teaching and learning in the social context: A meta-analysis of service learning’s effects on academic, personal, social, and citizenship outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 233–45. https://doi.org /10.1080/00986280903172969 Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The factor structure of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(6), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802388590 Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. J. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: New York, The Continuum International Publishing Group. Hart. (2018). Fulfilling the American dream: Liberal education and the future of work: Selected findings from online surveys of business executives and hiring managers. Hart Research Associates, 20. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/ files/LEAP/2018EmployerResearchReport.pdf Jaffee, D. (2007). Peer cohorts and the unintended consequences of freshman learning communities. College Teaching, 55(2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.3200/ CTCH.55.2.65-71 Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.20 05.08.010 Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265 Kaplan, K. J., & O’Connor, N. A. (1993). From mistrust to trust: Through a stage vertically. In G. Pollock & S. Greenspan (Eds.), The course of life (pp. 153–98). Madison, CT: International Universities Press. Kroger, J. (1995). The differentiation of “firm” and “developmental” foreclosure identity and statuses: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10(3), 317–37. Leung, A. K., & Chiu, C. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to experience on creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 20(4), 376–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802391371 Leung, A. K., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(5–6), 723–41. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022022110361707 Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63(3), 169–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.169 Lietz, C. A., Gerdes, K. E., Sun, F., Geiger, J. M., Wagaman, M. A., & Segal, E. A. (2011). The empathy assessment index (EAI): A confirmatory factor analysis of

Community-Based Learning and Identity Status

79

a multidimensional model of empathy. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2(2), 104–24. https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2011.6 Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., & Goossens, L. (2006). The personality-identity interplay in emerging adult women: Convergent findings from complementary analyses. European Journal of Personality, 20(3), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.579 Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–58. Retrieved from http://english.fju. edu.tw/word/LOD/105/401110078.pdf John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). Guilford Press. Scott, R. I., & Smith, P. J. (2016). Demography of honors: The national landscape of honors education. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 73–91. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN =115851512&site=ehost-live Scott, R. I., Smith, P. J., & Cognard-Black, A. J. (2017). Demography of honors: The census of U.S. honors programs and colleges. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 18(1), 189–224. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.uconn.edu/login? url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ117263 8&site=ehost-live Wang, Y. W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 221–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.5 0.2.221 Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 341–58. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064230707040065 Waterman, A. S. (1999). Issues of identity formation revisited: United States and the Netherlands. Developmental Review, 19, 462–79. https://doi.org/10.1006/ drev.1999.0488 Waterman, A. S., & Waterman, C. K. (1971). A longitudinal study of changes in ego identity status during the freshman year at college. Developmental Psychology, 5(1), 167–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031139

6

Facilitating Significant Learning Community-Based Pedagogy in a Public Speaking Course Traci Mathies

Emma had to take a speech course as a communication major. She put it off as long as possible—she was nervous just having to introduce herself in class! How would she ever give a speech in front of an entire classroom? On the first day, the professor explained that their group speech would require that they volunteer fifteen hours at a local nonprofit in order to write a speech to recruit others to volunteer there. Emma questioned internally, “Is she allowed to make us do this? How will I make the time?” She tried to drop the course but nothing fit her schedule. She decided to stick it out. Her group picked a nonprofit that serves impoverished youth. Emma grew up feeling her family was poor because she didn’t get a newer car when she turned sixteen like her friends. She didn’t even know what poverty looked like until her first trip to the nonprofit. She locked her car doors at the stoplight in front of the old cinderblock building and didn’t make eye contact with anyone on the street as she entered the nonprofit for the first time. Shaniqua, a six-year-old little girl, ran to her smiling and grabbed Emma’s sweaty hand. She took her to the circle. Emma located the clock knowing she had to stay two whole hours. She reflected on her life as the kids around the circle shared a “thorn” and a “rose” from their day. Some were intense. Later Emma helped Shaniqua with her math. Shaniqua didn’t own crayons at home, but her homework required them. While they worked, Shaniqua confided that sometimes she just wouldn’t do her homework because no one at home had time to help her and sometimes she didn’t have what she needed. As she colored, Shaniqua cheerfully shared she was going to get to visit her dad . . . in prison. They didn’t own a car, so they didn’t get to go often. Shaniqua couldn’t wait. After

Facilitating Significant Learning

81

homework, they played outside with a lot of kids. Without realizing it, Emma stayed an extra thirty minutes that first day and many days after. Looking back, Emma wrote in a reflection, “These kids changed me more than I changed them.” She had become more grateful for her family, her functioning car, her ordinary life . . . and this class. She realized “poor” doesn’t mean “bad.” Back in class she found her voice. She was actually excited to give her speech and stated in her reflection that she forgot about being anxious. She just wanted to convince others to help. Emma now can see that if she faces the unknown, despite her fears, great things can happen.

Returning to a Community-Based Origin for Teaching Public Speaking Public speaking and rhetoric have been a catalyst for change since ancient times. Famous rhetoricians, Isocrates (436–338 BC) and Quintilianus (AD 35–95), emphasized rhetoric as a force to benefit the whole community and the need to have civic virtue—the attitudes and behaviors of good, ethical citizenship in a democracy (Hogan, Andrews, Andrews, & Williams, 2017). Ancient rhetoricians “all recognized the need for rules of civic persuasion and they all imagined some ideal orator—a speaker who embodies civic virtue and commitment to the common good” (Dillard & Shen, 2013, p. 5). The discipline or the cause didn’t matter, training in public speaking was needed to spread ideas, offer hope and make a community stronger. Public speaking training was the primary focus for teaching students about engaged citizenship for centuries (Brammer & Wolter, 2009; Palmer & Standerfer, 2004). Nevertheless, today very few connect the public speaking classroom with community engagement. Today, lecture halls are the norm even though lectures prove to be ineffective despite the class size (Brint & Clotfelder, 2016; Freeman et al., 2014). Students report lapses in attention as early as in the first thirty seconds of a lecture (Bunce, Flens, & Neiles, 2010). In any discipline, it is difficult to help students make connections between the content and the world in which they live (Colvin & Tolbert, 2013). In contrast to lectures, content taught with interactive activities increase grade-point averages and decrease the failure rate (Freeman et al., 2014). Nevertheless, lecture and interactive teaching methodologies neglect the formation of an engaged citizen. There has been a return to a more classical approach of tying engaged citizenship with the public speaking classroom through community-based

82

Community-Based Transformational Learning

pedagogy. Community-based pedagogy creates individual learning; produces common good in the student and in the community; and can impact every dimension of higher education (Droge & Murphy, 1999). For example, the Department of Communication at Gustavus Adophus College understood the historical link and transformative power between public speaking and community engagement. They stood on their belief and replaced the traditional required public speaking course with a new course called “Public Discourse” (Brammer & Wolter, 2009). This new course was driven by an extensive community-based project. Brammer and Wolter (2009) found this new approach to be life-changing for students with 88 percent of the 116 students saying that they will be more involved in the community in the future, 33 percent stating significant growth in personal confidence, and 31 percent stating they will now be willing to speak out on important issues because of this experience. Citizens and faculty who witnessed the students’ involvement were encouraged by the students’ passion. Civic engagement began as a tool to teach argumentation. Now the defining element of the course is civic engagement with argumentation as the tool to reach community and personal goals (Brammer & Wolter, 2009). In a similar manner, Colvin and Tolbert (2013) found that adding service learning to their public speaking course helped students connect course content to the real world. Students were able to take what they are learning in the classroom and apply it to a civic problem they care about solving. They were then able to give speeches that spread awareness, advocated for change, inspired others to take action and/or raised funds. Community engagement is an effective way to teach public speaking and create transformation. Typical workshops designed to assist faculty in course development often focus on creating clear outcomes for courses using the cognitive domain of Blooms Taxonomy. Consequently, most teachers are familiar with this hierarchal classification system—knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hll, & Krathwohl, 1956). In applying this pedagogical theory, effective instructors may ask questions such as: Did my students learn the information? Can they apply it? Can they use it to create? Can they make outside connections with other disciplines? To answer these questions, instructors build content-based outcomes that are driven by these questions aligning with Bloom’s taxonomy. What if an instructor wants more for students? What if we began asking questions such as: Are students better citizens because they took my course? Did students grow in character and self-knowledge? Do students have an increased value for learning because of my course? Will they transfer what they learned to other areas of their lives?

Facilitating Significant Learning

83

Dee Fink (2013) worked with faculty for twenty-six years helping them improve their instruction. In workshops, she had teachers write down their dreams about teaching and learning. Many of the dreams were much like the extended questions above that go beyond Bloom’s taxonomy. Through research, her own experience and the dreams of teachers, Fink developed a Taxonomy of Significant Learning. She stepped out of the “Bloom’s Taxonomy” box that served education for over fifty years and developed an extended taxonomy. The Taxonomy of Significant Learning has six categories which are not hierarchical but inspire each other (Fink, 2013). It could be argued that the first three categories of Fink’s taxonomy are a condensed reflection of Bloom’s taxonomy. Fink then extends the learning taxonomy beyond course content with the later three categories. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Foundational Knowledge: knowing something, including being able to understand and to remember it. Application: engaging in a new action or skill that is physical, intellectual, or social. Integration: making connections between ideas, different learning experiences, and/or content and differing disciplines. Human Dimension: learning important things about self and others with personal and social implications. Caring: developing a new caring often reflected in a change of feelings, interests, or value for something. Learning How to Learn: growing in the process of learning itself, such as becoming a better student, development in ability to reflect or inquire, and becoming more self-directed.

“Change” was key for something to be classified as significant learning (Fink, 2013). Service learning, when infused with authentic academic assignments, can move students into the later three categories and synergistically inspire growth and change. Fink (2013) states that when a course or learning experience is able to promote all six kinds of learning, students have the opportunity to experience learning that truly can be deemed “significant.” When communitybased pedagogy is used to teach public speaking, it offers students opportunities to experience significant learning.

Description of Public Speaking Course Students from a variety of disciplines enroll in the Fundamentals of Public Speaking course at the University of North Florida. A variety of majors, such

84

Community-Based Transformational Learning

as communication, computer science, and exercise science, require public speaking. This course is capped at twenty people for each section with eight to ten sections offered each semester. The course is a lower-level course designed for freshmen and sophomores but often contains around 10 percent of upperlevel students who have avoided the course because of public speaking anxiety. Students are required to give three speeches during the semester with the third speech being the community-based group assignment that accounts for 35 percent of their final grade. Students work in small groups (three to four people) to promote a local nonprofit of their group’s choosing to the class. Each student is required to volunteers fifteen hours at their team’s chosen nonprofit. While volunteering, students prepare for their twenty-five-minute team presentation to recruit others in class to volunteer at their nonprofit. While volunteering, students have to do significant research on the community issue the nonprofit addresses, the integrity of the nonprofit as an organization, and the value the nonprofit provides to the individuals served and the community at large. The project concludes with the students sharing their research, personal experiences, and calling other students to engage civically at the nonprofit. Each section of the course has four to six different nonprofits they are working with and students will hear speeches about each nonprofit. This presentation helps satisfy the following learning objectives for the course: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Demonstrate effective use of audience analysis in speech construction. Design a speech using Monroe’s Motivated Sequence1 as the organizational strategy. Support claims with evidence constructing logical arguments. Create emotional appeal using storytelling, emotional contagion, immediacy, and visual aids. Utilize appropriate technologies incorporating best practices.

Each student receives an individual grade for specific portions of the assignment: volunteer hours completed, reflection papers, speech delivery, and peer evaluations from team members. These individual grades account for 60 percent of the overall project grade. For the remaining 40 percent, the team shares a grade for the speech content and PowerPoint, which includes both faculty and classmate feedback. Students choose their nonprofits, but one criterion of the assignment is the nonprofit must serve people as their primary mission. Many nonprofits serve 1

Monroe’s Motivated Sequence is a five-step persuasive strategy to call a person to action.

Facilitating Significant Learning

85

animals and the environment with people as the secondary beneficiary. These do not qualify for this particular assignment. Students are responsible for initiating contact with the site, scheduling their own hours and coordinating their own transportation to their sites. Students can volunteer at the site alone or with their teammates, but all team members must volunteer at the same site. After teams have secured a nonprofit site, students are required to complete a pre-site visit questionnaire. This questionnaire uncovers preconceived perceptions about the problem in the community that the nonprofit addresses and about the people the nonprofit serves. This questionnaire also provides the instructor with needed information about the site, site volunteer coordinator’s contact information, site address and the nonprofit’s requirements for volunteering (orientation, fingerprinting, and so on). Students complete reflection papers after their first volunteering experience as well as midway through their volunteering experience. Once they have completed their fifteen hours of volunteering and delivered their presentation, the students complete a summative reflection paper. This final comprehensive paper is a reflection of the entire experience. This assignment provides a model in transformative partnerships which requires reciprocity. Students benefit personally and professionally from the experience at the nonprofit. They are also given an opportunity to create a “real-world” speech that has the potential to impact lives for years to come. The nonprofit benefits from the students by receiving volunteer help and by increasing their potential volunteer base for the future.

