the role of service learning in the retention of

Running head: THE ROLE OF SERVICE LEARNING IN RETENTION 1

The Role of Service Learning in the Retention of

Freshman College Students Requiring Remediation

Joan Johns Maloney

Governors State University

Author Note

Joan Johns Maloney, Department of Administration and Finance, Governors State University

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joan Johns Maloney, Department of Administration and Finance, Governors State University, One University Parkway, University Park, IL 60484-0975. Contact: [email protected]

THE ROLE OF SERVICE LEARNING IN RETENTION 2

THE ROLE OF SERVICE LEARNING IN THE RETENTION OF

FRESHMAN COLLEGE STUDENTS REQUIRING REMEDIATION

A Graduate Action Research Project

Presented to the Faculty

Division of Education

Governors State University

In partial fulfillment of the requirement

For the degree of

Master of Arts in Education

By

Approved:

____________________________________ _____________________________ Chair, Research Project Committee Member ____________________________________ _____________________________ Committee Member Date


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… 4 CHAPTER

I. Introduction……………………………………………… 5 II. Literature Review………………………………………... 8 Remediation…………………………………...... 8 Service Learning………………………………… 13

III. Methodology…………………………………………...... 24 Rationale………………………………………… 24 Period of Study…………………………………. 24 Type of Study…………………………………… 24 Measurement……………………………………. 24 Variables………………………………………… 24 Participants……………………………………… 24 Control Group…………………………………… 24 Experimental Group…………………………….. 24 Method…………………………………………... 25

Appendix………………………………………………………………………….. 27 References………………………………………………………………………… 28


Abstract Student retention is one of the most widely studied fields in higher education, yet after four

decades of research substantial gains in attrition and retention rates have been hard to come by

(Tinto, 2005). In fact a number of states use retention statistics as part of their accountability

systems. For first-year college students requiring remediation in English, writing, and/or

mathematics, persistence and retention is especially challenging. Entering college is intimidating

for most students; however those needing remediation face the additional stress of “catching up”

to their peers academically, taking courses they do not get college credit for, and the additional

expense related to those courses. It is therefore not uncommon to see the remedial student leave

college rather than persist. This paper explores research on college retention efforts, particularly

for those needing developmental education, and the effect service learning has when

incorporated into the curriculum. A quantitative correlational predictive study is proposed to

measure the correlation coefficient of improved retention of remedial students when service

learning is incorporated into the curriculum. The three-year study will follow the first-time

freshman cohorts of Illinois public universities beginning in the fall 2014 semester to determine

to what degree of correlation, if any, there is between the predictor (service learning) and the

criterion (retention). The University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign will be excluded due to its


high admission requirements. The results will aid in the effort to help remedial students in

persistence, retention, and ultimately completion of a baccalaureate degree.

Keywords: retention, persistence, attrition, remediation, developmental education, service

learning, civic engagement

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to explore the unique needs of the first-year college student

needing remediation in English, mathematics and/or writing, the great challenges they face in

their pursuit of higher education, and whether incorporating service learning into the remedial

curriculum increases persistence and retention rates. According to the National Center for Public

Policy and Higher Education (2010) each year in the United States nearly 60% of first-year

college students find they are not academically prepared for postsecondary studies, with the

largest proportion of students leaving in the first year of college (Tinto, 1993). A wide array of

studies and anecdotal support from student advisors points to the fact that the forces that result in

departure in the first year are qualitatively different from those that guide departure later in

college (Tinto, 1988). It can be said that the first six months to one year of college is the most

crucial time in a student’s academic career and is responsible for future outcomes.

Tinto’s (1993) theory on departure posits that all college freshmen go through a period

that includes separation from membership in the past community (high school, hometown),

transitioning from one’s old group to the new group, and incorporation into the membership and

society of the institution. He argues that the way in which one experiences these rites of passage


has a strong effect on whether a student will decide to persist or leave. For the remedial student,

the additional stressors involved can be overwhelming. In Illinois, 48.7% of freshmen enrolled in

community colleges require remediation, while 15.8% of freshmen enrolled at four-year colleges

require remediation (Complete College America, 2006). At the community college level these

students, mainly place-bound, have the added stressors and distractions of living with and caring

for family members, working full- or part-time, and often financial difficulties. Those students at

four-year institutions, most living on-campus, are faced with the stressors and distractions of

living away from family for the first time, time management, social interactions, peer pressure,

and often feelings of loneliness. In both situations coming to grips with and succeeding in

remedial coursework is challenging.

