1 / 19

The Effects of Engaged Learning on Student Academic, Personal, & Civic Development

The Effects of Engaged Learning on Student Academic, Personal, & Civic Development. Dana Natale Assistant Director, Center for Career Development and Community-Based Learning Courtney Hopkins Graduate Student, Department of Psychology Valerie Sessa

reynold
Download Presentation

The Effects of Engaged Learning on Student Academic, Personal, & Civic Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effects of Engaged Learning on Student Academic, Personal, & Civic Development Dana NataleAssistant Director, Center for Career Development and Community-Based Learning Courtney Hopkins Graduate Student, Department of Psychology Valerie Sessa Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology Montclair State University Bringing Theory to Practice 4th Annual National Working ConferenceJanuary 18-19, 2007New Orleans, Louisiana

  2. Research Questions: • Does engaged learning, in the form of service- learning, impact the academic and civic development, and well- being of students? • What is it about engaged learning that impacts the academic and civic development, and well-being of students?

  3. Research Design/Measures Quantitative Data • Quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group design • Freshman students • Pre-Test & Post-Test Measures consisting of standardized questions about participant’s well-being, as well as their academic and civic development • CES-D: Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression • Satisfaction with Life • AUDIT: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Qualitative Data • Will use critical reflections-experimental group only • Will offer insight into any changes we see in the experimental group as a result of the service-learning

  4. Experimental Total student=80/176 Consented=68/153 Completed=63/132 (lost 5 btw pre & post) Final sample=63 Control Total students=96/176 Consented=85/153 Completed=69/132 (lost 16 btw pre & post) Final Sample=69 Sample

  5. Experimental Group Race W=30 NW=33 Sex* M=17 F=46 Average Age=18.5 Average H.S. GPA=3.12 Average SAT=1408 Living Arrangements* Campus=41 Off-Campus=21 Missing=1 Note 2/3 of this group did not meet MSU admission standards. Control Group Race W=42 NW=27 Sex* M=27 F=42 Average Age=18.5 Average H.S. GPA=3.04 Average SAT=1482 Living Arrangements* Campus=26 Off-Campus=42 Missing=1 Sample Demographics

  6. Caveats Regarding Analyses • Received post-test data right before winter break • These are “preliminary analyses.” We plan to add more data and proceed much more slowly before drawing any firm conclusions. • Concentrated on Well-being and Civic Development measures (not Academic development).

  7. Student Well-being • CES-D • Life Satisfaction Survey • AUDIT

  8. Does service-learning impact thelevel of depression of students? • No, it does not appear to • CES-D • Step-wise regression equation • Step 1: Regressed CES-D post-test on control variables (Sex, living arrangements, CES-D pre-test): R2=.40, p=.000; only CES-D pretest was significant (ß=.62, p=.000). • Step 2: Entered group type (experimental vs control): ΔR2=.01, n.s. • Service-learning during the semester did not appear to make a difference in the level of depression of the students surveyed.

  9. Does service-learning impact thelife satisfaction of students? • No, it did not appear to • Life Satisfaction • Step-wise regression equation • Step 1: Regressed Life Satisfaction post-test on control variables (sex, living arrangements, Life Satisfaction pre-test): R2=.41, p=.000; only Life Satisfaction pretest was significant (ß=.64, p=.000). • Step 2: Entered group type (experimental vs control): ΔR2=.00, n.s. • Service-learning during the semester did not appear to make a difference in the life satisfaction of the students surveyed.

  10. Does service-learning impact thedrinking habits of students? • Yes, to a small extent • AUDIT • Step-wise regression equation • Step 1: Regressed AUDIT post-test on control variables (Sex, ethnicity, living arrangements, AUDIT pre-test): R2=.75, p=.000; only AUDIT pretest was significant (ß=.86, p=.000). • Step 2: Entered group type (experimental vs control): ΔR2=.01, p=.01, ß=.111, p=.01). • Service learning during the semester did appear to make a difference in the drinking habits of the students surveyed. Drinking among students engaged in service learning slightly increased over the course of the semester.