Challenges with Community Engagement in Introductory Public Speaking Courses There will be some challenges when offering the opportunity for significant change. One challenge was with curriculum. Public speaking is a skills-based course with departmental requirements to give four speeches during a semester. This is a time challenge already, which is compounded when adding fifteen volunteer hours along with team meetings. This challenge was overcome by replacing the third speech with the practice delivery of the community-based speech in a team coaching session; the fourth speech was the final communitybased speech for the class. There are two preparation requirements for the coaching session. First, students had to submit a draft of their completed speech outline for instructor feedback. Second, they had to submit a video of their team practicing their delivery. Students have stated how much they have learned

86

Community-Based Transformational Learning

from rewriting drafts and having to practice prior to the team’s final delivery for the class. That the students do not have to create an entirely different fourth speech and they do not have to attend class during others’ coaching sessions has provided some compensation for their fifteen hours given outside of class. Another challenge had to do with logistics. Most community partners require orientations, but some require background checks (when working with minors and vulnerable populations) and some even require TB testing (when working with those with compromised immune systems). This takes time and sometimes costs money. Since students choose their sites, they are responsible for finding out requirements and making wise choices with where they serve. They are also responsible for transportation and coordinating carpooling. For those that cannot get off campus because of work schedules or sports, there is an office on campus that works with a nonprofit for adults with disabilities and an office that works with adult immigrants learning English. If students absolutely cannot leave campus, they serve at one of these centers; about 15 percent of students choose this option. With the logistics, students are informed of these potential obstacles and called to rise up to the challenge. Time management and backward planning are part of a class discussion. To address this challenge, the first visit reflection paper is assigned with an early due date to encourage students to move forward on their plans. Flexibility is offered with this deadline only when students can prove they made a reasonable plan and something outside of their control caused them to be unable to meet the first paper deadline. Requiring fifteen volunteer hours to be completed in one semester is a challenge. Students simply have to make time in their schedule to volunteer, but sometimes a community partner will promise hours and cancel. For example, this occurred several times when working with a nonprofit that served people rescued from human trafficking. If this occurs, teams brainstorm with the instructor about ways to get hours that would still benefit the community partner. For the human trafficking partner, students chose to hold an awareness campaign on campus. They created a professional flyer about trafficking in the area, including information on how to protect yourself and who to call for help. They handed out flyers and hosted a table where students could learn about the community partner and human trafficking. The preparation and table hosting counted for hours. To overcome challenges surrounding completing the required hours, students practiced resourcefulness and creativity. A final logistical challenge was tracking community partners and accounting for hours that students served. This is compounded when students choose organizations with which the professor has no previous connections. Each

Facilitating Significant Learning

87

community partner tracks hours differently and there is always the potential issue of students signing off hours they never completed. To deal with this issue, students have to complete an “Individual Volunteering Plan” for an assignment. This is due early in the semester and provides the professor with the community partner’s name, address, contact information, and any volunteer requirements. At the end of the semester, students can turn in signed hours by having the site coordinator send the professor an email through their work email or by submitting documentation of their hours on the community partner’s letterhead or volunteer tracking form. Each method must contain the community partner’s contact information to verify hours. Students are made aware of the federal law for forgery in writing, but with clear expectations forgery has not been an issue. The main issue is getting the appropriate documentation in by the due date. Again, flexibility is offered only if students can prove they requested the documentation in writing in ample time for a site coordinator to respond. Overall, students rise above all these challenges presented and the challenges add beneficial learning opportunities to the assignment.

Impact of Community Experience on Taxonomy of Significant Learning Data from sixty reflection papers from two consecutive semesters of a Fundamentals of Public Speaking class with a CBL assignment revealed significant change in students in the later three dimensions of Fink’s model (i.e., human dimension, caring, learning to learn). In the reflection paper’s instructions, students are encouraged to be honest in answering and told the assignment would not be graded on what they said, only on the thoroughness and completeness of the answers. The instructions also state that papers will be graded on grammar, not content, in an effort to prevent students from providing answers they feel their professor wanted to hear; fifty-six of the sixty student reflection papers reveal service learning opened the door for significant learning. Each reflection paper was coded by the author and a graduate student for evidence of the three later categories of significant learning (i.e., human dimensions, caring, learning to learn); inter-rater agreement averaged 96.2 percent across the three categories (range: 88.6 percent to 100 percent). For these samples students served at nonprofits that ● ●

serve the homeless (Sulzbacher Center and City Rescue Missions); work with impoverished children (Sanctuary on 8th Street);

88 ●

● ●

Community-Based Transformational Learning

provide temporary housing for families who have children receiving inpatient cancer treatment (Ronald McDonald House); provide hospice for the terminally ill (Community Hospice); and build affordable housing (Habijax).

Human dimension. When students experience learning in the category of the human dimension, they learn important things about self and others with personal or social implications (Fink, 2013). All reflection papers evidenced aspects of having obtained significant learning in this category. Through community engagement students realized for the first time that they could make an impact on society and reported they were more likely to volunteer in the future. My volunteering experience hit close to home and it made me realize the power and impact I can have. I have grown in numerous ways, personally and emotionally. (218 CRM) I believe that this experience has also shown me that I need to give back to the community more than I do. I am already looking forward to going back to the Sanctuary many times in the future. The Sanctuary opened my eyes and showed me the profound impact volunteering can have on a community. (211 S8th) I suddenly realized the harshness of what poverty actually was . . . my mind and feelings were changed forever because I was spoiled compared to these people. That is why I am going to continue to volunteer to make a change in the community. (214 HJ) Volunteering at the Sulzbacher Center has created a sincere awakening in me. It made me realize the dire need to lend a hand for others who are going through a difficult time. So much time is wasted watching television or other wasteful activity, instead of helping others in need. . . . Through my volunteer experience, my view of lending a hand in the community has become one of my to do tasks on my monthly agenda. (215 SB)

During the time students served they had revelations about personal inadequacies and areas needing growth. While volunteering I realized that I need to work on my self-confidence and interpersonal skills. . . . This experience has made me think about life in a whole new way. (207 SB) Going to the Sulzbacher Center was a reminder of how fortunate I am to have my life. It put my problems into perspective . . . I need to appreciate what I have more then I already do. (212 SB)

Facilitating Significant Learning

89

I grew as a person exponentially over the course of the semester. I need to work on some character flaws I possess. I need to make selflessness and generosity more of a practice in my everyday life. (206 RMH)

Students recognized that their preconceived notions of others were inaccurate. I was never a fan of homeless people, I felt as if they were always bothering me and asking for money when I am a poor college student. After volunteering for Habijax I now have a completely different perception on homeless people. (208 HJ) My experience with the after-school program was incredibly humbling. . . . I discovered that I need to be more open-minded of other cultures and social rankings. (201 S8th) Prior to my visits to the City Rescue Mission I lacked the genuine care for stranger’s disposition on the streets. . . . I realized my superficial ideas neglected the truth of the inevitably changing world. (218 CRM)

Caring. Caring means students will develop a new depth of caring that is reflected in feelings, interests, or value for something (Fink, 2013). The majority of students (86.4 percent) demonstrated aspects of this category in their reflection papers. Caring was demonstrated in the previous examples by the students’ recognition that they would like to volunteer more in the future. In addition, students exhibited growth in caring by professing they learned to care more about others. I originally associated people who are homeless with smell, bridges, and dirt. As I admit that, I realized how far I have actually grew and I realized my ignorance and carelessness before my volunteering experience. . . . This experience has allowed me to appreciate volunteers across the world and within my community. (218 CRM) The house has helped me grow into a more compassionate, caring, and grateful individual. This experience made me want to become more active in volunteering. I always thought that I was too busy and that I didn’t have extra time to spend volunteering but that is not true. (203 RMH) My experience led me to come to many conclusions, one of which is that more classes here at the University of North Florida should implement projects such as the one presented to us this semester . . . the significance of each and every volunteer is priceless. (206 RMH)

Learning to learn. Learning to learn is the sixth category of the Significant Learning Model. A student that engages in this category will grow to be a better student, develop in their ability to reflect and/or become more self-directed. This category was the least evidenced of the three in the reflection papers, though still

90

Community-Based Transformational Learning

demonstrated by a majority of students (64.6 percent). Through communitybased instruction, students grew in this area. I have already seen how this class has helped in situations outside this course and I am very grateful for that. It has been so rewarding to see myself do something that I never thought I could. I have always held back with voicing my opinion and getting in front of people to express it, but now I plan to take what I have learned and the confidence I have gained to go after the things I care about. (203 RMH) At first, I thought this class would be so irrelevant but it has actually motivated me and hopefully I can start up my program and continue touching the lives of others. (209 CRM) I plan to continue to volunteer but not just with the City Rescue Mission but with mentorship. I want to be one of the factors that lead our young women to greatness without the strings attached from society. (218 CRM) This experience made me realize the steps I need to take to communicate myself in an impactful way to an audience. (208 HJ) By getting involved with the shelter and offering my time to help others in a more desperate situation, I've learned to not be afraid of speaking of important issues. (215 SB)

Student reception to experience. Every semester students are given a survey to rate instructors on a scale of one to five in the end of the semester teacher evaluations: 1-Poor, 2-Fair, 3-Good, 4-Very Good, 5-Excellent. In a comparison of three traditional sections of public speaking and three community-based sections of public speaking, all taught by that same instructor, the rating for “overall effectiveness as a teacher” category on student evaluations was the same or higher for the community-based sections. Course Public Speaking Fall Section 1 and 2 Public Speaking Spring Section 3 and 4 Public Speaking Spring Section 5 and 6 Average

Traditional Community Based 3.29 4.43 4.10 3.94

3.89 4.43 4.38 4.23

Student reception to the experience was positive, even if there was initial resistance. At first, I was not happy to find out I was going to have to volunteer 15 hours. I tried to look for another speech class to switch into, but there were none open. However, after having the experience I am glad I decided to go through with

Facilitating Significant Learning

91

the class. . . . This volunteer experience definitely impacted me more than I thought it would. I have learned that I take my life for granted. This experience has really been a shock to my cultural bubble and I now realize how fortunate I am. (212 SB).

Valuing public speaking. Students found new value in public speaking as a positive agent to impact lives and create change, with some reporting in their reflection the CBL-aspect of the course increased their receptiveness to public speaking. The thing I have learned through giving public presentations is that it has more of an impact because it can reach out to more people than just those that are in your class or your work. I personally have come to love public speaking. (214 HJ) The speech became something that I did not think that I would care about to something that concerned me and wanted me to get up and persuade people to try out the nonprofit organization just as we did. (213 HB) I have always enjoyed public speaking, but after this class I have gained a new understanding of the power of public speaking as a whole. Public speaking done right can change a person’s life. (212 SB) This project has shown me that public speaking is not an evil thing to be afraid of and that it can have a positive impact on the students and the community as a whole. (210 S8th)

Conclusion Faculty might avoid developing a public speaking course with a communitybased component because of the challenges and thoughts of student resistance; the perception may be that the benefits do not outweigh the costs. The challenges can be overcome and the results from students’ reflection papers and teacher evaluations affirm that the benefits are compelling. The harder-to-attain dimensions of Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning were evidenced in almost all of the student reflections, with 59.1 percent of students indicating significant learning from this assignment and having all three categories conveyed in their reflection papers. Students also consistently found new value for public speaking and civic engagement, even if there was initial resistance to both. Public speaking training was the classical approach to creating engaged citizens (Brammer & Wolter, 2009; Palmer & Standerfer, 2004). Student reflections provided convincing evidence that returning to this classical approach even in the twenty-first century is an effective teaching strategy, arguably more

92

Community-Based Transformational Learning

effective than the traditional approach. Public speaking can be a platform to create better citizens. Student reflections prove that students consistently grew in understanding and empathy toward those that they served. For some, this empathy grew into a desire to continue to serve in the future without the driving force of a course requirement. Students also grew in self-knowledge. Some students realized they had biases toward certain individuals that were unwarranted. In their reflections, students began to see their own lack of gratefulness toward life and self-centered way of living. They had realizations about how they spend time and came to the conclusion they were wasting it on activities that held little value. They also became awakened to the fact that they could actually impact other individuals as well as the community. These profound realizations inspired students and gave them an increased value for learning. They experienced the value of public speaking and how it can be a catalyst for change. They saw their own need to become more selfdirected in their engagement with the community. Some even were inspired to learn more and take risks that would help them fulfill their own dreams and to impact others. Together these illustrate what Fink spoke about when she said that the dimensions in her taxonomy were not hierarchical but interactive and inspirational (Fink, 2013). As students interacted with populations they would typically avoid, students began to change. The changes in perceptions and character inspired students to want to share what they were learning. This made public speaking more valuable to them because it became a tool to create change in others and an avenue to share their new passion. This is precisely what was witnessed by the Department of Communication at Gustavus Adolphus College when they implemented community-based transformational learning into their public speaking curriculum (Brammer & Wolter, 2009). They began with civic engagement as the tool to teach public speaking but found that public speaking was actually the tool for students to reach community and personal goals. When students experience significant learning, it will inevitably impact the rest of their education, careers, and personal lives. More research is needed to discover the depth of impact on their educational paths, future careers, and personal lives. Further research also needs to be done to see the longevity of the change in students in terms of their projection of future volunteerism. It would also be beneficial to verify key elements in this project that contributed to the positive outcomes that may not be evident in all CBL experiences.