How can students underprepared for college coursework be aided in their pursuit of

higher education? How can remedial students be encouraged to persist? Numerous studies have

shown student persistence and success is attained by incorporating service learning into the

curriculum. The Community Service Act of 1990, which authorized the Learn and Serve grant

program, defines service learning as: "a method under which students or participants learn and

develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and

meets the needs of a community; is coordinated with an elementary school, secondary school,

institution of higher education, or community service program, and with the community; and

helps foster civic responsibility; and that is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum

of the students, or the educational components of the community service program in which the

participants are enrolled; and provides structured time for the students or participants to reflect

on the service experience." It should be noted that the terms service learning and civic

engagement and often referred to reciprocally; however review of the literature reveals more is


known about the positive effects of civic engagement through the lens of service learning, and

therefore this study will focus on service learning as a tool to aid in retention rather than the

more globally intricate world of civic engagement.

A study to support the theory that incorporating service learning into remedial English,

mathematics and writing courses increases retention rates will be conducted on Illinois four-year

public universities, excluding the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, for a three-year

period beginning in fall 2014. Non-service learning remedial course students will comprise the

control group, and service learning remedial course students will comprise the experimental

group. Quantitative data will be collected and analyzed to determine if the service learning

component increases retention rates from year one to year two for three sets of freshman cohorts.


CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Remediation

Students often are unaware they are not prepared for college-level courses until they fail

college placement exams and are assigned to remedial courses. While preventing students from

needing remedial education is the ultimate goal, improving the success rates of those requiring

remediation also deserves the attention of higher education leaders and policymakers. The truth

is that in 2012 only 25% of students who took the American College Testing (ACT) test in high

school met the test’s readiness benchmarks in all four subjects—English, reading, math and

science (ACT 2012). Of those that are assigned to remedial classes less than 50% completed the

recommended remedial coursework. In addition students in remedial reading or math have

particularly poor success rates in college: while 58% of students that do not require remediation

earn a bachelor’s degree, only 17% of students enrolled in remedial reading and 27% enrolled in

remedial math eventually earn a bachelor’s degree (Bautsch 2013).

Remedial education in higher education is also very costly. Strong American Schools

(2006) estimates the cost of remedial education to states and students is approximately $2.3

billion each year. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2006) goes so far as to suggest that


reducing the need for remediation could generate an extra $3.7 billion annually from decreased

spending in providing remedial education, and the increased tax revenue generated from students

that graduate with a bachelor’s degree.

The challenges remedial students face can be daunting, and certainly are complex and

require careful consideration. Researcher Kathryn Di Tommaso of Bronx Community College in

New York conducted a study in 2012, Developmental Students: the Challenge of Peer

Relationships, which explored the ways in which developmental students describe and

understand their experiences. It is reported that nearly one-third of undergraduates take at least

one developmental class, and there are about 1 million students enrolled in developmental

courses at community colleges each year (Beach, Lundell, & Jung, 2002; Oudenhoven, 2002). Di

Tommaso (2012) theorizes that in order to develop successful programs colleges need to

consider the personal, environmental, social, and emotional factors that influence students’

experiences and their perceptions about learning.

Di Tommaso (2012) developed a qualitative study that focused on seven non-cognitive

variables: finances, college surroundings, study management, views of self, education,

motivation, and interpersonal relationships, utilizing faculty interviews, classroom observations,

and in-depth student interviews. Her findings indicate developmental students may experience

difficulties in independently establishing peer relationships in college and may need greater

assistance and time to develop the peer support networks that could assist them in pursuit of their

educational goals.

A literature review assessing the needs of adult learners, by Christopher Chaves (2006)

looks at Involvement, Development, and Retention: Theoretical Foundations and Potential

Extensions for Adult Community College Students. The review spans four decades of research


and seven theories of student learning and retention for first-time adult community college

students, defined as being 24-years and older. These theories include Tinto’s (1987, 1993, 1997)

Interactionalist Theory, Astin’s (1984) Involvement Theory, Sanford’s (1966) Person-

Environment Theory, Schlossberg’s (1989) Theory of Marginality and Mattering, Rendón’s

(1994) Theory of Validation, Chickering’s (1969) Theory of Identity Development, Belenky,

Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule’s (1986) Theory of Women’s Ways of Knowing, Knowles’s

(1984) Theory of Andragogy, and Kolb’s (1984) Theory of Experiential Learning and Adults.

Chaves (2006) concludes that by incorporating these theories into a comprehensive model,

persistence and retention of adult community college students will improve and aid them in

meeting their personal educational goals.

