The Impact of Service Learning Course Characteristics on University Students' Learning Outcomes.
Year: 2014

Undergraduate students 'reports of their service learning course experiences and their gains fivm participation in those courses were investigated with a sample of 250 students at Tulane University. The students completed a survey in which they rated their service learning courses in terms of three aspects: Value of Service, Focus on Service, and Opportunities for Reflection. These course attributes predicted students' reported outcomes from service learning, including Learning about the Community, Academic Learning, Gains in Problem solving and Leadership Skills, and Satisfaction with the University. A Social Change orientation in the service learning course contributed independently to the prediction of outcomes. Replicating an earlier study, a "match" between student preferences for service orientations and the nature of service experienced was shown to predict service learning course outcomes for students who expressed a positive orientation preference. In a previous study, Moely and Ilustre (2013a) showed that longitudinal changes in certain civic attitudes and knowledge were related to the experiences that students had at a university characterized by a strong commitment to community engagement. In this paper, we attempt to identify aspects of students' experiences, especially related to their service learning courses, that were important for learning outcomes. The importance of students' own preferences for different kinds of service was also investigated. The students' experiences in service learning were examined through a consideration of the quality of their service learning courses. The National Youth Leadership Council has published standards for high quality service learning for Grades K through 12 (Billig, 2007) The eight "promising practices" for K 12 service learning that Billig describes are curriculum integration, ongoing cognitively challenging reflection activities, youth voice, respect for diversity, meaningful service, progress and process monitoring, duration of service learning activity, and reciprocal partnerships. Many scholars have addressed the issue of high quality service learning in higher education, but there is still limited research on the effects of course characteristics on student outcomes. Bringle, Hatcher, and Muthiah (2010) conducted one of the few efforts to date to measure service learning course quality. They were interested in whether service learning participation might affect retention in college and to study this, compared the effects of service learning participation with that of enrollment in non service learning courses. To index quality for both service learning and non service learning courses, they developed a 24 item "Quality of the Learning Environment" scale. Items concerned the extent of peer and faculty interaction, course satisfaction, perceived learning, degree of active learning, and personal relevance. They found that course quality was important as a mediator of service learning effects on students' plans for continued study at the university and their actual re enrollment the following year. Furco and Moely (2006) developed a 12 item scale to measure course quality, aimed more specifically at service learning. They found, in a large, multi campus study, that course quality was predictive of service learning outcomes reported by college students. The same scale was used in a longitudinal study at Tulane (Moely Ilustre, 2011, 2013a) from which the data for the present study were derived. In the present study, factor analysis and content analysis were used to group the course quality items into three categories, providing a more detailed description of service learning course quality: Value of Service, Focus on Service, and Opportunities for Reflection. Value of Service reflects Billig's category "meaningful service" but adds self evaluation items about how well the service was performed. Focus on Service includes integration of the service component with the academic course content, similar to Billig's "curriculum integration, " as well as preparation of both students and community agencies for the student's service.