Facilitating Significant Learning

93

Community-based instruction creates a dynamic environment to teach public speaking. Emma and Shaniqua are fictional, but they are a close reflection of what many have experienced because of this community-based transformational public speaking course. Isocrates (436–338 BC) and Quintilianus (AD 35–95) were correct in emphasizing rhetoric as a force to benefit the whole community. Using community-based instruction to teach public speaking can spread ideas and offer hope; it can make individuals and communities stronger; and it can create significant learning.

References Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hll, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company. Brammer, L. I., & Wolter, S. S. (2009). Engaged citizenship: Public discourse as a foundational communication course. Journal of Community Engagement & Higher Education, 1(1), 1–9. Brint, S., & Clotfelter, C. T. (2016). U.S. higher education effectiveness: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences (Vol. 2).New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1438–43. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100409p Colvin, J., & Tobler, N. (2013). Cultural speak: Culturally relevant pedagogy and experiential learning in a public speaking classroom. Journal of Experiential Education, 36(3), 233–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825913489104 jee.sagepub.com Dorge, D., & Murphy, B. O. (1999). Voices of a strong democracy: Concepts and models for service-learning in communication studies. American Association for Higher Education, 222. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass A Wiley Brand. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning boosts performance in STEM courses. National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–15. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1319030111 Hogan, J. M., Andrews, P. H., Andrews, J. R., & Williams, Gl. (2017). Public speaking and civic engagement. New York Pearson Education (4th ed.). Palmer, D. L., & Standerfer, C. (2004). Employing civic participation in college teaching designs. College Teaching, 52(4), 122–27. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.4.122-127

Part Two

Interdisciplinary Upper-Level Learning Experiences

7

Nursing Student Engagement in a Program-Wide Community-Based Learning Curriculum Connie Roush, Barbara J. Kruger, Edessa Jobli, Linda K. Connelly, Cindy Cummings, and Judy M. Comeaux

Jessica was assigned to Community Outreach Ministries (COM) where she worked at a food pantry and free healthcare clinic each semester in the nursing program. Her journal reflections clearly provide examples of transformational learning across the five semesters in the program. In her first semester, Jessica felt “overwhelmed, out of place and uncomfortable” when working at COM. She looked “in awe at the students in semesters ahead of me who were so selfassured.” As Jessica approached graduation, she noted that, after time and experience at COM, she became a comfortable and self-assured leader. Jessica was able to observe how the social, cultural, economic, environmental, and political determinants of health impacted the clients with whom she interacted. For example, at COM she interacted with clients who were homeless and observed the impact of the determinants on their health and well-being. Client education and care was focused on health promotion and illness prevention. She taught clients about foot care and medication management and learned that “sometimes they didn’t take their prescription medication because they couldn’t afford them or get to the pharmacy.” She helped clients at the food pantry identify and choose unfamiliar healthy foods and gave them tips on preparation. In all of these activities, Jessica learned to collaborate with people at the agency and with clients to provide effective care. Jessica met people of cultures different from her own who used unfamiliar home remedies. She reflected, “Just because it is not the way I was taught does not mean that what they are doing is wrong.” She became aware of how her values and beliefs affected her ability to provide culturally sensitive nursing care

98

Community-Based Transformational Learning

and “learned to withhold judgement.” Her experience with COM allowed her to feel that she made a difference by connecting people to resources. According to Jessica, “As nurses, we will have a lot of knowledge to bring to the table but to be successful we need to value the knowledge and experiences of people in the community. I do not pretend to know what is best or what the priorities are but, as I work in this community, I’m observing, gathering information, and building trust. Every time I go, I learn something new and expand my view and beliefs about the world.”

Background The International Council of Nurses (2018) defines nursing as “autonomous and collaborative care that is provided to persons, groups, and communities with the goals of promoting health, preventing illness, and caring for the physically ill, mentally ill, disabled, dying and vulnerable persons and populations.” Nursing organizations within societies convene to develop and disseminate standards of nursing practice to guide critical thinking and professional behavior in general and specialty nursing practice. Related to the standards of practice are standards that guide the educational preparation of nursing students. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) develops quality standards such as The Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice (AACN, 2008) for general baccalaureate undergraduate education and specialized competencies such as The Recommended Baccalaureate Competencies and Curricular Guidelines for Public Health Nursing (AACN, 2013). It is these latter competencies that blend nursing and public health concepts that support the University of North Florida Community Nursing Home-base Model (Kruger, Roush, Olinzock, & Bloom, 2010). The focus of the community/public health nursing educational competencies is on population health in combination with individuals and groups, and on health promotion and disease or injury prevention while working in partnership with communities across an array of public and private settings (ANA, 2013). The theoretical underpinnings for community practice have roots in public health with the goal of eliminating health disparities. This goal relates best to the emancipatory approach to research and work with communities derived from Paulo Freire (Wallerstein and Duran, 2003). The approach requires participation of community members in issue selection through problem-solving to eventual change or transformation. The principles of working with and in communities around health issues are similar to those of conducting participatory research

Nursing Student Engagement in a Program

99

with communities. These include (1) recognizing community as a unit, (2) using an assets and strengths perspective, (3) forming collaborative partnerships, (4) valuing the mutually beneficial integration of knowledge and action, (5) the reciprocal transfer of knowledge, skills, and power, (6) the iterative and cyclical work process, (7) addressing the social determinants and ecological model of health, and (8) sharing credit and the dissemination of knowledge/findings (Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998; Labonte 2007; Minkler, Wallerstein, & Wilson, 2008). Community-based participatory research, working in the community to solve health disparities, and service learning, complement each other. The Pew Health Professions Commission launched a national demonstration program in 1995 to encourage integration of service learning in higher education curricula for health providers (Gelmon, Holland, Shinnamon, & Morris, 1998). Nurses were at the forefront of these initial curriculum integration projects (Norbeck, Connolly, & Koerner, 1998). The measurement of learning outcomes in nursing service learning, however, has been mostly confined to anecdotal description with a few exceptions. Reviews of nursing service-learning research reveal a paucity of evidence related to how service learning impacts learning outcomes that are important to nursing education. Stallwood and Groh (2011) identified five quantitative studies published between 2000 and 2008 and noted there was variability in how studies defined service learning and that outcome indicators to measure impact were lacking. An integrative review of nursing service learning among vulnerable populations reported that health promotion was a focus of nursing servicelearning interventions with an emphasis on social justice (Gillis & MacLellan, 2010) that is consistent with public health and emancipatory approaches. A more recent qualitative review of nursing service learning reported that assessment themes were focused on professional competency development, knowledge of nursing role, community strengths and needs, partnership, personal growth, civic engagement, emotional response, and cultural awareness/competency (Taylor & Leffers, 2016). An integrative review outside the United States, analyzed fortytwo studies to derive a functional definition for service learning in nursing education. The components of service learning were structured intra-curricular experiential learning, reflection, reciprocity, and outcomes and benefits for stakeholders (Juniarti, Zannettino, Fuller, Jeffrey, & Grant 2016). Consistent across these reviews is the need for nursing to operationalize service learning and to identify relevant and measurable outcomes in order to build evidence to support service learning in nursing education.

100

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Program Description In the UNF Nursing Home-base program, students take courses that increase their general nursing knowledge and skills including an emphasis on health promotion through community service learning. Students spend between sixteen and twenty-four hours per semester in their communities up through their final semester in the program when they contribute ninety hours. This community-based learning prepares them for interdisciplinary practice across a continuum of care with diverse populations. Students are assigned to a home-base community, which is a geographical region or local agency/organization where thirty-six students, two faculty, and numerous community partners engage to address community-identified priorities. Overall, nine faculty with sixteen community partners sustain the home-base relationships and are coeducators for 216 nursing students. Faculty from multiple specialties, including community and public health, mental health, adult health, pediatrics, and women’s health, work together to monitor and evaluate the program. Partnerships between the School of Nursing and the community may be initiated by the community or by faculty. For example, one neighborhood leader heard about nursing student service learning and requested a partnership while, in another situation, it was the faculty who initiated the contact with an organization. However it originates, the nature of the partnership is rooted in the objectives of the UNF community-based curriculum and community-identified needs. The nursing curriculum provides two didactic courses that anchor the community service-learning activities. A first semester Family and Community Assessment course (three credit hours) provides an introduction to the basic knowledge and skills for health promotion and illness prevention. A final semester Community Partnerships course (five credits) focuses on population health concepts and application of knowledge and skills gained from communitybased work throughout the program. Learning objectives and activities guide student service-learning activities and increase in complexity as they progress each semester. These objectives focus on community engagement, cultural sensitivity, relationships in the community, home-base strengths and resources, health determinants, and the nurses’ role in health promotion. For example, the community engagement objective begins with the development of familiarity with the home-base (first semester) to experiencing comfort (semester 2), to becoming immersed (semester 3), and to feeling a sense of commitment (semester 4). Cultural sensitivity begins with student identification of similarities and differences among cultural

Nursing Student Engagement in a Program

101

values and beliefs and progresses to application of this knowledge in culturally sensitive communication. Relationships progress from the student initiating a relationship, developing that relationship and eventually to collaboration on activities. Acknowledging community strengths and resources begins with awareness and progresses to identification, assessing gaps, and leveraging strengths to meet community priorities. Health determinants are explored each semester in increasing breadth and depth. The nurse’s role in community health promotion begins with exploration and moves on to identification, description and then discussion of ways nurses can contribute to population health. The foci of student community activities may include disaster preparedness, health literacy, food insecurity, addiction, health promotion across the lifespan, access to health services, safety in the neighborhood, senior services, fitness and nutrition, gardening, homeless services, health screening, refugee and immigrant health, and others. Students schedule their time in their community each week and are supervised by community partners with faculty support. In their final semester, student teams spend ninety hours working with faculty and their community partner to plan, implement, and evaluate a mutually agreed upon health promotion project. Learning objectives guide evaluation activities. Students complete reflective journals and activity logs at midterm and end-term. Reflection prompts are derived from the learning objectives addressing what they are learning about themselves and the persons with whom they interact how that relationship is evolving, challenges that they are encountering and how they are resolving them, the growth of their relationships and the ability to develop culturally sensitive interactions and interventions. Senior students prepare a poster presentation and a scholarly paper that includes feedback from their community partners with recommendations for the future. Many projects are continued by upcoming students to provide sustainability and continuous quality improvement. Activity logs are used to document dates and times and describe activities accomplished. A midterm and end-term self-evaluation records behavioral examples of how each objective was met. The clinical experience is graded as satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on input from the student, faculty, and community partners.

Operational Challenges Students, faculty, and community partners encountered numerous challenges over the course of the development and implementation of the UNF Nursing

102

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Home-base Program. Initially, challenges focused on the lack of a universal structure to guide student activities across sections of the program. The original curriculum idea was for students to identify agencies in the community where they could volunteer. That proved to be challenging for the students who were not aware of local resources. Agencies were called by any number of students seeking placements, and some faculty had relationships with agencies while others did not. As faculty organized the students and agencies into collaborating groups, some order prevailed. In the early years, students reported being dissatisfied because their experiences were often different from one semester to the next as they worked with different faculty in different places. Students and faculty tested activities in various communities until the shape of the program emerged in an organic fashion. Nursing faculty and students usually work in structured environments such as hospitals and other well-regulated institutions. The challenge of traveling to a community site with varied time and staff availability required students and faculty to be flexible and take time to juggle schedules. Faculty took on additional coordination responsibilities to assure that satisfaction among students and partners improved. Eventually, over time, clearer learning objectives emerged from annual evaluations and helped to refine the structure and process of what emerged as service learning. This was accomplished by a committee of all faculty, sometimes up to twelve individuals, who were involved in teaching students at some level in the community. Having clear learning objectives, activities, assignments, continuity over time, and all faculty in agreement was essential to the development of this program. Another essential component was that faculty nurtured existing partnerships and began reaching out to new agencies and community members. Requests for the UNF nurses started to be made by community representatives. These partnerships became the home-bases or “hubs” for student activities. A third essential component of the program was the integration of student community-based experience across the nursing program in one home-base. Students were assigned to a home-base when they entered the program and worked with the same home-base faculty and partners throughout the rest of their nursing program. This continuity significantly improved satisfaction among faculty, students, and community partners who could finally rely on seeing the same faces for more than a one stop event. Program evaluation identified that the relationship between student and community progressed over time beginning with familiarity and moving to relative comfort, then attachment, and resulting in commitment and investment in serving the community.