Chaves (2006) conducted a case study of these theories, taking into account the unique

circumstances of the adult learner. According to Howell (2001) many adult students enrolled in

community colleges for the first time are ill-prepared both academically and socially for college-

level courses. As a result they require remedial education, which adds to the stress of their

complex lives, and can result in feelings of inadequacy, hopelessness and defeat. Chaves (2006)

emphasizes the need for educators to have a more comprehensive understanding of the

complexities of the adult learner. With a strong construct of these students, curricula can then be

developed that will achieve the transfer of classroom learning to the real world, the immediate

application of what is learned, and thus greater retention and completion.

Chaves (2006) notes Tinto’s (1987, 1993, 1997) Interactionalist Theory of student

persistence and retention, which simply stated is all students come to campus with varied

backgrounds, and what determines whether they persist is the degree to which they become

academically and socially integrated on campus. Tinto (1997) opines that the key arena for this is


the classroom. Kolb (1984) furthers this theory by stating experiential teaching and learning

methods, in which curricula is blended with real-world experiences, can positively affect

persistence and success rates. Therefore, combining classroom work with hands-on experience is

the optimal teaching/learning method.

Astin’s (1984) Theory of Involvement posits that there are five general categories of

involvement that result in positive outcomes for the adult learner: 1) academic involvement; 2)

faculty involvement; 3) peer involvement; 4) work involvement; and 5) extracurricular

involvement. Of these he believes faculty-student involvement is most critical in student success.

However Chaves (2006) notes that most of Astin’s research has focused on traditional age

students at four-year colleges and therefore cannot be adequately applied to the adult learner.

Sanford’s (1966) Person-Environment Theory was forward-thinking in theorizing student

success is contingent upon readiness, challenge, and support; rather, students must be prepared

for the rigors of college work, be challenged by it, and have support systems put in place by the

college. Although Sanford did not specifically study community college adult learners, Chaves

(2006) believes that his theory is readily applicable to the adult learner.

Schlossberg’s (1989) Theory of Marginality and Mattering delves more into the student’s

psyche, stating that one’s feelings of marginality, or not fitting in, and mattering (one’s feeling

that they matter to someone else) are key factors in persistence and retention. Of great

importance is whether the student feels they fit into the institution they attend and whether they

matter to the institution. Schlossberg went so far as to outline eight functions that community

college support services should provide for all students. Rendón’s (1989) Theory of Validation is

similar to Schlossberg’s in that it promotes fostering of nontraditional students’ academic and

interpersonal development, both in the classroom and through campus activities. He, like Tinto,


recognizes the importance of early intervention, i.e. first semester or even prior to, in order to

achieve greater success.

Chaves’ (2006) review of the work of Chickering (1969) and his Theory of Identity

Development, which includes seven distinct vectors that explain various psychosocial

developments that occur during the traditional college student’s career, is lacking because it does

not address the needs of adult learners. However it does address the opinion that women’s

development differs from men’s and therefore is a factor that should be considered when

addressing the needs of the adult learner, bringing Chaves (2006) to Belenky et al.’s (1986)

Theory of Women’s Ways of Knowing. This theory argues that women rely on personal and

professional experiences to connect knowledge and should be taken into account when

developing curricula and learning models, particularly in the adult learner that has more life

experience.

Chaves (2006) studied two models to create teaching/learning methods that enhance the

experience of the adult learner. These include Knowles (1984) Theory of Andragogy and Kolb’s

(1984) Theory of Experiential Learning and Adults. Knowles hypothesizes that adult learners are

internally motivated to succeed in higher education, and therefore educators should teach from

an andragogical (adult learning) view as opposed to the popular pedagogical (child learning)

style. Further research on the World Wide Web revealed the term andragogy goes back to 1833

when it was developed by German educator Alexander Kapp. As Chaves (2006) noted, more

research on andragogy is needed. Kolb’s (1984) Theory of Experiential Learning and Adults

promotes learning as a process of creating knowledge through experience and hands-on

practices, which he found to be particularly effective with adult learners.


Chaves (2006) analyzed several theories, spanning four decades, to support his

hypothesis that intentioned involvement by educators, innovative development of the curricula,

and structured support systems would result in higher retention rates and better outcomes for

adult community college learners. While acknowledging that many adult learners require

remediation and are less inclined to be involved with campus activities because of their off-

campus commitments, he believes that a radical redesign of curricula specifically targeting the

community college adult learner can result in improved persistence and retention. Knowles’s

(1984) theory on andragogy and Kolb’s (1984) theory emphasizing experiential and dialectical

learning are also solid recommendations to follow.

