Service Learning and Assessment: A Brief Overview Katherine Paschetto CNS 610: Assessment in Student Affairs Spring 2015

Objective of Session Objective: To establish the importance and difficulty of and discuss options for implementing an assessment of service learning offerings at an institution of higher education.

Session Outline I. What is Service Learning? II. Why is it Difficult to Assess? III. Why Should we Assess It? III. Options for Assessing First, we will define service learning and look at what it can provide to students. Then, we will explore why it’s difficult to assess service learning programs/models and discuss the importance of doing so anyway. Finally, we will discuss some options for developing and implementing assessment of service learning-models

What is service learning? “An organized educational experience that both meets needs of the community and fulfills learning objectives” (Steinke & Fitch, 2007). Based on the principles established by turn of the century philosophers John Dewey and William James. Institutes of higher education began to incorporate service learning into their curriculum around the 1980s. Steinke & Fitch (2007) define service learning as “an organized educational experience that both meets needs of the community and fulfills learning objectives.” While based on the principles established by turn of the century philosophers John Dewey and William James , service learning didn’t break into the realm of higher education until around the 1980s. Over the past twenty years, institutes of higher education have shown a “renewed commitment to the mission of preparing students for lives of active citizenship” (Terkla, O’Leary, Wilson, Diaz 2007).

What is service learning? Service learning fosters transferable skills such as: Critical Thinking Problem Solving Leadership Collaboration Communication Multicultural Competence Increased Self-Efficacy (Wilhite & Banset, 1998-99) The service learning model has been praised for teaching “the kind of thinking skills and knowledge application necessary for success outside academia” (Steinke & Fitch, 2007).

Why is it difficult to assess? Service learning is “a complex approach to teaching and learning” and therefore “needs and deserves approaches to assessment…that are capable of capturing that complexity” (Zhang et.al. 2011). Service learning projects often have multiple, multi-faceted outcomes, both intended and unexpected. Developing a comprehensive, all-encompassing assessment for service-learning projects is very difficult

Why should we assess it? Can highlight some of the strengths of the U.S. education system Can increase professional engagement with scholarly assessment and literature regarding service learning Bring service learning to the forefront of higher education discussion Provide data and knowledge that can help improve the quality of service learning programs and enhance student learning (Steinke & Fitch, 2007)

Options for Assessing Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model Developed in 1960’s to guide the U.S. inner city school district reform Can be used to guide comprehensive, systematic examination of social and educational projects Emphasizes “learning by doing” Best if implemented for the whole development process (planning, implementation, & evaluation) A 2011 article proposed adopting Daniel Stifflebeam’s context, input, process, and product evaluation model to develop, implement, and assess service learning projects The CIPP model was developed in the 60’s to guide the U.S. inner city school district reform. It can be used to guide comprehensive, systematic examination of social and educational projects and emphasizes “learning by doing,” which makes it rather ideal for projects like service learning However, it’s best if implemented for the whole development process, so using it to assess established service learning projects could be challenging.

Options for Assessing Preexisting Instruments for Assessing Cognitive Outcomes Instrument Knowledge Application Critical Thinking/ Problem Solving Intellectual Development Articulated Learning (AL) X Problem Solving Analysis Protocol (PSAP) Learning Environment Preferences (LEP) Measure of Intellectual Development (MID) There are several preexisting instruments that can be implemented to assess the cognitive outcomes of a service learning project. Steinke & Fitch compiled a list of a few examples, categorizing them by type of measure employed and the type of cognitive outcome the instrument measures. A sample of the identified instruments is visible here—reference their article for the full list. The applicability of each instrument to a specific service-learning program would, of course, depend on the learning objectives of that program and how they tie in to what each instrument measures.

Options for Assessing Assessing Program Satisfaction Establish goals for student and community satisfaction Transpose goals into measurable outcomes Survey both students and community constituents Compile results, restructure program accordingly if necessary Assessing program satisfaction is a little more simple than assessing cognitive outcomes. You can easily assess both student participant and the community entity they served satisfaction regarding the program. Developing the assessment is similar to any other assessment development. Establish goals regarding each constituents’ satisfaction, make those goals measurable outcomes, and survey the appropriate population (depending on the goals, one could employ several approaches like exit surveys, focus groups, etc.)

Thank You

References Steinke, P. & Fitch, P. (2007) Assessing service learning. Research & Practice in Assessment (2), 24-29. Terkla, D.G., O’Leary, L.S., Wilson,N.E., & Diaz, A. (2007). Civic engagement assessment: Linking activities to attitudes. Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education (19)3, 1-2,14-16. Wilhite, M. & Banset, L. (1998-99). Learning outside the box: Making connections between co-curricular activities and the curriculum. Essays on Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy (10)5. Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C., & Misulis, K. (2011). Using the Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluation Model (CIPP) as a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation, and assessment of service-learning programs. Journal of Higher Education, Outreach, and Engagement (15)4, 57-83.