Nursing Student Engagement in a Program

103

Subsequent operational issues revolved around refinement of the quality of the learning activities and connection to disciplinary practice. Some students did not see community learning activities as being related to nursing and would complain that time was being taken away from learning hands-on “hospital” skills. Faculty helped students make the connection between the focus on health promotion in the community among diverse people and places to the world they would practice in as nurses. Faculty became more proficient in articulating this goal over time and students began to understand and become more involved. Sustaining this program takes ongoing work. Faculty generally work in teams of two so that continuity among partners, students, and faculty can be maintained. The faculty team who is directly involved in teaching students in the community is constantly seeking and integrating new faculty members. This program is successful because of the significant infrastructure support from the nursing director and investment in the curricular model by all faculty.

Evaluation A longitudinal study was conducted to evaluate community nursing-related student learning outcomes starting at entry and concluding at exit from the nursing program. The one group nonexperimental pretest-posttest mixedmethod design included 133 nursing students from three program tracks. The traditional pre-licensure students were enrolled for five semesters (eighteen months), the postbaccalaureate pre-licensure students were enrolled for three semesters (thirteen months), and the Registered Nurse students were enrolled for three semesters (thirteen months). After University Institutional Review Board approval, students were recruited to complete an entry survey (pretest) at the end of their first semester and an exit survey (posttest) at the end of the program. Students from the eighteen months program completed an additional survey at midpoint in the program The Nursing Student Service-Learning Assessment Survey (NS-SLAS, ver. 1) is a thirty-nine-item Likert scale survey combined with seven open-ended questions developed to measure student learning outcomes. It evolved over ten years with student discussions about perceived learning outcomes (Olinzock, Kruger, Wilburn, Wilburn, & Roush, 2009) followed by validity studies involving students, faculty, and community partners. The survey questions represent six topical domains: (1) health education and promotion, (2) knowledge of

104

Community-Based Transformational Learning

community, (3) partnering, (4) ecological perspective, (5) culture, and (6) selfefficacy and empowerment. Each item in the domains was accompanied by a Likert-type scale offering five responses with 5 signifying “strongly agree” and 1 signifying “strongly disagree.” Reverse coding was not used and items were sum scored per domain. Since the survey items were developed inductively with students, community partners, and faculty, a curriculum alignment process was conducted to affirm that the items were contained in existing course content. Reliability testing conducted between 2008 and 2009 with multiple student cohorts across the three programs demonstrated that inter-item correlations for the thirty-nine structured items ranged between .567 and .861 indicating that all items were appropriate to the construct of community nursing. All six domains in the survey demonstrated high reliability with Cronbach’s alpha (a measure of internal consistency) ranging from .933 to .963. In addition to the forced-choice questions from the NS-SLAS, ver. 1, qualitative data was collected through open-ended questions. At program entry students were asked to describe a situation that opened their eyes about people who were different from themselves and about the contribution they might make to their community. At midpoint in the program students were asked to describe a situation that was challenging for them and how their course and experiential work in the community influenced the way they worked with families. At exit from the program students were asked to tell a brief story about making a difference, to describe how their partnership had changed over time, and to describe how the knowledge and skills they acquired would benefit their future nursing practice. The response rate for students completing both the entry and exit surveys was 70 percent (133/191). The majority of students were female (86 percent) and Caucasian (80 percent), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (10 percent), Hispanic (4 percent), African American (3 percent), and other (3 percent). The traditional college aged pre-licensure students were significantly younger, mean age of twenty-two years (SD = 4.17), compared to postbaccalaureate prelicensure students, mean age of twenty-eight years (SD = 6.79) and the registered nurse licensed students with a mean age of thirty years (SD = 9.58). Pairedsample t-tests showed that mean scores on the six domains of the NS-SLAS, ver.1 increased significantly from entry (2.35–3.32) to exit (4.29–4.41) from the program. The largest increase in mean score from entry to exit was in the domains of partnering, self-efficacy, ecological view, and community followed by culture and health promotion. A series of repeated measures ANCOVA with age as a covariate and significance level set to a conservative p < .01 due to

Nursing Student Engagement in a Program

105

unequal sample sizes between the younger students and postbaccalaureate older students were conducted. In all but one domain (health promotion) the older postbaccalaureate students demonstrated significant increase in mean scores from entry to exit compared to the younger students. Postbaccalaureate student means on the entry survey were lower suggesting that the older students may be more realistic about the knowledge and skills they possessed or that the younger students were overconfident on self-assessment of their knowledge and skills after just a few weeks in the program. The traditional pre-licensure students in this cohort evaluation spent the most time (eighteen months) in the nursing program and were asked to complete three surveys (entry, midpoint, and exit). Of the seventy-four students who entered the study, fifty-four students completed all three surveys. As in the larger sample, they were predominately female, Caucasian, with a mean age of twentytwo years being the youngest group. Repeated measures analyses compared difference in mean scores across the three points in time (Figure 7.1). Scores increased significantly (p’s = .00) from entry to midpoint and from midpoint to exit for all domains except for culture. Although the culture entry to midpoint mean scores increased significantly the rise in scores from midpoint to exit in the program was more modest suggesting that students had attained knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to culture early in the program. Survey items were validated using thematic analysis of qualitative data from open-ended questions answered by most pre-licensure students. When first semester students were asked to describe a situation that opened their eyes about 4.49

Health Promotion

3.57

Culture Domains

4.2 4.63 4.5

3.33

Ecological View

4.19

3.1

Community

4.38 4.13

3.07

Self-Efficacy

4.28 4.04

2.74

Partnering

3.88

2.71

0

0.5

1

1.5

2 Exit

2.5 Midpoint

3

4.47

3.5

4

4.27

4.5

5

Entry

Figure 7.1 Comparison of NS-SLAS mean scores at entry, midpoint, and exit for BSN-5.

106

Community-Based Transformational Learning

people who are different from them they talked about becoming aware of different worldviews, diversity, aging, poverty, access to healthcare, social support, and health disparities. Students realized that “people who are homeless or in a slump are people just like us. In the past, I felt they were so different than me, as if I was better than them. But, it’s not like that at all.” Students identified particular qualities they would bring to their efforts in the community including showing respect, being trusting and nonjudgmental, serving as a role model, listening and “being there.” They also identified challenges such as learning to negotiate relationships with agencies and learning to work with clients with language barriers, limited resources, access to healthcare, and cultural differences. When describing their work with families, students noted that “I have learned to listen carefully to what families say about the health of one of their members. They know them the best and can recognize when he or she is really sick.” At the end of their nursing program students felt they had made a difference, had met community-identified needs, and improved the quality of life. One student stated, “we created a video based on superheroes to educate the children at a shelter for homeless about hygiene and nutrition. I feel that this was a great moment in which I felt I made a difference. Children learned ‘kid friendly’ ways to wash their hands, brush their teeth and eat properly.” Students working with the Women, Infants, and Children’s Nutrition Program incorporated safe sleep practices education for staff. They said, “It was very exciting to see that our message did not end with the staff and continued to be spread among the high risk population.” Students described how their partnership has changed over time revealing themes of moving from working “for them” to working “with them,” and from “culture shock” to a sense of belonging with their community partners. One student stated, “I felt more like a ‘member of the staff ’ during my 5th semester. I knew my way, the staff knew who I was and even some of the clients recognized me in the streets.” They also found that working in community is not an isolated endeavor: “You can be the catalyst, but you need supporters to make things really happen.” Students described their progression in community engagement from familiarity, to comfort, to immersion, to commitment, and at the end of the program, to ownership. In order to apply knowledge and skills learned in the community into their future nursing practice, students planned to pay more attention to the impact of “real life” on health. They will approach practice with increased confidence to communicate and collaborate, working as advocates and leaders. Students will pay attention to the determinants of health and will value health promotion in

Nursing Student Engagement in a Program

107

their nursing practice. One student wrapped it up in this statement: “Everything I took away from being in the community will be beneficial when practicing in healthcare; it makes me more understanding in putting my biases aside, listening to my patient’s circumstances and life experiences and helping them make the healthcare system work for them.”

Conclusion The University of North Florida Community Nursing Home-base Model evolved over years of trial and error in partnership among students, faculty, and community partners who continuously integrated feedback from formal and informal evaluation to build and maintain this curriculum model (Olinzock et al., 2009). All-faculty agreement on the development of a community-based curriculum was essential as it initiated the process and gave permission for kinks to be tolerated, patience for solutions to problems to evolve, and time to grow the program. The UNF School of Nursing Model has now been recognized by the American Association of College of Nursing as a curricular best practice model in the United States in population health. Students who participated in this longitudinal service-learning curriculum demonstrated gains in areas essential to nursing education framed by the essential baccalaureate nursing competencies for public health nursing (AACN, 2013). In community-based participatory practice and research it takes time to develop relationships with individuals, groups, agencies, and communities. Academic learning opportunities are not always conducive to allow students to experience a long-term relationship and become invested through continuity in place. It takes time for students to experience how social determinants of health affect health outcomes, observe the interactions among those determinants, gain sensitivity toward cultures not their own, for collaborative relationships to emerge, and be able to step back and listen to what the citizens and community are saying. The limitations to the evaluation data presented include the following: that the NS-SLAS version 1 depends upon self-report by students, the convenience sample is small, and there is no comparison group outside this institution; therefore, the results limit our ability to generalize to other nursing programs. Student maturation over time in the program, familiarity with outcome measures, external influences such as experience and other coursework, and attrition within the sample also may impact validity of findings.

108

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Although the findings in our evaluation are not generalizable to other nursing programs the measures developed do relate to the essential competencies expected of undergraduate community/public health nursing courses. Evaluating curriculum effect is essential toward building an evidence-base for nursing education. Furthermore, periodic evaluation provides essential data to support curriculum decision-making and assure continuous quality improvement promoted by accreditation agencies. Program evaluation is needed to continue to refine assessment processes and tools. A randomized pretest-posttest study and replication with comparable nursing schools would improve generalizability, address some of the limitations of this study, and contribute to the evidence-base of nursing education related to community-based service learning. Future research should consider measuring the impact of time and place on evidence of learning. In this study, the general pre-licensure students had a steeper learning curve on most outcomes between the first and third semesters rather than between the third and fifth semesters. Differences in outcomes may also be attributable to differences in community-based experiences. These are just a few of the considerations for ongoing evaluation of community/public health nursing curricula.

References American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2013). Public Health: Recommended Baccalaureate Competencies and Curricular Guidelines for Public Health Nursing. A supplement to the Essential of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice. Retrieved from www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/ Population%20Health/BSN-Curriculum-Guide.pdf ANA (2013). Scope and standards of practice: Public health nursing (2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Author. Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., Shinnamon, A. F. & Morris, B. A. (1998). Communitybased education and service: The HPSISN experience. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 12, 257–72. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561829809014117 Gillis, A., & MacLellan, M. (2010). Service learning with vulnerable populations: Review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 7(1), Article 41. https://doi: 10.2202/1548-923X.2041. International Council of Nurses. (2018). Nursing definitions. Retrieved from https://www.icn.ch/nursing-policy/nursing-definitions

Nursing Student Engagement in a Program

109

Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J. Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19(1), 173–202. https:// doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173 Juniarti, N., Zannettino, L., Fuller, J., & Grant, J. (2016). Defining service learning in nursing education: An integrative review. Jurnal Keperawatan Padjadjaran, 4. https://doi:10.24198/jkp.v4n2.10 Kruger, B. J., Roush, C., Olinzock, B. J., & Bloom, K. (2010). Engaging nursing students in a long-term relationship with a home-base community. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(1), 10–16. https://doi:10.3928/01484834-20090828-07 Labonte, R. (2007). Community, community development, and the forming of authentic partnerships: Some critical reflections. In M. Minkler (Ed.), Community organizing and community building for health (2nd ed., pp. 82–93). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Minkler, M., Wallerstein, N., & Wilson, N. (2008). Improving health through community organization and community building. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 287–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, John Wiley & Sons. Norbeck, J. S., Connolly, C., & Koerner, J. (Eds.) (1998). Caring and community: Concepts and models for service-learning in nursing. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Olinzock, B. J., Kruger, B. J., Wilburn, S. T., Wilburn, K. T., & Roush, C. (2009). Building a baccalaureate community nursing curriculum using a participatory evaluation approach. Health Care Manager, 28(1), 58–64. https://doi: 10.1097/ HCM.0b013e318196de9e. Stallwood, L. G., & Groh, C. J. (2011) Service-learning in the nursing curriculum: Are we at the level of evidence-based practice? Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(5), 297–301. https://doi. 10.5480/1536-5026-32.5.297 Taylor, S. L., & Leffers, J. M. (2016). Integrative review of service-learning assessment in nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 37(4), 194–200. https://doi: 10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000022 Wallerstein, N., & Buran, B. (2003). The conceptual, historical, and practice roots of community based participatory research and related participatory traditions. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (pp. 27–52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

8

Collaborative Community Engagement Triad Model to Enhance Student Learning Experiences for a Web Application Capstone Course Karthikeyan Umapathy