Service Learning

Service learning emerged out of the experiential education and social activism

movements of the 1960s and 1970s as a curricular innovation to get students more involved in

their coursework, to facilitate civic engagement and community activism, and to make course

content more relevant to current issues (Stanton, Giles & Cruz, 1999; Vogelgesang, 2004). In

Expanding Service-Learning in the Humanities among First-Generation, Minority-Population,

and Non-Traditional Students: A Mixed-Participation, Mixed-Assessment Model (2012)

researcher Christine Reiser Robbins delves into the creation of service learning curriculum by

examining a service learning project at Texas A&M University-Kingsville. Robbins (2012)

points out that the literature on the benefits of service learning is weak for first-generation,

minority and non-traditional students. The same can be said for the population requiring

remediation, often first-generation and minority students. Yet it is these groups that may benefit

most from such curricula because studies have shown first-generation students are twice as likely


to drop out of college in the first year as opposed to those students whose parents hold a

bachelor’s degree. She posits that service learning in the curricula is most beneficial when

incorporated in the freshman and sophomore years, particularly in the mandatory core curricula.

Robbins (2012) examined an anthropology service learning project encompassing

Hispanic labor, migration, and community-keeping in the southwest borderlands. While this

project deals specifically with anthropology, she argues that such a model is applicable across

the humanities. She constructed a model for integrating service learning into an Introduction to

Anthropology course and how to assess its effectiveness. The model will 1) analyze how projects

can be crafted which meet the academic and practical needs of non-traditional students with

considerable personal demands; 2) weight whether a mixed-participation, mixed-assessment

class can do justice to the goals of service learning; and 3) through qualitative research assess

whether such a model dilutes the end goal of fostering student engagement in civic concerns.

Robbins (2012) recognized the non-traditional student needs more flexibility in order to

participate in service learning projects, so she crafted a project that would allow students to be

flexible with their time and participation. The project, begun in the 2011-2012 academic year,

consisted of assisting in the preservation and protection of an early twentieth century Hispanic

farm labor cemetery located on a private ranch near Corpus Christi, Texas.

At the end of the course students were required to write a culminating critical essay on

their experience, reflecting on the service learning aspect of the project as well as the

significance of the public historical work and community collaboration they took part in.

Students routinely described a heightened sense of connection to the community and to the

mission of the university. They also expressed a stronger commitment to further scholarly work

in the humanities, including primary research, publication, and public dissemination. Robbins


(2012) explains that from a pedagogical standpoint this stresses forms of learning that feature

knowledge creation in addition to examination and evaluation, and concludes that faculty

working within community-based models of research often discuss community relationships as

being among the most fulfilling aspects of their scholarship.

Campus Compact, founded in 1985 by the presidents of Brown, Georgetown and

Stanford Universities and the president of the Education Commission of the States is the only

higher education organization committed to fulfilling the civic purposes of higher education. In

Campus Compact’s Research Brief #1 (May 2008), titled How Can Engaged Campuses Improve

Student Success in College? the organization challenges this question. According to Campus

Compact, almost 50% of U.S. undergraduate students attend two-year colleges. Their research

demonstrates that educational experiences and the collegial environment profoundly shape the

outcomes of higher education students. Campus Compact’s (2008) analysis of major national

surveys suggests that “community-based, participatory educational experiences can positively

contribute to students’ academic performance and persistence” (2). Based on 2008 National

Survey of Student Engagement findings, service learning is identified as one of six high-impact

activities because it promotes meaningful integrative learning and personal development.

According to Kuh et. al. (2007) engagement during the first year is especially beneficial in aiding

historically underserved students toward persistence and retention. In summary, this Campus

Compact study found that high quality service learning is effective pedagogy that transforms

American higher education in ways that advance democracy as well as academic excellence.

Campus Compact has taken on many challenges and initiatives, including the Campus

Compact Connect2Complete (C2C) project launched in 2012 with funding from the Bill &

Melinda Gates Foundation. C2C’s mission is to improve higher education persistence by


combining two strategies: peer advocacy and community-engaged learning. A two-year pilot

study is being conducted by C2C institutions organized to engage underprepared, low-income

students in high-quality community-engaged learning experiences as well as peer advocacy. At

each institution student affairs staff coordinate with peer advocates, who in turn mentor small

groups of developmental education students and help facilitate community-engaged learning

activities. The peer advocates are key to the study in order to help students develop a college-

staying identity (Savitz-Romer and Bouffard, 2012) and to help them navigate the college

experience. The hypothesis of C2C is that by introducing students to service-learning pedagogy,

academic success is fostered and classroom learning is made relevant to real life situations, thus

resulting in positive personal outcomes. Early experiences suggest service learning course-based

models have a distinct advantage over non service learning models because they reach the

student not only in the classroom but also make classroom learning more relevant to students’

lives.

