View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Faculty Engagement in Service-Learning & Community-Based Research
WRCCC Survey Data Summary
Weber State University
Fall 2009
The Western Region Campus Compact Consortium (WRCCC)—including the California, Colorado, Hawaii Pacific Islands, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington Campus Compacts—conducted a survey exploring how higher education faculty bring involvement in their local communities to their work as educators and how this involvement affects them. The survey collected data on a variety of dimensions, including:
(a) how faculty are involved in service-learning and/or community-based research; (b) the nature of service-learning and community-based research practices, such as teaching and
reflection strategies; (c) the specific elements that faculty members identify as challenging to and supportive of their use
of service-learning and/or community-based research; (d) student learning and development outcomes that faculty expect; and (e) the personal and professional impacts faculty experience due to their use of service-learning
and/or community-based research. The survey, formally known as the Faculty Engagement Survey, was implemented on 47 campuses across the region between February and April 2009. This report summarizes the collective responses for the entire set of respondents (N=2,626), and also breaks out a separate report for the Weber State University faculty (N=111) who participated in the Faculty Engagement Survey. The report is organized into five sections:
• an executive summary, • survey respondent demographics for the region and Weber State University, • community-based activities for the region and Weber State University, • service-learning and community-based research respondents’ answers to questions about their
work, and • the kinds of information and support that may help non-service-learning and non-community-
based research faculty incorporate service-learning and/or community-based research into their work.
For additional information, please contact RaeLyn Axlund at raelyn.axlund@wwu.edu or 360.650.2325. The Western Region Campus Compact Consortium (WRCCC) research team consists of RaeLyn Axlund, Washington Campus Compact; Dr. Tanya Renner, Hawaii Pacific Islands Campus Compact; and Dr. Christine Cress, California Campus Compact. Additional assistance was provided by Jennifer McWilliams, Washington Campus Compact. Washington Campus Compact served as the WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Project lead, with additional direction from the California and Hawaii Pacific Islands Campus Compacts. This work was supported by Learn and Serve America grant funds from the Corporation for National & Community Service. Any opinions or points of view expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Corporation or Learn and Serve America.
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Western Region Campus Compact Consortium (WRCCC)—comprising the California, Colorado, Hawaii Pacific Islands, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington Campus Compacts—is a regional network of higher education faculty, administrators, and staff who strive to advance service-learning and community engagement on our campuses. With grant support from the Corporation for National & Community Service, the WRCCC conducted a survey exploring how higher education faculty bring involvement in their local communities to their work as educators and how this involvement affects them. The Faculty Engagement Survey was conducted on 47 campuses across the region between February and April 2009. The WRCCC designed the Faculty Engagement Survey to explore two primary types of engagement: service-learning (SL) and community-based research (CBR). While SL is a national movement with varying definitions and approaches, for the purposes of this survey, the following definitions were used:
• Service-learning engages students in community service activities with intentional academic learning goals and opportunities for critical self-reflection that connect to their academic disciplines.
• Community-based research involves collaboration between trained researchers and community members in the design and implementation of research projects aimed at meeting community-identified needs (Cress, Collier, & Reitenaur, 2005).