  11. Student Civic Development • Created 3 sets of scales (from survey, using principle components analysis) • Behavior: • General volunteering • Child-centered volunteering • Health Education volunteering • Engaged in discussion • Religious-based volunteering • Vulnerable population volunteering • Attitudes: • General positive/negative • “Blame the Victim” • Perceived Importance: • Social justice • Socio-economic • Education

  12. Does service-learning impact student civic behavior? • Yes. • 6 behavior variables: General, Child-centered, Health Ed., Discussion, Religious-based, Vulnerable populations. • 6 separate stepwise regression equations • Step 1: Regressed post-test behavior variables on control variables (Sex, living arrangements, and pre-test scores). • Step 2: Entered group type (experimental vs control)

  13. Does service-learning impact student civic behavior? (continued) • General volunteering* • Step 1: R2=.62, p=.000; only pretest was significant, ß=.76, p=.000 • Step 2: ΔR2=.17, p=.000; ß=.44, p=.000 • Child-centered volunteering* • Step 1: R2=.21, p=.000; only pretest was significant, ß=.41, p=.000 • Step 2: ΔR2=.25, p=.000; ß=.51, p=.000 • Health Education volunteering* • Step 1: R2=.15, p=.000; living arrangement and pretest were significant, ßs=.18, p=.03 and .37, p=.000 • Step 2: ΔR2=.12, p=.000; ß=.35, p=.000 • Engaged in discussion • Step 1: R2=.44, p=.000; only pretest was significant, ß=.65, p=.000 • Step 2: ΔR2=n.s. • Religious-based volunteering • Step 1: R2=.44, p=.000; only pretest was significant, ß=.67, p=.000 • Step 2: ΔR2=n.s. • Vulnerable population volunteering • Step 1: R2=.32, p=.000; only pretest was significant, ß=.57, p=.000 • Step 2: ΔR2=n.s.

  14. Does service-learning impact the student attitudes toward civic issues? • No, it does not appear to • 2 attitude variables: General positive/negative and “Blame the Victim.” • 2 separate stepwise regression equations • Step 1: Regressed post-test attitude variables on control variables (Sex, Ethnicity, living arrangements, and pre-test scores). • Step 2: Entered group type (experimental vs. control) • Neither of the 2 regressions were significant.

  15. Does service-learning impact the perceived importance of civic issues? • No, it does not appear to • 3 importance variables: Social justice, Education, and Socio-Economic. • 3 separate stepwise regression equations • Step 1: Regressed post-test importance variables on control variables (Sex, Ethnicity, living arrangements, and pre-test scores). • Step 2: Entered group type (experimental vs control) • None of the 3 regressions were significant.

  16. Discussion • In our students, we saw clear changes in behaviors: • Well-being: Slight increase in drinking (AUDIT). • Civic Development: Increase in volunteering behaviors including general, child-centered, and health education. • In our students, we did not see changes in “psychic” measures: • Well-being: No changes in Depression (CES-D) or Life Satisfaction. • Civic Development: No changes in attitudes or perceived importance.

  17. Discussion (continued) • Data “makes sense.” • Leads us to additional questions: • Will the behavior changes continue/evolve/progress/increase over time? • Will behavior changes lead to attitudinal changes?

  18. Learnings • Inclusion of the IRB in all phases of project development greatly improved research design and facilitated IRB approval. • Providing invited faculty members with sufficient information regarding the study and how it would benefit both the institution and the students facilitated recruitment of students. • Data was collected during class time, contributing to our high response rate. We had the biggest loss of students (6 students refused) in the one class where we collected data after class time. • A total incentivization of $20 ($10 for pre & $10 for post) greatly increased participation. • Multiple reminders of the date on which the post-test would be distributed (flyers, class visits, emails) decreased attrition. • We were surprised, and a bit disappointed, to learn students were not as interested as we expected in self-scoring the AUDIT, CES-D, and Satisfaction with Life measures.

  19. For More Information • Contact: • Dana Natale • nataled@mail.montclair.edu • Courtney Hopkins • hopkinsc1@mail.montclair.edu • Valerie Sessa • sessav@mail.montclair.edu

More Related