In Improving Student Learning Outcomes with Service Learning, researchers Mary

Prentice and Gail Robinson (2010) continue this theme by studying the results of a three-year

research project by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) in the

Community Colleges Broadening Horizons through Service Learning project, sponsored by a

grant from the Learn and Serve America program of the Corporation for National and

Community Service. The study took place from 2006-2009 and followed thirteen community

colleges that had competed to take part in the project. The study utilized both quantitative and

qualitative methods, and the results affirmed that service learning is an excellent strategy for

increasing student engagement, developing critical thinking skills, improving academic

development, and ultimately achieving academic success and retention.


The goal of the Horizons study was to demonstrate that participating in service learning

in conjunction with the curricula is a predictor of increased student learning outcomes. The

AACC defines service learning as “combining community service with academic instruction,

focusing on critical, reflective thinking and personal and civic responsibility”. The AACC

outlined six measurable areas of academic learning outcomes: 1) critical thinking; 2)

communications; 3) career and teamwork; 4) civic responsibility; 5) global understanding and

citizenship; and 6) academic development and educational success.

A quantitative study was conducted from spring 2007 through spring 2009 using two

quantitative instruments, one for students and one for faculty. Surveys were distributed at the

thirteen participating community colleges at the end of the spring semester for 2007 through

2009. At each institution a control group was defined by choosing similar courses that did not

have a service learning component. The student and faculty surveys consisted of 24 questions in

a six-point Likert-style scale of 1-6, 1 being the least positive response and 6 being the most

positive. In addition to demographic information, the 24 questions centered on the six

measurable areas of learning outcomes as defined by the AACC.

At the conclusion of the spring 2009 semester the participating institutions had returned

2,317 student surveys—1,687 service learning and 630 non-service learning, and a total of 68

faculty responses—46 service learning and 21 non-service learning. The student groups’ average

score for all 24 questions were compared, the faculty’s use of service learning was statistically

controlled for, and the results demonstrated that the service learning students scored statistically

higher in five out of the six learning outcome criteria.

The study then moved to the qualitative phase, consisting of eight focus groups: 30

students that had participated in service learning were placed into five groups, and faculty that


had taught service learning were put in the other three. The AACC’s program evaluator used a

set of questions to determine if the student’s participation in service learning related in any way

to their academic learning. Upon completion of the analysis of student responses the following

themes emerged: 1) academic learning was increased when faculty related it to the curricula; 2)

service learning helped students see coursework in a real-life context and to think through

situations critically and logically; 3) service learning aided in retention of academic content; and

4) service learning contributed to the students’ desire to persist to earning a bachelor’s degree.

Analysis of the 17 faculty responses revealed that service learning 1) definitely enhanced the

learning experience; 2) what students learned through the service learning enhanced courses was

how to transfer and apply their academic knowledge to real life situations; 3) students were able

to experience the ups and downs that are part of any work situation, a valuable lesson; and 4)

service learning had a positive impact on student retention. Although the study, like most

research, had some limitations the community college students and faculty involved “validate the

benefits of the service learning pedagogy as an active, engaged method of learning skills and

knowledge” (14).

One of the participating Horizons grantee colleges, Queensborough Community College

in Bayside, New York, carried the hypothesis further, incorporating service learning into 15

remedial reading and writing courses. The 2008 study was designed to assess the impact service

learning would have, if any, on persistence and retention of students requiring remedial

education. The statistical analyses of Prentice and Robinson (2010) were examined by author

Regina Rochford (2013) who found demonstrable a) higher GPAs; b) improved rates of

retention; and c) the completion of more college credits among service learning participants. In

addition, an ANOVA revealed insights into the individual service learning projects


demonstrating that the most effective programs a) directly connected the service learning activity

to the course curriculum; b) provided multiple experiences performing tasks; and c) placed

students in community-based organizations appropriate for their level of literacy (345).

Additionally students reported that when service was linked to course curriculum they

learned more because they benefited from real life experiences, which in turn helped them learn

how to assess situations and develop genuine solutions. Students at Queensborough Community

College also reported it improved their self confidence, broadened their career options, and that

the engaged service learning was stimulating.