All faculty at participating campuses were invited to participate in the Faculty Engagement Survey. Respondents who self-identified as faculty who use service-learning and/or community-based research in their courses were asked a set of questions about their experiences. Respondents who indicated that they did not currently use SL and/or CBR within their classes but were interested in exploring this option in the future were asked to identify the types of information and support that would help them take the first step. Each individual campus with 20 or more responses can use the institution-specific and Western Region data to compare their own service-learning and community-based research practices with those across the region. These data are intended to support institutions as they prepare for accreditation, engage in strategic planning, and integrate effective service-learning and research methods. Participating Campuses These 47 campuses across the region participated in the WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey. California: Cal Poly Pomona, California State University Channel Islands, California State University Dominguez Hills, California State University Monterey Bay, California State University Sacramento, Dominican University of California, Loyola Marymount University, Saint Mary’s College of California Colorado: Colorado College, Naropa University, Regis University, San Juan College (affiliated campus located in New Mexico), University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 2
Hawaii: Hawaii Pacific University, Honolulu Community College, Kapiolani Community College, Kauai Community College, Leeward Community College, Maui Community College, University of Hawaii West Oahu, Windward Community College Idaho: Boise State University, Lewis-Clark State College, University of Idaho Oregon: University of Portland, Western Oregon University Utah: Southern Utah University, Utah Valley University, Weber State University Washington: Antioch University Seattle; Cascadia Community College; Central Washington University; Clark College; Edmonds Community College; Everett Community College; Gonzaga University; Olympic College; Seattle Pacific University; Seattle University; Shoreline Community College; Saint Martin’s University; The Evergreen State College; Washington State University; Washington State University, Spokane; Washington State University, Vancouver; Western Washington University; Whitworth University Key Findings Who responded to this survey? More than 2,500 faculty members and nearly 100 administrators responded to the survey. From adjunct to full professor, all faculty categories were well represented. Teaching was the primary function of most faculty respondents. There were about five women for every four men, and nearly nine out of ten were White. SL had been used by less than half, and not quite one-fourth were engaged in CBR. About three in ten wanted to learn more about service-learning, and almost four out of ten indicated an interest in learning how to do community-based research. Where and when are faculty using service-learning? A wide range of disciplines was reported, including social sciences, education, business, computer sciences, communications, humanities, science and math, health professions, and vocational/technology programs. What community issues are being addressed? The top three community issues addressed by both service-learning and community-based research were education/literacy, cultural awareness, and the environment. Which reflection strategies are faculty using? The two most popular reflection strategies were the same for both service-learning and community-based research faculty: (1) student participation in structured group reflections/discussions; and (2) written final reflection papers. According to faculty, what student learning and development outcomes occur frequently?
• Course-specific: engagement with course content, application of course content, deeper understanding of course content, and knowledge of community issues
• Intrapersonal and developmental: maturity, adaptability, compassion, values/attitudes, and confidence
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 3
• Interpersonal: respect (giving and/or receiving), collaboration skills, and oral communication • Cognitive and behavioral: critical thinking, problem solving, and reflective judgment
What impacts have service-learning faculty experienced?
• Professional impacts: “My awareness of the community has expanded,” “My relationship with the community has improved,” “My relationships with students have improved,” and “I have become a more effective educator.”
• Personal impacts: “I have experienced a sense of accomplishment,” “I have been inspired,” and “I feel personal satisfaction.”
How are faculty using SL and CBR as the scholarship of engaged pedagogy? Respondents indicated that they chose specific service projects in order to engage students, and because the projects were relevant to the course/subject and academic objectives. The publication rate for community-based research respondents was more than twice that of the service-learning respondents; however, both were low, with community-based research faculty reporting about 35%. There was substantially greater involvement in presentations, with about one in three service-learning respondents and about one in two community-based research respondents reporting that they had presented at one or more conferences. What major obstacles/challenges have faculty identified? The top two problems identified by both service-learning and community-based research respondents were lack of time for faculty and lack of time for students. Community-based research respondents also indicated lack of funding as a major challenge. What types of support have been most valuable for developing and implementing service-learning and community-based research? The most valuable source of support for both service-learning and community-based research respondents was creating connections/networking in the community. Also mentioned as sources of support were networking on campus, exposure to best practices, and positive campus attitudes toward service-learning. Both groups said they would like increased support for grant writing and logistics. Respondents who are not doing service-learning or community-based research, but would like to, indicated a need for basic written information, access to community contacts, and information about community needs. Summary of Key Findings
• Faculty affirm that service-learning is effective pedagogy. • While faculty in both service-learning and community-based research publish in the areas of
community engagement and pedagogy, there is room for growth. • To begin and to continue using engaged pedagogies such as service-learning and community-
based research, faculty need logistical support. • There is a high need for basic information and support for faculty who would like to start
integrating service-learning and/or community-based research into their teaching, research, and scholarship.
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 4
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
Position Question #52: Which of the following best describes your position?