Transforming Tony’s Challenges into Learning Opportunities Tony is enrolled in a bachelor’s in computer information systems major program. During the senior year, he is required to take the capstone project course as a part of the major requirement. While being a student, he works at a medical equipment company in a non-computing role to support his living needs. He aspires to work as a software programmer for an information technology company. He first heard about the course from advisers when he was a junior and that it involves a considerable amount of work outside of the class. He heard from other students that senior project requires using concepts learned in the class as well as synthesizing and applying concepts learned from other classes. He also discovered that this class requires each student to work as a team to develop a software product for a nonprofit organization under the guidance of a software development company. From the course syllabus, he came to know that not only the instructor but also the nonprofit client and the software developer mentor will grade his project artifacts. Thus, he was very anxious about the amount of learning required, the amount of out-of-class work expected and about balancing the duties of his current job alongside the class project work. He was much worried about the challenges involved with the real-world project and feeling unprepared to make meaningful contributions. The instructor of the course, being aware of the concerns perceived by the students, created student engagement activities before the start of the class to improve their confidence. Five weeks before the start of the class, Tony received

Collaborative Community Engagement

111

a pre-semester programming assignment from the instructor with instructions to submit the solutions on the first day of the class. Based on the solutions submitted, Tony received technical skill development recommendations along with tutorials and other resources from his industry mentor as well as the instructor. Tony met with the industry mentor and instructor every week to report his progress and receive assistance with improving his technical skills. During the first few weeks of the class, the instructor met with Tony and the rest of the team members to assist them with preparation for their initial client meeting and requirements gathering interviews. As Tony built his confidence, the instructor let Tony take a leadership role with the project. The instructor held biweekly one-on-one meetings (outside of the class time) with Tony to provide necessary resources and assistance to complete the project. Tony’s confidence with the project and his ability as a computing professional grew as the semester progressed. Through interactions with the nonprofit client, he gained a better understanding of the project needs, how it will help the nonprofit address the community issue, and that the project is scoped to match skills of the student while it is challenging enough to learn new concepts. Through interactions with an industry mentor, he learned how to overcome the academic-industry skills gap and better prepare himself to work on real-world projects. When he started applying for software programmer jobs, his project experiences helped him to perform well in the interviews. He realized that the challenges he faced and interactions with the instructor, nonprofit client, and industry mentor made him a well-rounded computing professional.

Service Learning and Communities of Practice As an increasing trend, educators have been using service-learning pedagogy in undergraduate capstone courses (Mendoza & Outlay, 2015). Capstone courses were designed as a means to help students translate theoretical concepts into practical work performed in the industry (Dutson, Todd, Magleby, & Sorensen, 1997). Capstone courses typically involve students addressing real-world, openended projects while demanding collaborative learning, self-directed learning, critical thinking, and creative problem-solving (Jones, Epler, Mokri, Bryant, & Paretti, 2013). Capstone courses should provide opportunities for students to experience typical workplace disciplinary activities and professional situations. In general, capstone courses that teach software development concepts utilize instructor-controlled projects in a laboratory room setting (Reinicke

112

Community-Based Transformational Learning

& Janicki, 2011). Teaching capstone courses using service-learning pedagogy involves dealing with real-world projects from clients outside the classroom. Thus, it is in contrast to the traditional approach. A course can be considered as a service-learning class when students participate in an organized activity that requires the utilization of disciplinary knowledge and benefits the community (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). Apart from disciplinary activities, a service-learning course should cover the curricular content as well as enhance a student’s sense of personal and professional values as well as civic responsibility (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). Several educators have adopted a service-learning approach for providing students a real-world experience when teaching software development skills. Most of the computing capstone service-learning experiences focus on performing course content-specific activities during the semester in the community as a basis of understanding and applying disciplinary knowledge. Examples of servicelearning experiences in computing capstone courses are agile methods (Chao & Brown, 2009; Robinson & Hall, 2018), open-source projects (Liu, 2005), mobile app development (Dean, Lynch, & Ramnath, 2011), systems analysis and design (Chuang & Chen, 2013; Lenox, 2008), database systems (Hoxmeier & Lenk, 2003), and project management (McCoy & Wymer, 2010; Mendoza & Outlay, 2015). Thus, the majority of service-learning courses address few aspects of software development, whereas the service-learning capstone course described in this chapter addresses the entire software development lifecycle. In the context of computing capstones involving information systems and software development, the course activities should include the use of software development lifecycle processes, software application design and development, documentation, team dynamics, and recovery from unforeseen issues. Servicelearning experiences add other dimensions to capstone project activities: interaction with clients instead of an instructor, ethics, community awareness, managing project scope changes, estimating workloads, handling scheduling issues, managing information technology infrastructure, and training staff members. We developed a collaborative community engagement triad model to implement service-learning pedagogy into a two-semester sequence computing capstone course. The collaborative triad model uses the concept of Communities of Practice to facilitate learning and problem-solving within the course. Developing service-learning courses within the context of Communities of Practice expands the opportunities for student learning experiences as well as the impacts for the communities they serve (Brandes, 2017). Communities of Practice are formed by groups of people who share a passion for deepening their

Collaborative Community Engagement

113

knowledge about a topic by interacting regularly and collaboratively solving problems (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4). During their interactions, they share information, insight, and advice to solve problems. One of the identifying characteristics of Communities of Practice is that groups of people contribute to learning and learn from one another (Brandes, 2017). To develop Communities of Practice, instructors should achieve a proper balance among three elements: domain, community, and practice (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 27). The domain is a common ground that brings together community members and guides their learning. A domain is not a fixed set of problems, as new problems appear as current problems are solved. Through this evolution of problem-solving, the community maintains a sense of identity rooted in a shared understanding of the domain. A community is a group of individuals who regularly interact to develop a shared understanding of their domain, learn together by sharing ideas and helping each other, build valuable relationships based on respect and trust. Practice denotes a set of socially defined ways of doing things in a specific domain which includes shared actions, problem-solving approaches, communication, performance, accountability, resources, as well as tacit and explicit knowledge. From the Communities of Practice perspective, learning is viewed as social participation wherein individuals together ponder common issues, explore ideas, and act as sounding boards to accumulate tacit knowledge. Learning occurs within the context of the problem at hand not merely when known facts are handed-off. Learning is considered as a relational property enacted by groups of people over time in shared practices instead of a property of individuals and the representations in their heads (Hoadley, 2012). Thus, Communities of Practice take a situated view of learning instead of a cognitive view. Instructors attempting to incorporate Communities of Practice in their course should support the situated view of learning and think along the following three dimensions (Brandes, 2017): ●

●

●

In-the-classroom: How to organize student learning experiences that are grounded in Communities of Practice around the subject matters? Out-of-the-classroom: How to connect the student learning experiences to Communities of Practice beyond the walls of the classroom? Beyond-the-class: How to create lifelong learning experiences for students by organizing Communities of Practice focused on topics of continuing interest to students beyond the semester?

The collaborative community engagement triad model implemented in the capstone course described in this chapter caters to the aforementioned

114

Community-Based Transformational Learning

dimensions. Interactions between students and instructor, as well as interactions among student team members, address the in-the-classroom dimension. The classroom interactions are designed to deepen students’ knowledge of the software development processes and consequent application of the knowledge to their project work. Out-of-the-classroom dimension is addressed through interactions between students and nonprofit clients wherein students learn about the community and societal issues; whereas nonprofit members learn from students how technological solutions can be used to assist their efforts to solve the societal problems. Outside-the-classroom experiences aid in students developing soft skills dispositions. Interactions between students and industry mentors address beyond-the-class dimensions as students would take lessons learned on how to apply best practices into their workplace after graduation. The beyondthe-class dimension assists with students building their technical skills capacity. On the basis of our implementation of the collaborative triad, we argue that developing a service-learning course within the context of community of practices provides transformational learning experiences for students. The community of practice provides the structure to support the collaborative engagement by students, instructor, and community members alike. By nature of being a member in a community of practice, students are encouraged to take ownership of their learning as they are responsible for developing shared knowledge (Peer, Nilakanta, Nilakanta, & Heer, 2009). A community of practice also allows for collaborative dialogue and reflection that is essential for the development of professional identity and civic engagement (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Mitchell et al., 2015). Thus, incorporating a community of practice in service-learning-based capstone courses will transform student’s mindset from being a pupil to become masters of their disciplinary knowledge.

A Case Study on Implementing the Collaborative Triad in a Computing Capstone Course Service-learning pedagogy for teaching computing capstone courses has been on the rise (Reinicke & Janicki, 2011). However, we have not come across an implementation of the type of collaborative community engagement triad described in this chapter. We discuss our experiences by using the collaborative community engagement triad model to teach a two-semester sequenced information systems senior project course at a mid-sized university in the southeastern United States. In this case study, we describe how the capstone

Collaborative Community Engagement

115

course evolved to formulate a collaborative triad model. Along with that, we also describe problems that affected the student experiences and solutions adopted to resolve the issues. In 2011, we started teaching the capstone course with service-learning projects from nonprofit organizations. To do this, first nonprofits and projects for the course were identified through assistance from the community-based learning center at the university. All projects involved the development of web application systems following the Rational Unified Process (RUP) methodology. The heavy documentation prescribed by the RUP took the majority of the student work time reducing time spent on developing the application system. While all six projects were completed and course learning outcomes were achieved, some of the initially agreed upon system features were not developed. In 2012, RUP and Scrum methodologies were combined to form a hybrid software development methodology for the course. The hybrid method used RUP to inform activities that spread across both semesters while Scrum informed monthly activities performed by students. The RUP-Scrum method helped with keeping only the necessary documentation and increasing the time available for developing the system. Thus, the incorporation of RUP-Scrum helped students complete agreed-upon feature sets of the systems. Increased time for the system development, however, brought to forefront students’ struggle with solving technical problems. Students need guidance on the best ways of troubleshooting exceptions and bugs in the code. Many of the issues faced by the students were unique to their project and code base. Thus, students had to schedule one-on-one meetings with the instructor to troubleshoot their problem. With the class size exceeding forty by the year 2013, the instructor was not able to meet students regularly. As most of the coding frameworks and cloud-based development environment were new to the instructor, it was limiting the instructor’s ability to assist the students with troubleshooting effectively. The instructor created knowledge-sharing assignments using the blogging features available within the course management system. Students were requested to share the problems faced and solutions found as blog posts. Knowledge sharing helped students become aware of problems faced by others. The blog posts also increased discussions among students to find solutions. However, due to their lack of experience with newer frameworks used for system development, the most common solution adopted was inefficient. Thus, troubleshooting technical problems have become a critical issue affecting students’ ability to provide a usable system to the client. In 2014, the instructor reached out to local software development companies to seek assistance with coaching student teams with troubleshooting technical

116

Community-Based Transformational Learning

problems. The instructor contacted senior software engineers in his professional network and formed a memorandum of understanding for coaching student teams on solving technical problems faced with nonprofit projects. Software engineers volunteered to be industry mentors and were assigned to coach two student teams, each team consisting of four or five students. Industry mentors were expected to meet with student teams every two weeks to assist them with troubleshooting their problems. As industry mentors indicated, coaching two teams is a considerable amount of work. In 2015, the instructor obtained additional volunteers to ensure industry mentors are paired with one student team. With that, the senior project course evolved to incorporate the collaborative community engagement triad involving nonprofit organizations as project clients, industry members as technical problem-solving coaches, and instructor as disciplinary knowledge coach to facilitate student learning. Table 8.1 provides a summary of the problems faced and solutions adopted while implementing the collaborative community engagement triad model. This case study provides a descriptive account of student experiences and actions the instructor can take to improve the experience. However, quantitative and qualitative studies would need to be conducted to reveal interesting findings. Therefore, as future work, we recommend conducting a longitudinal study to explicate the student experiences and identifying results that might be interesting for instructor and institutions.

Enhancing Student Experiences through the Collaborative Triad Model In this section, we discuss the operationalization of collaborative triad model in a computing capstone to enhance student experiences.

Required Coursework and Learning Objectives The two-semester sequenced senior project course involves lectures and significant laboratory components. The primary course outcome is the implementation of a prototypical information system in a collaborative project environment. As per the course learning objectives, students are expected to complete necessary project management activities, document system requirement specifications, develop detailed system design, implement the prototypical information system, discuss responsibilities of a computing professional, and

Students sharing problems faced and solutions adopted

Need guidance with troubleshooting technical issues

Developing systems using frameworks and cloud environments used in the industry

Software development lifecycle process

Sharing knowledge among students

Problem Faced

Identifying projects that match student capabilities while producing meaningful systems Documentations taking time away from

Service-learning projects

Student Learning Experience

Identify senior software engineers to coach student teams with troubleshooting

Blogging assignment for sharing knowledge gained with troubleshooting

Obtain web application system projects from nonprofits with five or six major functional feature sets Hybrid RUP-SCRUM method

Solution Adopted

Table 8.1 Problems and Solutions for Implementing the Collaborative Triad Model Collaborative Triad Form a partnership with the nonprofit center and solicit projects from members of the center Redesigning the course to create opportunities for students to make system development contributions Encouraging and giving credits for across-the-team student-tostudent discussions for problemsolving Form a partnership with local software development companies to identify industry mentors

118

Community-Based Transformational Learning

present the project outcomes to peers and community members. To achieve these objectives, students learn software engineering techniques and software development lifecycle processes, which include requirements elicitation, analysis and design, implementation, and testing. Students apply skills gained in the classroom by developing a web application system for a nonprofit organization. Web application system requirements tend to be unspecified or poorly specified at the beginning. In the first semester, students work along with a nonprofit organization to document system requirements. Students then analyze requirement specifications and design the system. The significant outcome for the first semester would be a beta-level implementation of the web application system. In the second semester, students produce a detailed design for the system, implement all stated requirements, test the system, and deliver the system to the nonprofit organization. Students are expected to train nonprofit staff members to use the system. The principal outcome for the second semester is delivering a web application system that is useful and produces the intended impact for the nonprofit organization. Students present their project work and the web application system to community members in an open-topublic computing symposium event. Project work performed by students for the nonprofit organization influence 90 percent of their grade for both semesters.

