Tim Knapp, Chantal Levesque-Bristol, and Bradley Fisher Missouri State University

1. Service-learning’s impact on undergraduates’ motivation to learn, commitment to future civic engagement, and civic skills Tim Knapp, Chantal Levesque-Bristol, and Bradley Fisher Missouri State University

2. Background to the study • Missouri State University’s 1995 state-wide mission in public affairs • The Citizenship and Service-Learning Program • The research team • Internal grants to support the research in spring, 2005

3. Broad Research Questions: • Can service-learning increase students’ intrinsic motivation to learn? 1. If so, how can that positive outcome achieved? • Can service-learning strengthen students’ commitment to future civic participation? • 1. If, so what program features are associated with commitment to future civic participation? • 2. If so, what processes mediate the effect of service-learning on commitment to future civic engagement? • Can service-learning enhance the development of students’ civic skills?

4. Getting Started • Summer, 2005, scales were located to measure motivation to learn, civic skills, and self-efficacy • Fall, 2005 pilot test of survey and modification of civic skills scale from six dimensions to five

5. Research Design and Implementation • One-group, pretest-posttest quasi-experiment • Limitations of the design • Participants • Types of service-learning courses at Missouri State University • Time1 and Time2 surveys

6. Service-learning and students’ motivation to learn • Building on Self-Determination theory in psychology, we established two assumptions: • Experiential service-learning outside of the classroom can improve students’ perception of the course learning environment, and • Improved perceptions of the learning environment can strengthen students’ positive forms of motivation to learn.

7. Motivation to Learn Scales • The 18-item State Academic Motivation Scale measured six levels and forms of motivation to learn: Three negative forms of motivation, and three positive forms of motivation. • Three forms of motivation are considered negative, because individuals act only because they feel external pressures. • Three forms of motivation are viewed as positive, because people act based upon their own volition.

8. Amotivation represents the absence of motivation when behavior is done without a purpose • External regulation (extrinsic motivation) occurs when actions are carried out to achieve a reward or avoid a negative consequence • Introjection is the motivation to act out of a sense of guilt

9. Identification represents behaviors performed because they are recognized as useful and important by an individual • Integration is the motivation to engage in behaviors that are important to the individual’s self-identity (as a learner) • Intrinsic Motivation occurs when people act simply for the pleasure or enjoyment of it

10. The 15-item Learning Climate Questionnaire assessed students’ perception of the positive or negative nature of the learning environment. • The learning environment usually is perceived to be positive when it supports three psychological needs of students: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

11. Autonomy signifies choice, not independence. An autonomous learning environment has built in choices and options for students • Competence is a sense of mastery and ability to solve problems • Relatedness is a sense of being connected with others (students, the instructor, or people at the placement site) in a common endeavor

12. Aggregate “no effects” finding • Overall, aggregate results for the entire sample did not show a broad positive impact of service-learning on students’ motivation to learn • There were no significant increases in any of the positive motivations (intrinsic motivation, integration, and identification) and no significant decrease is the negative forms of motivation (introjection, external regulation and amotivation) from the beginning to the end of the semester.

13. Therefore, service-learning as a teaching technique does not always or automatically lead to improvements in student’s motivation to learn. • However, the aggregate results that show that across-the-board service-learning did not have the expected positive effects on students may be misleading

14. The application of service-learning varied greatly across the nearly 100 courses that subjects were enrolled in. • Thus, the learning environment created in those courses likely varied widely. • The “no effect” outcome may have resulted from the heterogeneity of forms (integrated and component classes) and applications of this pedagogy.

15. Bibliography • Levesque-Bristol, C., Knapp, T, and Fisher, B. 2010. The effectiveness of service-learning: It’s not always what you think. Journal of Experiential Education 33, 3 (Fall). • Knapp, T., Fisher, B., and Levesque-Bristol, C. 2010. Service-learning’s impact on college students’ commitment to future civic engagement, self-efficacy, and social empowerment. Journal of Community Practice 18, 2-3, 233-251.

16. Table 1: Changes in Students’ Civic Skills DifferencePairMeanin MeanSig. (2 tail) PS1 37.549 PS2 37.544 - .005 .984CA1 28.638CA2 28.656 .018 .940PA1 20.813PA2 21.103 .290 .186DV1 19.456DV2 19.219 -.237 .184SJ1 8.757SJ2 9.187 .430* .011 PS = Problem Solving and Interpersonal Skills, CA = Civic Action, PA = Political Awareness, DV = Diversity, and SJ =Social Justice. 1= pre-service score, and 2 = post-service score