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency (N=2159)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
(N=111) Adjunct Professor 14.5% 18.9% Assistant Professor 21.4% 21.6% Associate Professor 22.1% 26.1% Full Professor 23.5% 22.5% Instructor 15.1% 7.2% Administrator 3.4% 3.6%
Adjunct Professor 14.5%
Assistant Professor 21.4%
Associate Professor 22.1%
Full Professor 23.5%
Instructor 15.1%
Administrator 3.4%
Adjunct Professor 18.9%
Assistant Professor 21.6%
Associate Professor 26.1%
Full Professor 22.5%
Instructor 7.2%
Administrator 3.6%
Figure 1a: Position – Western Region Response Frequencies Figure 1b: Position – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 5
Hours Question #53: Which of the following best describes your hours?
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency (N=2157)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
(N=111) Full-time 81.5% 80.2% Part-time 18.5% 19.8%
Full‐time 81.5%
Part‐time 18.5%
Full‐time 80.2%
Part‐time 19.8%
Figure 2a: Hours – Western Region Response Frequencies Figure 2b: Hours – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 6
Primary Emphasis Question #54: Which of the following best describes your primary emphasis?
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency (N=2146)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
(N=111) Administrative 8.2% 8.1% Clinical 2.5% 1.8% Research 6.2% 0.0% Teaching 83.1% 90.1%
Administrative 8.2%
Clinical 2.5%
Research 6.2%
Teaching 83.1%
Administrative 8.1%
Clinical 1.8%
Teaching 90.1%
Figure 3a: Primary Emphasis – Western Region Response Frequencies Figure 3b: Primary Emphasis – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
Years Employed Question #55: Total number of years employed in higher education?
Western Region
Response Average (N=2150)
Weber State U
Response Average (N=110)
15 14
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 7
Gender Question #56: Which of the following best describes your gender?
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency (N=2140)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
(N=109) Female 53.7% 56.9% Male 42.3% 42.2% Other 3.9% 0.9%
Female 53.7%
Male 42.3%
Other 3.9%
Female 56.9%
Male 42.2%
Other 0.9%
Figure 4a: Gender – Western Region Response Frequencies Figure 4b: Gender – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 8
Ethnicity Question #57: Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency (N=2115)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
(N=110) American Indian or Alaskan Native 2.1% 1.8% Asian 6.1% 2.7% Black or African American 1.4% 0.9% Hispanic or Latino 4.3% 3.6% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.2% 0.0% White 85.8% 92.7% Other (please specify): 3.9% 1.8%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 2.1%
Asian 6.1%
Black or African American 1.4%
Hispanic or Latino 4.3%
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander 1.2%
White 85.8%
Other 3.9% American Indian or Alaskan
Native, 1.8%
Asian, 2.7% Black or African
American, 0.9%
Hispanic or Latino, 3.6%
White, 92.7%
Other, 1.8%
Figure 5a: Ethnicity – Western Region Response Frequencies Figure 5b: Ethnicity – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 9
COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES
Activities Question #1: Have you involved your students in any of the following activities? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency (N=2132)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
(N=82) Collaboration with P-12 education 34.4% 52.4% Community service projects 53.4% 63.4% Exposure to community partners through guest lectures 60.3% 57.3% Internships, practicum, clinicals 55.5% 64.6% Research with community partners 27.8% 30.5% Student teaching (P-12) 17.3% 40.2% Working with for-profit groups 19.9% 14.6% Working with nonprofit agencies 43.2% 42.7% Working with government agencies or city, county, state, public officials 33.3% 35.4%
Other (please specify): 8.2% 8.5%
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 10
34.4%
53.4%
60.3%
55.5%
27.8%
17.3%
19.9%
43.2%
33.3%
8.2%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Collabo
ratio
n with
P‐12
education
Commun
ity service projects
Expo
sure to
com
mun
ity
partne
rs th
rough guest
lectures
Internships, practicum
, clinicals
Research with
com
mun
ity
