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: jjohns@govst.edu

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to The Role of Service Learning in the Retention of

Similar to The Role of Service Learning in the Retention of (20)

The Role of Service Learning in the Retention of