Interactions with Community Partners The instructor partners with the Nonprofit Center of Northeast Florida to identify nonprofit organizations with web application system needs. We partner with nonprofit organizations for providing real-world project experiences for students as the information system’s needs of nonprofits align well with student skill levels. Examples of completed nonprofit projects include Clara White Mission volunteer management system for managing volunteer profile information and tracking hours contributed, DePaul School outreach information management system for gathering and recording information on individuals who received services, Yoga4Change data collection system for documenting information gathered on impact of yoga sessions, and Episcopal Children’s Services web-based reporting system for tracking employee training and professional development activities. Students are expected to work on their project at a minimum of ten hours per week during the fall and spring semesters. Students reflect on the project work as well as interactions with community partners regularly. Every week, students verbally report on the progress made on the project and share details of their interactions with clients and

Collaborative Community Engagement

119

industry mentors to the instructor. Students reflect with the instructor on the tasks completed, issues they are currently working on, approaches adopted to solve the problem, information gathered from the client, and best practices learned from the mentor. During these reflections, the instructor helps students make connections with content learned in the classroom as well as from other courses, provide suggestions on what questions to ask clients and mentors, and identifies and provide access to resources needed to solve issues faced by students. Students reflect with the clients using a one-page written report on a biweekly basis on tasks completed and information needed from the clients to make progress with the project. Nonprofit clients during their meetings with the students provide information on their organizational policies and operations, community issues addressed and population served, and details of problems faced by them for which web application system is being developed. Clients along with students take part in defining the problem addressed, gather system requirements, review product design, test the product, ensure delivery of the system, train staff members to use the system, and engage in other activities relevant to the system development. Students reflect with the industry mentors on a biweekly basis on tasks completed, progress with the systems development, and issues for which they need assistance from a mentor. During the meetings with the students, mentors reinforce software development processes and engineering concepts taught in the class, discuss best practices for developing quality software product, and working as a team, provide directions on interacting with clients, provide access to resources that might help students improve their performance, take part in the source code review, review product design, use case and software design diagram reviews, and discuss what it takes to be a good computing professional. The instructor maintains regular communication with clients and mentors as well to obtain feedback on student performances.

Project Selection Process and Logistics The instructor works with nonprofit organizations to scope the project to match students’ technical capacities. All selected projects have the same level of complexity to ensure all students will have similar experiences. A project package containing overview details of the projects is presented to all students. Students are instructed to form a team and provide their top three project choices. The instructor assigns a project to a student team on first-come-first-serve basis

120

Community-Based Transformational Learning

and based on student interest. Based on the project and development platform selected by the student team, an industry mentor is assigned to the team.

Risk Management Students are not required to get a background check. All students are expected to consent to work on a real-world project and acknowledge associated risks as they visit and meet with community partners (both nonprofit clients and industry mentors). All students are also expected to maintain information shared by community partners confidentially and deliver the final application to the client with free rights to use. Nonprofit clients agree on a memorandum of understanding with the instructor that outlines their responsibilities in regard to sharing necessary project information to students and meeting with students regularly, and does not intend to commercialize the application developed by students. A memorandum of understanding is also established with software development companies to guide student teams with learning and understanding current industry best practices.

Challenges with Operationalizing the Collaborative Triad In this section, we discuss some of the key challenges faced by students as well as instructors when offering a two-semester sequenced information systems capstone course using a collaborative community engagement triad model.

Student Challenges Computing students in the service-learning course face several challenges which can be categorized into technical and soft skill challenges. Instructors should anticipate students to face difficulties with understanding what is required of them as they will struggle with learning new concepts and with attempting to apply the concepts to a real-world project. While students may come with some technical knowledge such as programming, in the class, they will be learning a considerable volume of technical concepts in regard to software engineering techniques and software development lifecycle processes. Students will have difficulties with assimilating technical knowledge gained and applying it cumulatively toward the project. Instructors would need to structure the class activities and student deliverables to compartmentalize student learnings and

Collaborative Community Engagement

121

project work activities. It is helpful to students for instructors to teach one- or two-course topics within a software development iteration cycle and expect students to complete relevant project activities within the iteration. Instructors should expect students to become familiar with the topic and apply it in the iteration topic as it is taught. In the following iterations, instructors should expect students to improve their technical skills progressively. For example, instructors may lecture and conduct class activities on user stories in the second iteration of the project lifecycle. Students will be expected to write key functional user stories for their project within the second iteration. However, students will not be able to complete all the user stories related to the project within one iteration. Students will be writing stories in forthcoming iterations and will use outcomes of the user stories to work on other deliverables. Thus, students should be expected to progressively learn and apply technical concepts over multiple iterations, while each iteration introduces them to new concepts. Most students enrolled in a computing capstone course would have minimal exposure to communicating professionally both in written and verbal forms. Instructors should provide templates for content-specific document deliverables. Templates can be used for enforcing professional technical writing standards as well as to help students with understanding what is required of them and which content goes into which documents. Instructors and mentors should attend some of the student-client meetings to help students improve their verbal communications and interaction styles with the client. Like any other real-world projects, students will face scheduling challenges. Most clients and mentors tend to think students would have a flexible schedule than theirs. However, students would be taking multiple classes and combined with their off-campus work schedule; students might have much difficult schedule constraints than clients and mentors. Scheduling would get much more complex for students who do not have transportation. There are no silver bullets to solve scheduling conflicts; rather instructor should enforce students, clients, and mentors to identify recurring meeting times at the start of the semester and most importantly, make them use calendar tools to manage their schedules. Despite the planning, clients and mentors would be canceling scheduled meeting depending on their work emergencies and priorities. Students will need to learn how to react to scheduling conflicts. Students can use emails and other asynchronous modes of communication to share and obtain necessary information. It is relatively common for students working on a team project to face a considerable number of interpersonal conflicts such as team dysfunctions and social loafing (Borrego, Karlin, McNair, & Beddoes, 2013). Instructors can attempt

122

Community-Based Transformational Learning

to address potential interpersonal conflicts by requiring teams to establish a contract that details how the workload will be distributed and rules for ejecting a nonperforming or a misbehaving student out of the team. Unlike a professional work setting, students do not get a financial reward for their outstanding performance instead get course grade points, which may not motivate students in the same manner. Thus, some students will be slackers and attempt to put in little effort into the classwork and project activities, thereby putting more pressure and additional workload for other team members. Instructors should consider grading deliverables at individual student contributions standpoint. As most of the software development deliverables require multiple team members’ contribution, grading at individual student-level contribution can be challenging. This can be addressed by developing templates for content-specific document deliverables, and then grading at individual student-level contribution might become easier. Instructors can consider requiring students to provide information on who worked on which section for all the deliverable documents.

Instructor Challenges Identification of clients, mentors, and sourcing projects that creates transformational learning opportunities for students is one of the key challenge instructors will face. The clients, projects, and mentors must be identified weeks before the class starts. Students will need to have access to preliminary project overview details a minimum of three weeks before the class starts. Project overview details could contain information such as client organization information, brief project description, and a list of anticipated features. Instructors can also share portfolio information of industry mentors with students to facilitate team formation and industry mentor selection processes. After sharing project and mentor information, the instructor can request students to provide their preferential ordering for projects and mentors. Based on the responses, the instructor can form student teams, and assign mentors as well as projects to the teams. Thus, instructors must start that process of identifying clients three months before the class begins to have a sufficient number of projects on time. Selection of appropriate clients and mentors is critical for providing the right student experiences. Instructors should meet with potential clients and mentors multiple times before the start of the class to offer them an accurate description of student capabilities and the topics covered in the course. Contextual information shared during these meetings will help in creating the right expectations of the student work by clients and mentors. In regard to the identification of clients vs.

Collaborative Community Engagement

123

mentors, instructors should prioritize the identification of clients and projects as students will not be able to perform service-learning work in the absence of viable projects. Selection of appropriate projects is critical for providing transformation learning opportunities for students. Instructors should identify servicelearning projects that are scoped to match with course contents and skill level of students in the class. Students enrolled in the class may have varying levels of technical expertise and fluency with the programming platforms selected for developing the software applications. Thus, instructors need to choose projects that achieve a delicate balance of not being too simple or being too complex but provide sufficient challenges to keep students interested and engaged in the project work. It should be noted that challenges faced by students are compounded by the learning taking place outside the classroom, which is not in the direct control of the instructor. Therefore, instructors must pay attention to individuals with whom their students will interact with in regard to the service-learning work. Instructors must take into consideration within as well as outside the classroom challenges faced by students while selecting and scoping the project. Thus, the instructors of service-learning courses should place greater importance on the selection of clients and the proper scoping of the project work for the student teams. Instructors teaching computing capstone courses that train software developers would attempt to scope the projects that have definite start and end dates matching to the course semester schedule. Thus, unlike other disciplines, forming long-term partnerships with client organization is much harder. While instructors might be able to find new projects from past clients, depending upon a number of teams in the class, instructors would have to identify new clients every year. Instructors should develop their professional network and use word of mouth marketing of successful projects to identify new clients. Instructors should consider reaching out to any regional nonprofit consortiums and business chambers to post information about the course and types of project works student can perform. Most importantly, instructors should reach out to clients of successful projects and tap into their professional network to identify new clients. A similar strategy can be adapted for identifying industry mentors as well. In regard to industry mentors, instructors should strive to retain them for multiple years. Instructors should consider establishing a relationship with local companies for identifying mentors. When a mentor is getting burn out due to their professional or mentoring work, then instructors can request the organization to replace the mentor with another employee.

124

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Conclusion In this chapter, we describe a collaborative community engagement triad model for incorporating service-learning pedagogy into a computing capstone course. This collaborative triad model essentially involves a partnership between academic, private, and public sectors to achieve mutual benefits. The collaborative triad model helps academicians to provide transformative experiences for students, public sector to learn and obtain technological solutions for solving societal issues, and private sector to gain access to workforce-ready talents. We have described challenges with implementing the collaborative triad and directions to overcome those challenges. Academicpublic sector partnership aides in identifying challenging projects for students while aiming to develop meaningful products for public sector organizations. Projects selected must provide the right complexity for fostering student learning while the public sector clients provide civic learning opportunities to students. Academic-private sector partnership addresses the academicindustry skills gap by using the service-learning projects as the springboard to hone students’ workforce readiness. Each student team is mentored by working professionals on addressing the technical as well as other challenges of working with real-world projects. Private-public sectors work together to identify resources to make sure the service-learning environment and project are successful. Private sector organizations help public sector organizations in identifying infrastructure resources to host and run the products developed by the students. Public sector organizations use outdated resources which may interfere in preparing students for current workforce needs. Thus, private sector assistance on infrastructure resources for the public sector ensures students work with current infrastructure used in the workforce and increases the chances of clients using the products developed. For the past five years, we have implemented the collaborative triad model in a two-semester sequenced information systems senior project capstone course at a mid-sized southeastern university in the United States. For the past two years, we have implemented the collaborative triad model in a summer data science internship program—wherein, interns perform data analysis and develop data science artifacts in twelve weeks for a public sector organization with mentoring from academic faculty on subject matter expertise and professional data scientists on industry best practices. From these years of experience, we are anecdotally aware of the impact of the collaborative triad on student learning and their superior performance in the workforce. Many students, mentors, and supervisor

Collaborative Community Engagement

125

of the graduates at their full-time positions have reached out to us to express the quality of the students and their work. Many supervisors have commented that collaborative triad capstone graduates are ready to work on projects with minimum training, whereas other graduates who had not experienced the collaborative triad model need months of training before an actual project can be assigned. Supervisors have also commented that graduates’ work quality and ethics are of high caliber compared to graduates from other programs. In summary, we argue that service-learning courses that incorporate a collaborative community engagement triad model provide indispensable experience to computing students as the lessons gained from the collaboration with organizations (both for-profit and nonprofit) and solving real-life issues are the difference makers. To complete a service-learning project, students would have to apply the software development concepts taught in the classroom in real-world situations to address challenging social problems. Given that there is a drastic gap between industry expectations and academic skills gained in the classroom and misconceptions of computing held by the general public, students of the service-learning-based capstone course will face a considerable number of challenges. Designing a service-learning-based capstone course requires instructors to go the extra mile to provide the right experiences for students to apply what they learn in the classroom to real-world projects. Our experiences with implementing the collaborative triad model have revealed additional work performed by the instructor is crucial for providing rewarding experiences for all involved stakeholders.