Rochford (2013) theorizes that “these findings imply that when students engage in

semester-long authentic, thematic, reflective activities that require them to read, analyze,

organize and write about real issues that affect their communities, they develop significantly

better reading and writing skills while they also enhance their academic achievement” (354).

In the May 2008 issue of the Minnesota Campus Compact author Dan Simonet of

AmeriCorps Vista provides a brief on Service-Learning and Academic Success: The Links to

Retention Research. Simonet (2008) supports the emerging research on the longstanding

philosophy that service learning courses, which integrate academics and community service,

deliver greater student leadership development, enriched learning, and improved academic

performance, as he delves deeper into how each field enhances the other. The brief argues that

“by being actively involved in their learning experience – as opposed to passively receiving it –

the students view the material as relevant, interesting, and absorbing” (2). Simonet (2008)

contends that connecting course content with real-life situations creates a tangible, meaningful

learning environment that goes beyond the classroom, and improves students’ attitudes and

motivation. Service learning students were found to report greater intention to persist and


reenroll the following fall at a higher rate than non-service learning students (Hatcher, Bringle, &

Muthiah, 2002) thus increasing retention rates. Simonet (2008) recommends building service

learning into the freshman year curriculum in order to quickly engage students and aid them on

the road to persistence and retention.

Taking the definition of service learning one step further, researchers Jamie Beran and

Aleeza Tubin (2012) report on their qualitative study using a phenomenology approach to

determine if students involved in the Immersive Jewish Service-Learning (IJSL) program at the

Progressive Jewish Alliance & Jewish Funds for Justice (PJA & JFSJ) would obtain a richer,

more authentic service learning experience if the IJSL operated within a relational model rather

than a transactional model, reporting in the Winter/Spring 2012 issue of the Journal of Jewish

Communal Service. Their research five years into the program revealed highly organized IJSL

initiatives resulted in sustainable, trusting relationships that were mutually beneficial to the

communities and the volunteers.

Beran and Tubin (2012) looked into the historical research on service learning and found

it is often looked at as a transaction where a service is provided in exchange for an experience.

Although that is essentially true, it does not speak to the benefits the service providers can reap

from such experiences and how an enriched experience can lead to greater understanding and

positive change, much like a ripple effect. The IJSL proposed that a well-crafted, thoughtful and

effective approach to designing service learning projects would result in students at the

conclusion of the project to have a sense of achievement, a better sense of the community and its

dynamics, the ability to reflect on their experience and to consider the role of service in their own

communities and in the broader world.


Beran and Tubin (2012) proposed both a philosophical and a practical approach to the

organization of service projects. Philosophically relationships had to be built with communities

in need, likening the relationship with a typical interpersonal relationship that requires

commitment, time and energy; noting also that there will be times of stress and times of ease.

The practical side of the approach required solid organization; frequent communication through

calls, visits and emails; the ability to listen and hear what the communities really needed; respect

for all those involved; and when possible the donation of funds or goods to the community.

Another practical aspect to the design was careful orientation of students before they embarked

on a project. This would include teaching them about the dynamics of the community they would

be working in, the importance of listening to the community members and being flexible to their

needs, and to reconcile what they imagined their experience would be like to the realities of the

initiative they were about to undertake. Beran and Tubin (2012) recognized the importance of

teaching students that they were not going into a community to fix something the community

could not; rather they were responding to a need expressed by the community and the importance

of continued listening to those needs.

Using applied evaluation research, Beran and Tubin (2012) selected samples of the

population by using different practices on individual projects. After a project was completed they

collected anonymous surveys from the students and conducted interviews with the host

communities. This causal-comparative approach revealed that the grouping variable was the

method of delivering service-learning, or best practice, and that the dependent variable or effect

was a successful, educational, and enlightening experience for all those involved. This research

method was quite appropriate in this study because it brought to light which methods of delivery

worked to build a relational model of service learning, which did not, and what improvements


needed to be made to optimize results. Follow-up on IJSL revealed they had implemented a

Standards of Practice following the methods researched and designed by Beran and Tubin (2012)

in this study.