partne
rs
Stud
ent teaching (P‐12)
Working
with
for‐profit grou
ps
Working
with
non
profit
agen
cies
Working
with
governm
ent
agen
cies or city, cou
nty, state,
public officials
Other
Figure 6a: Activities – Western Region Response Frequencies
52.4% 63.4%
57.3%
64.6%
30.5% 40.2%
14.6%
42.7%
35.4%
8.5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Collabo
ratio
n with
P‐12
education
Commun
ity service projects
Expo
sure to
com
mun
ity
partne
rs th
rough guest
lectures
Internships, practicum
, clinicals
Research with
com
mun
ity
partne
rs
Stud
ent teaching (P‐12)
Working
with
for‐profit grou
ps
Working
with
non
‐profit
agen
cies
Working
with
governm
ent
agen
cies or city, cou
nty, state,
public officials
Other
Figure 6b: Activities – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 11
Teaching Strategies Question #2: Which of the following teaching strategies have you used in the past year? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency (N=2585)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
(N=111) Blackboard/other online course software 65.9% 55.9% Class discussions 95.0% 98.2% Collaborative projects 71.9% 66.7% Discussions on civic responsibility 38.5% 39.6% Discussions on local political issues 37.8% 37.8% Discussions on local social issues 47.4% 51.4% Extensive lecturing 50.4% 57.7% Final exams 69.0% 69.4% Final papers 68.5% 68.5% Grading on a curve 17.7% 15.3% Group decision making 52.5% 56.8% Multiple choice exams 48.5% 59.5% Portfolios/ePortfolios 28.9% 30.6% Quizzes 60.8% 68.5% Readings on civic responsibility 23.9% 24.3% Readings on racial and ethnic issues 43.4% 37.8% Readings on women and gender issues 39.1% 35.1% Reflective journals 46.1% 45.9% Required class attendance 62.7% 56.8% Student evaluations of each other’s work 47.1% 41.4% Student presentations 80.0% 72.1% Student-developed activities 35.8% 38.7% Student-selected topics for course content 34.6% 31.5% Written essays/papers 77.2% 74.8% Other (please specify): 14.4% 11.7%
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 12
65.9%
95.0%
71.9%
69.0%
68.5%
52.5% 60.8%
62.7%
80.0%
77.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Blackboard/other on
line course softw
are
Class discussion
s
Collabo
rative
projects
Final exams
Final papers
Group
decision
making
Quizzes
Requ
ired
class
attend
ance
Stud
ent
presen
tatio
ns
Written
essays/papers
Figure 7a: Most Prominent Teaching Strategies – Western Region Response Frequencies
98.2%
66.7%
57.7% 69
.4%
68.5%
56.8%
59.5% 68.5%
72.1%
74.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Class discussion
s
Collabo
rative
projects
Extensive lecturing
Final exams
Final papers
Group
decision
making
Multip
le cho
ice
exam
s
Quizzes
Stud
ent
presen
tatio
ns
Written
essays/papers
Figure 7b: Most Prominent Teaching Strategies – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 13
Service-Learning Question #3: Have you incorporated service-learning into any of your courses? Definition: Service-learning engages students in community service activities with intentional academic learning goals and opportunities for critical reflection that connect to their academic disciplines.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency (N=2626)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
(N=111) Yes 42.8% 42.3% No, but I’m interested 31.4% 34.2% No, and I don’t intend to 21.2% 21.6% I don’t know 4.6% 1.8%
Yes 42.8%
No, but I'm interested 31.4%
No, and I don't intend to 21.2%
I don't know 4.6%
Yes 42.3%
No, but I'm interested 34.2%
No, and I don't intend to 21.6%
I don't know 1.8%
Figure 8a: Service-Learning – Western Region Response Frequencies Figure 8b: Service-Learning – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 14
Community-Based Research Question #33: Have you incorporated community-based research into any of your courses and/or into your own scholarship? Definition: Community-based research involves collaboration between trained researchers and community members in the design and implementation of research projects aimed at meeting community-identified needs.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency (N=2322)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
(N=111) Yes 22.9% 20.7% No, but I’m interested 38.8% 40.5% No, and I don’t intend to 31.4% 30.6% I don’t know 7.0% 8.1%
Yes 22.9%