References Borrego, M., Karlin, J., McNair, L. D., & Beddoes, K. (2013). Team effectiveness theory from industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student project teams: A research review. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 472–512. 10.1002/jee.20023 Brandes, K. (2017). Service learning within communities of practice. International Journal of Home Economics, 10(1), 3–11. Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1999). Reflection in service learning: Making meaning or experience. Evaluation/Reflection, 23, 179–85. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slceeval/23 Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 112–22. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0002.111

126

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Chao, J. T., & Brown, J. K. (2009) Empowering students and the community through agile software development service-learning. Paper presented at the Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, 104–13. Chuang, K., & Chen, K. (2013). Designing service learning project in systems analysis and design course. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(2), 47–60. Dean, C., Lynch, T. D., & Ramnath, R. (2011) Student perspectives on learning through developing software for the real world. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 6. 10.1109/FIE.2011.6142904 Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorensen, C. D. (1997). A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17–28. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00260.x Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In D. Jonassen, & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 286–300). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Hoxmeier, J., & Lenk, M. M. (2003). Service-learning in information systems courses: Community projects that make a difference. Journal of Information Systems Education (JISE), 14(1), 91–100. Jones, B. D., Epler, C. M., Mokri, P., Bryant, L. H., & Paretti, M. C. (2013). The effects of a collaborative problem-based learning experience on students’ motivation in engineering capstone courses. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2), 34–71. 10.7771/1541-5015.1344 Lenox, T. L. (2008). The value of service-learning in the CIS curriculum: A case study. Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ), 6(66), 3–9. Liu, C. (2005) Enriching software engineering courses with service-learning projects and the open-source approach. Paper presented at the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 613–14. 10.1109/ICSE.2005.1553612 McCoy, R., & Wymer, S. (2010). An information systems project management course using a service learning model. Paper presented at the Information Systems Educators Conference (ISECON), 1–7. Mendoza, R. A., & Outlay, C. N. (2015). Service-learning pedagogy in a project management course: Learning by doing in an information technology curriculum. Issues in Information Systems, 16(1), 121–31. Mitchell, T. D., Richard, F. D., Battistoni, R. M., Rost-Banik, C., Netz, R., & Zakoske, C. (2015). Reflective practice that persists: Connections between reflection in servicelearning programs and in current life. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(2), 49–63. Peer, A., Nilakanta, S., Nilakanta, R., & Heer, R. (2009) A case for a new pedagogy: Knowledge authority, community of practice and technology. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Resources Management (CONF-IRM), Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2009/3 Reinicke, B., & Janicki, T. (2011). Real world projects, real world problems: Capstones for external clients. Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ), 9(3), 23–27.

Collaborative Community Engagement

127

Robinson, S., & Hall, M. (2018). Combining agile software development and servicelearning: A case study in experiential IS education. Paper presented at the ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), 491–96. 10.1145/3159450.3159564 Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

9

It Was More than a Toy Mary Lundy and Juan Aceros

Discovering a Broader Purpose John was a junior electrical engineering student. He chose engineering as his major because he liked the practical application of mathematics and science to solve problems. It was clean and easy. Solve a problem and move on to the next one. He was now enrolled in an elective course titled “Accessibility & Assistive Technology.” In this course he was partnered with a mechanical engineering and physical therapy student to form a work team created to solve a problem. Their problem was a little girl in the local community with severe cerebral palsy. She could not walk. Their assignment was to invent technology so that she could be mobile. John thought the answer would be simple. He and his teammates would modify a toy ride-on car with assistive technology so that she could move around independently. They would do some measuring, draft a design, solder a few electrical circuits, and drill metal in the machine shop. The team thought they had a plan until they met three-year-old Alice. They weren’t sure what to do. None of them had spent much time around young children, much less children with disabilities. All John could see was her disability. John’s instructor knew that if John and his teammates were going to understand how to help this child, they would need to see her, not her disability. In order to see Alice as a child, the team needed to see her trying to be like other children in the community. They needed to see Alice in a societal context. So the instructor arranged for the team to be with Alice in her natural environment. Over the semester, John visited Alice’s home and got to know her parents. He became comfortable playing with her. John learned that pink was her favorite color and that she loved dinosaurs. He met Alice’s physical therapist and observed her therapy sessions. John visited her classroom and even met some of

It Was More than a Toy

129

her friends. Alice began to recognize John and would grin and sometimes giggle when she saw him. After each community experience, the team met with the instructor to reflect on what they had seen and felt. As the semester progressed there was more discussion and debate among the team members with little prompting from the instructor that centered on civic responsibility and future plans for community involvement. John realized Alice was just like other children and he had an epiphany about the purpose of his assignment. He wasn’t just helping her with mobility; he was giving her a means to feel like her peers—to play, laugh, and enjoy activities just like everyone else. He wanted to make this possible for her. Alice was not just a problem to be solved; she was a person and John realized he could really make a difference in her life through his role as an electrical engineer. This project was more than a toy. Three days before the project was to be completed, John and his team members were looking at their creation. It was a battery-operated pink Jurassic Park toy jeep that had been modified with a medically looking custom support seat and adaptive steering mechanism. The jeep was perfect for Alice. Not only was it pink but it had dinosaurs on the sides with zebra skin patterned decals. It functioned well, was safe, and met all the specifications they were assigned to test. But something just didn’t feel right. The toy needed to be something that other children would totally accept as a cool toy, not a medical device for a child with a disability. John knew that this toy needed to be socially acceptable as well as functional. After a few moments, John exclaimed, “I know exactly what it needs!” The night the team presented Alice and her family with her jeep, it looked completely different. The team had gone to the fabric store and at their expense purchased zebra skin upholstery fabric for the modified seat. The team’s compassionate intrinsically motivated altruistic decision to put Alice’s need to fit in with other children before their self-interest demonstrated a small step toward commitment to do good for others and shape the well-being of society.

Toys with a Purpose Toys are tools that help children learn about themselves and the world around them. As children play, they develop cognitive, fine, and gross motor skills needed for problem-solving, as well as learning about themselves and the world around them (Frost, 1998; Jansma, 1999; Milteer, Ginsburg, & Mulligan, 2012; Wenner, 2009). Children learn best by actively engaging with their environment,

130

Community-Based Transformational Learning

including a variety of toys. This requires intact motor and sensory functions, specifically mobility, fine motor manipulation, and sensory processing (Beckung & Hagberg, 2002). Self-directed, independent participation in play in early childhood has a direct impact on success in school and a child’s quality of life (Milteer et al., 2012). Research has shown play deprivation in preschool children can cause delays in physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development often leading to depression and social isolation (Milteer et al., 2012; Wenner, 2009). Children with disabilities are no exception; yet they frequently require adapted toys and other assistive devices to fully benefit from the experiences of play (Besio, 2004). Due to the limited market, however, commercially adapted toys are very expensive and not readily available. Because of this lack of affordable access, children in our local community with developmental disabilities were further disadvantaged and possibly restricted from reaching their full potential both academically and functionally as well as furthered their families’ economic burden. The local rehabilitation community identified affordable access to assistive technology for very young children with developmental disabilities and impaired mobility as an unmet need and asked the university for assistance. Physical therapy and engineering faculty at the university began discussions with the local community, including rehabilitation therapists and families of child with disabilities. After much consideration and research, a proposal was made to provide affordable access to adaptive toys through custom assistive technology interfaces to young children with disabilities. This proposal included the development of a cross-disciplinary, community-based transformational learning course (CBTL). The call for the course from the community matched a call from the professional organizations in charge for accreditation for both Physical Therapy and Engineering. In 1995, it was recommended that community-based service learning (CBSL) be added to the curriculum of all health profession programs through the Health Professions Schools in Service to the Nation program as part of the Pew Health Professions Commission (Seifer, 1998). As a result of these recommendations, CBSL has been included in many health profession education programs’ curriculum, including physical therapy (Village et al., 2004). In 2003, a report published by the Institute of Medicine recommended that community-based initiatives for healthcare providers be an educational initiative to increase cultural competency and work toward optimal community health (Institute of Medicine, 2003). Similarly, the World Health Organization (WHO) also recommended that interprofessional educational experiences be added to all healthcare curricula to

It Was More than a Toy

131

improve global healthcare outcomes. Interprofessional education (IPE), as defined by the WHO, is education in which students from two or more professions learn about, from, and with each other (Wise, Frost, Resnik, Davis, & Iglarsh, 2015). As a result of these recommendations the American Physical Therapy Association amended its core values to articulate the professional practice expectations for physical therapists to be service-minded, autonomous practitioners who are culturally aware, civically engaged, and socially responsible (“Professionalism in Physical Therapy: Core Values,” 2003). At about the same time, the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) called for including six “professional” skills that the engineering professional should demonstrate (American Society for Engineering Education, 1994; National Science Foundation & National Science Foundation, 1995). These recommendations were made so that engineers would develop an awareness of the impact, an appreciation of engineering as an integral process of societal change, and an acceptance of their collaborative responsibility for civilization’s progress (Shuman, Besterfield-Sacre, & McGourty, 2005). As a result of this global and national guidance the American Physical Therapy Association and the ASEE adopted these professional skills or practice expectations as necessary affective behaviors expected of their graduates. These two professional associations directed their respective educational accreditation organizations, the Commission on Accreditation for Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) to include student outcome criteria demonstrating an increase in social responsibility, civic engagement, cultural awareness, and ability to work in interdisciplinary teams. Table 9.1 shows the alignment of both the CAPTA and ABET student outcome criterion for their respective curriculum.

Table 9.1 Student Outcomes from a Cross-Disciplinary CBTL Course CAPTE Criterion Professional Behaviors ● Altruism ● Social responsibility ● Professional duty Teamwork ● Curriculum will include interprofessional learning activities that are directed toward the development of interprofessional competencies

ABET Criterion Professional Behaviors ● Communicate effectively ● Civic responsibility ● Public interest ● Understand impact of engineering solutions in a societal context Teamwork ● Function on multidisciplinary teams

132

Community-Based Transformational Learning

Establishing Mutually Beneficial Relationships There have been many reported benefits and positive educational outcomes as a result of participating in community-based service-learning experiences (Brosky, Deprey, Hopp, & Maher, 2006; Lattanzi, Campbell, Dole, & Palombaro, 2011; Simons & Cleary, 2006). Some of these benefits include an increased commitment to social responsibility (Lattanzi et al., 2011; Moely, McFarland, Miron, Mercer, & Ilustre, 2002); increased cultural competency (Simons & Cleary, 2006); increased feelings of compassion and caring; increased altruism (Gazsi & Oriel, 2010); greater appreciation of professional roles and professionalism and enhanced communication skills (Crandell, Wiegand, & Brosky, 2013); and a greater appreciation for patient advocacy and social justice (Reynolds, 2005). These hands-on, direct service experiences in the community that solve authentic problems help develop a student’s understanding of the connection between the service, academic course work, and social responsibility. However, a true CBTL establishes a mutually beneficial relationship between the campus and community (Hartley, Winter, Nunery, Muirhead, & Harkavy, 2005). For this to happen, the community must define its own needs for service activities instead of the academics telling the community that it needs service. It has also been reported that in order for students to better understand their profession’s role in a societal context during community experiences, they need to acquire not only basic knowledge specific to their discipline but also an understanding and respect for concepts, methods, and information from a plurality of disciplines (Gilbert, Yan, & Hoffman, 2010). This understanding and respect develops when students have experiences in effective teamwork, good communication, and complex creative thinking to solve complex problems (Bhavnani & Aldridge, 2000). Many institutions of higher learning have begun offering cross-disciplinary courses. This style of pedagogy (1) allows students to develop teamwork skills as well as understanding and respect for other disciplines, (2) facilitates complex thinking for open-ended problems, and (3) enhances communication across discipline cultures (Harris, 2006; Organization, 2010).