Despite an abundance of quantitative and qualitative data, critics continue to question the

efficiency and effectiveness of service learning as a legitimate educational endeavor, claiming

that it dilutes curricular content and distracts faculty from scholarly productivity. However an

article by Christine Cress that appeared in Diversity & Democracy (2012) titled Civic

Engagement and Student Success: Leveraging Multiple Degrees of Achievement refutes those

claims with strong statistical evidence. Cress (2012) found that thoughtful and purposefully

designed service learning activities resulted in greater learning and increased graduation rates in

K-12 schools, community colleges, and at four-year institutions (Astin and Vogelesang 2006;

Bridgeland, Dilulio, and Morison 2006; Prentice and Robinson 2010). The evidence is almost

overwhelming that the incorporation of service learning into the curricula transforms students

from being knowledge receivers into idea creators. In fact civically engaged students learn higher

order skills including critical thinking, writing, communication, mathematics and technology at

more advanced levels of aptitude Cress (2004).

Cress’ evidence is further supported in The Impact of Curricular Interventions on

Intended Second Year Re-Enrollment (2005) by Jennifer Keup, who explores the relationship

between three curricular interventions in the first-year experience—first-year seminars, service

learning, and learning communities. The data for the study was collected from two surveys

administered by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at the Higher Education

Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles, the 2002 CIRP Freshman

Survey and the 2003 Your First College Year (YFCY) survey. The data provided a longitudinal


database for a national cohort of students at four-year institutions across the country at the

beginning and end of their first college year. Institutional characteristics from the 2000-2001

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) were merged into the database to

provide control variables for this multivariate analysis (66). Of the 19,995 students in the sample,

43.7% participated in the first-year seminar, 39.1% participated in service learning, and 10.2%

were part of a learning community. 26.9% of students participated in more than one curricular

intervention. Upon analysis of the data Keup (2005) found that service learning, more than first-

year seminars or learning communities, facilitated the intention to re-enroll for a second year of

college by its ability to enhance the quality and quantity of faculty interaction and to promote

positive academic experiences for students in their adjustment to college during the first year

(82).


CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Rationale

As a result of incorporating service learning into the college remediation curriculum of

English, writing and mathematics courses, the rate of retention for remedial students will

increase.

Period of Study. Fall 2014 through Fall 2016 (three years)

Type of Study. Quantitative correlational predictive

Measurement. The correlation coefficient of improved retention of remedial students when

service learning is incorporated into the curriculum.

Variables. Predictive Variable: Service Learning. Criterion Variable: Retention

Participants. First-time freshmen cohorts from the following four-year public universities in

Illinois, that are required to take at least one remedial course in English, mathematics and/or

writing: Chicago State University, Eastern Illinois University, Governors State University,

Illinois State University, University of Illinois-Chicago, University of Illinois-Springfield,

Northeastern Illinois University, Northern Illinois University, South Illinois University-

Carbondale, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville and Western Illinois University.


Control Group. Freshmen enrolled in a remedial class that does not have a service learning

component.

Experimental Group. Freshmen enrolled in a remedial class that does have a service learning

component.

Method

The Vice President of Enrollment and the Director of the Basic Skills¹ unit at each

university will be sent a letter inviting them to participate in the study. Those that agree will

provide quantitative data on the 1) total freshman cohort; 2) remedial freshman cohort; and 3)

remedial course descriptions and syllabi. If a course is not specifically labeled as having a

service learning component, they will be ranked service learning vs. non-service learning based

on the definition of service learning by the Community Service Act of 1990². Informed consent

will be obtained from each student that agrees to complete an anonymous post-course

questionnaire rating their experience in a remedial course(s). Students will only be identified by

student ID number to track reenrollment figures, and will be kept strictly confidential.

The post-course questionnaire will be distributed to the experimental group by the

faculty, with complete instructions given. The questionnaire will consist of demographic

information, intention to re-enroll at the current institution the following fall semester, and

whether the student had ever participated in a service learning course before. Using a 5-point

strongly agree to strongly disagree response format students will be asked to rate their

experience in the service learning remedial course(s) on the following variables: 1) the service

learning component (SLC) provided for more peer interaction; 2) the SLC provided for more


faculty interaction; 3) the SLC increased course satisfaction; 4) the SLC increased perceived

learning; 5) the SLC increased comprehension of course material; 6) the SLC aided in the

development of critical thinking skills; 7) the SLC was relevant to the course; 8) the SLC was

beneficial to the client/community organization; 9) the SLC enhanced the students’ freshman

experience; and 10) the SLC resulted in the student planning to become more civically engaged.

The correlation coefficient will be analyzed for each university cohort as well as the total of

all cohorts. Pass/fail rates in both the control group and the experimental group will be requested

from the Registrars at the end of the spring 2015, 2016, and 2017 semesters. Subsequent

reenrollment data for these cohorts will be obtained in the fall of 2015, 2016 and 2017. The data

will be analyzed to determine if a service learning component did in fact result in persistence and

retention for those freshmen students requiring at least one remedial course.


Appendix

¹ Basic Skills is an all-encompassing term to refer to university departments that develop and manage remedial courses. ² The Community Service Act of 1990 defines service learning as: "a method under which students or participants learn and develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and meets the needs of a community; is coordinated with an elementary school, secondary school, institution of higher education, or community service program, and with the community; and helps foster civic responsibility; and that is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the students, or the educational components of the community service program in which the participants are enrolled; and provides structured time for the students or participants to reflect on the service experience."


References

ACT Inc., The condition of college & career readiness 2012. Iowa City, IA: ACT Inc.,

2012.

Alliance for Excellent Education (2006). Paying double: Inadequate high schools and

community college remediation. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent

Education, 2006, 3-6.

Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25.

Astin, A.W., Vogelesang, L.J., (2006). Understanding the effects of service-learning: A

study of students and faculty. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute,

UCLA.

Bautsch, B., (2013, February). Reforming remedial education. Washington, DC: National

Conference of State Legislatures.

Beach, R., Lundell, D.B., & Jung, H. (2002). Developmental college students’ negotiation

of social practices between peer, family, workplace, and university worlds. (CRDEUL

Monograph Exploring Urban Literacy and Developmental Education). Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota, General College.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women’s ways of


knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Berger, S. (2013). Connect2Complete: Linking student success with civic engagement. Diversity

& Democracy, 16(2), 19-21.

Bridgeland, J.M., Dilulio, J.J., & Morison, K.B. (2006). The silent epidemic report. Washington,

DC: Civic Enterprises.

Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Muthiah, R.N. (2010). The role of service-learning on the

retention of first-year students to second year. Michigan Journal of Community

Service Learning, Spring, 38-49.

Campus Compact (2008). How can engaged campuses improve student success in college.

Boston, MA. Campus Compact Research Brief #1 in the Building Engaged Campuses

series.

Chaves, C. (2006). Involvement, development, and retention: Theoretical foundations and

potential extensions for adult community college students. Community College Review,

34(2), 139-152.

Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Community Service Act of 1990, Public Law 101-610.

Cress, C.M. (2012). Civic engagement and student success: Leveraging multiple degrees of

Achievement. Diversity & Democracy, 15(3), 2-4.

Cress, C.M. (2004). Critical thinking development in service-learning activities: pedagogical

implications for critical being and action. Inquiry: Critical thinking across the

disciplines, 23, 8-93.

Di Tommaso, K. (2012). Developmental students: The challenge of peer relationships.

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(1), 941-954.


Howell, C.L. (2001). Facilitating responsibility for learning in adult community college students.

ERIC digest. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, ERIC Clearinghouse

for Community Colleges.

Keup, J.R. (2005). The impact of curricular interventions on intended second year re-

enrollment. Journal of College Student Retention, 7(1-2), 61-89.

Knowles, M.S. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf

Publishing.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kuh, G.D. et al. (2007) Connecting the dots.

http://www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/Connecting_the_Dots_Report.pdf.

Oudenhoven, B. (2002). Remediation at the community college: Pressing issues, uncertain

Solutions. New Directions for Community Colleges: Next Steps for the Community

College, 117, 35-44.

Prentice, G., & Robinson, G. (2010). Improving student learning outcomes with service learning.

Washington DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Rendón, L.I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning

and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33-51.

Robbins, C. (2012). Expanding service-learning in the humanities among first-generation,

Minority-population, and non-traditional students: A mixed-participation, mixed-

assessment model. Interdisciplinary Humanities, 29(3), 24-40.

Rochford, R.A. (2013). Service-learning for remedial reading and writing students. Community

College Journal of Research and Practice. 37(5), 345-355.


Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York: Atherton Press.

Savistz-Romer, M. and Bouffard, S. (2012). Ready, willing, and able: A developmental approach

to college access & success. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Schlossberg, N.K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In

D.C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community (New

Directions for Student Services, No. 48, pp. 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey

Simonet, D. (2008). Service-learning and academic success: The links to retention research.

Minnesota Campus Compact, May, 1-13.

Stanton, T.K., Giles, Jr., D.E., & Cruz, N.I. (1999). Service-learning: A movement’s pioneers

reflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Strong American Schools (2008). Diploma to nowhere. Washington, DC: Strong American

Schools.

Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student

leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-455.

Vogelesang, L.J. (2004). Diversity work and service-learning: Understanding campus

Dynamics. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 34-43.

the role of service learning in the retention of

Documents