The Impact of Cross-Disciplinary CBSL Course on Public Service Motivation The pedagogy of CBTL has the goal of increasing Public Service Motivation (PSM) (Ertas, 2014). This motivation is defined as “an individual’s orientation

It Was More than a Toy

133

to delivering service to people with a purpose to do good for others and society” (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008). Researchers have found that individuals who have stronger PSM are more likely to engage in public service because of an intrinsic desire to make a positive difference in their community as opposed to extrinsic rewards such as higher salaries. In addition, higher levels of PSM have been connected with greater engagement in volunteering and more commitment to the public good through political and social advocacy (Ertas, 2014). Over the past twenty years, research interest in understanding how PSM impacts employee recruitment and retention in the public service sector has grown substantially (Perry & Wise, 1990). Public service motivation can be quantitatively measured using the PSM scale developed by Perry (Perry, 1996). The PSM scale consists of twenty-four items scored on a five-point Likert scale (1= strong disagreement, 5= strong agreement) which is comprised of the following four subscales: (1) attraction to public policymaking, (2) commitment to civic duty, (3) self-sacrifice (altruism), and (4) compassion/caring (Perry, 1996). The PSM scale has been shown to be a valid and reliable (α = 0.90) assessment tool and has been used to measure changes in PSM among individuals in public service projects such as the Americorps program (Seider, Rabinowicz, & Gillmor, 2011) and military medical service nurses, physicians, and dentists (Brænder & Andersen, 2013). The four subscale criteria align closely with the accreditation criteria established by CAPTE and ABET. An increase in student PSM as measured by Perry’s scale could be used to demonstrate that both of these accreditation organization’s criteria were being met using the CBSL pedagogy. In spite of the increase in the use of CBSL in cross-disciplinary courses (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996) as a teaching and learning strategy (Seifer, 1998), very little quantitative research (Moely et al., 2002; Shiarella, McCarthy, & Tucker, 2000; Simons & Cleary, 2006) has been published which demonstrates its impact on students and the communities they serve. Therefore, the current chapter presents a quantitative evaluation of PSM in students participating in a crossdisciplinary CBTL course, which was offered to students enrolled in the graduate DPT program and undergraduate students enrolled in either the electrical or mechanical engineering programs. The course was designed and implemented in response to the community’s request to address the lack of affordable access to pediatric assistive technology and in an attempt to demonstrate compliance with accreditation criteria. The course aimed to teach both discipline-specific skills and professional behaviors; course learning objectives were to promote community engagement, and enhance civic responsibility and commitment to

134

Community-Based Transformational Learning

public welfare while teaching teamwork, communication, and problem-solving skills (Bhavnani & Aldridge, 2000; Harris, 2006).

Designing and Implementing Accessibility and Assistive Technology The course “Accessibility & Assistive Technology” is an elective crossdisciplinary course between undergraduate engineering students and graduate DPT students. This three-credit course meets once a week for scheduled lectures and supervised lab instruction. Recruitment for course enrollment occurred through broad email announcements sent to all DPT students and undergraduate engineering students by the course faculty. This email contained a description of the course content and requirements. An information session was held for interested students to answer any questions and distribute a course syllabus and schedule. Through this method, the course enrolled at least thirtyfive students in the fall semester for three consecutive years, which was the maximum enrollment capacity secondary to the fabrication lab space. In all, 113 students have completed the course, resulting in thirty-one teams. Each team consisted of at least one mechanical engineer student, one electrical engineer student, and one physical therapy student. Teams were assigned clients who were recommended by community therapists to receive a ride-on toy in order to improve their mobility, independence, and exploration. Before the course, community therapists working in pediatric rehabilitation settings were invited to attend a continuing education course highlighting assistive technology for very young children with disabilities. These community therapists also invited parents of children with disabilities to join them for the course. During this continuing education course, plans to begin the cross-disciplinary CBSL course were announced. After the course, community therapists began referring children they thought could benefit from assistive technology to participate in the new course. The course was designed to meet two goals: one, to provide custom assistive technology to children with impaired mobility, and two, to provide a hands-on authentic unique opportunity for students to participate in cross-disciplinary service to the community that promotes social responsibility and strengthens “real world” problem-solving skills. The specific student learning outcomes related to CBSL were as follows: (1) develop translational skills for meaningful contribution to a multidisciplinary team. This includes effective communication

It Was More than a Toy

135

across disciplines with “people first” language, cultural sensitivity and compassion during time with clients, (2) understand the professional duty, legal, and ethical responsibility of interaction with a client, and (3) understand their discipline’s professional impact in a societal context and the role of advocacy. Lectures provided basic introductory information in physical therapy (i.e., neuroscience, child development, developmental disabilities), engineering (i.e., design and construction), and principles of assistive technology and rehabilitation assessment and interventions. Course assignments and assessments were carefully crafted to require an integration of the disciplines to foster the development of collaborative problem solving and an appreciation for diverse ways of thinking. The cross-disciplinary nature of this course provided regular opportunities for the important core element of reflection through discussions and debates as described in John Dewey’s theory of servicelearning (Giles & Eyler, 1994). These reflection experiences provided practice in enhancing communication skills and contributed to the development of broad, comprehensive, and respectful approaches to complex problems that occur across disciplines that benefited the students, and their communities. The student teams designed and fabricated custom assistive technology solutions targeting postural control, mobility, social participation, and quality of life for their child. Each team successfully completed and delivered their project to their client. Because of external grants that support the course, the devices were provided free of charge to the families. This project places teams of nonclinical and clinical students in the community. This requires a commitment from the faculty to make sure all the students are prepared for this experience by understanding the legal and ethical expectations for their behavior, their civic responsibilities, and the privilege and obligation of being in a trusted position. Thus before any student is allowed to enter the community they are required to complete a human subject research-training program with emphasis on children with disabilities as a course assignment. In addition, because the physical therapy students will be actively involved in the assistive technology assessment of their assigned child, they are required to submit a complete background check through the university. Under the supervision of a licensed pediatric physical therapist, students conducted physical therapy assessments including standardized developmental tests and trials with a variety of adaptive devices to determine the child’s physical abilities and limitations. The examination was followed by a team problemsolving session to discuss the child’s needs for independence and how best to meet those needs. The team then designed the technology product needed. Each

136

Community-Based Transformational Learning

team member was expected to equally participate in the fabrication process of the product. This expectation created the need for students to learn new skills, such as motor controller programming and soldering. The team visited their child in the child’s home, school, and therapy sessions. These immersive community experiences allowed students to build relationships with their child as well as see the child during his/her regular activities. These supervised structured experiences helped the students synthesize and form a deeper understanding of the daily challenges children with disabilities and their families face. This understanding promoted tolerance and an inclusive perspective that celebrated community diversity. Each team was responsible for selecting a small battery powered toy that was adapted with an appropriate switch activation device specifically selected for their child. A written case study outlining the process was submitted for grading. Each team was required to successfully develop and deliver an assistive technology product to their child and family. The delivery included culturally appropriate training in the use and care of the product for the family and child. This required students to consider the values, culture, economic status, and education level of the family. These guided experiences increased competency working with children and families who are culturally different. The students were also responsible for follow-up checks with the families to answer any questions or concerns and allowed students the opportunity to reflect and evaluate their roles as agents of change in their community.

Challenges at the Institutional, Program, Course, and Community Levels When deciding how this course would be structured, there were several unique aspects to consider. Not only would this course combine students and faculty from different colleges within the university, it would also enroll students at both the graduate and the undergraduate levels. Challenges to designing and implementing this course were identified at the institutional, program, course, and community levels. The challenges posed at the institutional level were related to compliance with regional accreditation standards for course numbering, description, and syllabus requirements. The solutions to these challenges were to create two concurrent courses (PHT7991 & EEL4930) taught simultaneously in the same space. A common syllabus with identical course descriptions, schedule, learning

It Was More than a Toy

137

activities, and assignments was used, but with different discipline-specific learning objectives. The challenges at the program level were demonstrating the alignment with each discipline’s accreditation criteria, accounting for faculty time, scheduling space for meeting, and finding continual funding for the course materials. Carefully written discipline-specific learning objectives and carefully selected student outcome measures were used to reflect the achievement of accreditation criteria. The measures selected were rubrics for class assignments and the PSM scale developed by Perry (1996). Since there was more classroom space availability in the evening, the course was offered in the evening with additional fabrication lab time offered outside of scheduled class time. The amount of additional lab time needed varied depending on how complicated the design was and if additional modifications to the design were needed to meet the needs of the child. The course materials were purchased with internal grants awarded annually by the university and a five-year external grant. Securing funding to continue offering the course continues to be a challenge. The success of the program has resulted in more referrals than we can serve in a semester. Faculty capacity to safely supervise students has limited course enrollment. To help increase access to assistive technology for families and children, we began offering free training workshops for community therapists to offer instruction in simple adaptive modifications. This has allowed us to expand technology services to the community despite our funding, space, and faculty constraints. Challenges at the course level proved to be the least difficult to solve and the most rewarding for the faculty. The faculty had to prepare students to work in a cross-disciplinary fashion without a common prerequisite background, which was accomplished through carefully planned biomechanical and biomedical lectures. These lectures helped student teams to develop a common language that facilitated problem-solving and supported the understanding and respect for the role of each team member. The course assignments and assessments were carefully crafted to require an integrated cross-discipline process to be successful. This required that students blend diverse thinking strategies and personalities to develop team objectives for their client to succeed as teams. For example, one graded assignment required the engineering students to teach the DPT students how to modify a commercially purchased toy so that an adaptive switch could be used to replace the toy’s original activation mechanism. This required teaching and learning soldering, circuitry modification, and reprogramming. The grade assigned to the engineering students for the project depended on how accurately

138

Community-Based Transformational Learning

the physical therapy students could present and explain the modifications they made to the toy. One interesting observation noted was that even though the DPT students did not receive a grade for this project, they felt very responsible for making sure their engineer teammate was successful. Other challenges at the course level were related to the faculty synchrony. Each discipline has its own culture and its own vocabulary. The faculty needed to identify common values and approaches to teaching while understanding and respecting the differences in the disciplines. The one thing that became very clear was that the faculty needed to consider all students as their students and not just the ones in their discipline. At the community-level, being conscientious about frequent two-way communication and being flexible with the logistics of the project reduced challenges. To facilitate child referrals to the project, a website was established with all the information and necessary forms so that the community therapist could conveniently access them. The DPT student on each team regularly updated the community therapist and family on the progress of the project through email, phone calls, or texting.

Public Service Motivation in a Cross-Disciplinary Course Over the 3-year period, 113 students completed the course. This included thirtyone graduate DPT students and eighty-two undergraduate engineering students. This diverse group of students consisted of thirty-two females and eighty-one males ranging in age from twenty to forty-nine years of age. Both undergraduate and graduate students were predominately in their last year of studies. Twentyone percent of the participant students were from underrepresented ethnic groups with the following breakdown: Hispanic (n = 13), African American (n = 7), and Asian (n = 4). The first course objective, to provide custom assistive technology to children with impaired mobility, was met. All thirty-one children referred to the program were given modified technology-enhanced powered ride-on toys cars free of charge. Data is currently being collected to assess the impact of self-directed independent mobility provided by the ride-on toys in the areas of cognitive, socialemotional, and physical development of the children. The impact on families with regard to caregiver burden is also being assessed. However, preliminary data suggests that the children have made gains in the social/emotional and cognitive domains and that the caregiver burden has been decreased.

It Was More than a Toy

139

The second goal was to provide a hands-on authentic unique opportunity for students to participate in cross-disciplinary service to the community that increases PSM by promoting social responsibility and civic engagement. Success in meeting this goal was assessed using the multidimensional Public Service Motivation Scale (PSM scale). The original PSM scale has been well cited as a measure for studying motivation for career choices by students in the public service sector (Bringle, Phillips, & Hudson, 2010). This scale was chosen because it has been shown to have good construct validity, high reliability, and good discriminate validity among the four motivational dimensions of PSM. These four dimensions are as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Attraction to public policy making: motivated to take part in establishing public policy; Commitment to public interest: motivated to be altruistic, have a strong sense of civic duty and social justice; Self-sacrifice: intrinsically motivated to give up on tangible personal rewards for the well-being of the people at large; and Compassion: motivated to protect human rights and have an unselfish concern for the welfare of others in need.

This tool has been used in other studies to gather empirical evidence to assess attitudinal changes in participants in service-learning programs (Perry, 1996). As a dependent variable it is valid and reliable enough to detect changes over time in individuals or groups. The university’s Institutional Review Board approved all measures and procedures for collection of this data. The PSM scale was administered via anonymous paper surveys before and after the cross-discipline service-learning experience to assess any changes in the students’ attitudes toward public service that may have occurred. The preexperience collection was done before beginning the project on the first day of class. The postexperience data collection was completed two days after the delivery of the adaptive toys to the children, which was approximately three months after the initial course survey. All 113 students participating in this course over 3 years enrolled in the study and were surveyed and 94 matched pairs of data were obtained. The data was analyzed using a paired t-test. Both the total PSM scale scores and each of the four subscale scores were assessed to identify any changes that occurred within each participant and between groups of participants. Statistical significance levels for all comparisons was set a priori at p = 0.05.

140

Community-Based Transformational Learning

There was a statistically significant difference in the pretest to posttest scores in the overall total PSM scale scores (t = 2.91, p < .01) and the Commitment to Public Interest subscale scores (t = 2.31, p < 0.05) with the scores being higher after the course experience. This significant increase in the total PSM scale scores and the Commitment to Public Interest scores indicates an increased likelihood that the participants will continue to be engaged in activities for the public good. When the Compassion subscales were analyzed using t-tests by discipline and gender, significant increases were found in the engineering scores (t = 2.65, p