No, but I'm interested 38.8%
No, and I don't intend to 31.4%
I don't know 7.0%
Yes 20.7%
No, but I'm interested 40.5%
No, and I don't intend to 30.6%
I don't know 8.1%
Figure 9a: Community-Based Research – Figure 9b: Community-Based Research – Western Region Response Frequencies Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 15
SERVICE-LEARNING & COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH FACULTY RESPONSES
Decision to Incorporate Question #4: How important were each of the following components in your decision to incorporate service-learning into your courses? Survey respondents were asked to respond using a three-point scale with the following values: “a major reason” (three points), “a minor reason” (two points), and “not a reason” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=974)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=48) To create a richer classroom environment 2.70 2.63 To improve student learning 2.88 2.88 To prepare students for lifelong community engagement 2.72 2.77 To provide assistance/support to the community 2.67 2.69 To create/produce new knowledge 2.55 2.65 To improve my teaching 2.10 2.10 To receive professional recognition 1.31 1.23 To receive faculty incentive money 1.10 1.11 To receive monetary resources to support my course(s) 1.16 1.19 To try something new 1.87 1.81
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 16
2.70 2.88
2.72
2.67
2.55
2.10
1.31
1.10 1.16
1.87
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
To create a richer classroom
en
vironm
ent
To im
prove stud
ent learning
To prepare stude
nts for
lifelon
g commun
ity
engagemen
t
To provide
assistance/sup
port to
the
commun
ity
To create/prod
uce ne
w
know
ledge
To im
prove my teaching
To re
ceive profession
al
recognition
To re
ceive faculty
incentive
mon
ey
To re
ceive mon
etary
resources to sup
port m
y course(s)
To try something
new
Figure 10a: Decision to Incorporate – Western Region Rating Averages
2.63 2.88
2.77
2.69
2.65
2.10
1.23
1.11 1.19
1.81
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
To create a richer classroom
en
vironm
ent
To im
prove stud
ent learning
To prepare stude
nts for
lifelon
g commun
ity
engagemen
t
To provide
assistance/sup
port to
the
commun
ity
To create/prod
uce ne
w
know
ledge
To im
prove my teaching
To re
ceive profession
al
recognition
To re
ceive faculty
incentive
mon
ey
To re
ceive mon
etary
resources to sup
port m
y course(s)
To try something
new
Figure 10b: Decision to Incorporate – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 17
Exposure Question #5: When you first became involved in service-learning, how did you hear about it? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=962)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=47) I attended a service-learning training/event offered on my campus. 30.9% 36.2% I attended a service-learning training/event offered in my community. 3.6% 6.4%
I attended a Campus Compact event. 7.9% 23.4% I visited my campus Teaching & Learning Center. 10.0% 14.9% My colleague(s) encouraged me to try service-learning. 32.1% 40.4% My student(s) wanted to do service-learning. 8.7% 8.5% I started using service-learning on my own. 46.7% 44.7% Other (please specify): 20.6% 17.0%
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 18
30.9%
3.6% 7.9% 10.0%
32.1%
8.7%
46.7%
20.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I atten
ded a service‐learning
training/event offered
on my
campu
s.
I atten
ded a service‐learning
training/event offered
in m
y commun
ity.
I atten
ded a Campu
s Co
mpact event.
I visite
d my campu
s Teaching
& Learning Ce
nter.
My colleague
(s) e
ncou
raged
me to try service‐learning.
My stud
ent(s) wanted to do
service‐learning.
I started
using
service‐
learning
on my ow
n.
Other
Figure 11a: Exposure – Western Region Response Frequencies
36.2%
6.4%
23.4%
14.9%
40.4%
8.5%
44.7%
17.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I atten
ded a service‐learning
training/event offered
on my
campu
s.
I atten
ded a service‐learning
training/event offered
in m
y commun
ity.
I atten
ded a Campu
s Co
mpact event.
I visite
d my campu
s Teaching
& Learning Ce
nter.
My colleague
(s) e
ncou
raged
me to try service‐learning.
My stud
ent(s) wanted to do
service‐learning.
I started
using
service‐
learning
on my ow
n.
Other
Figure 11b: Exposure – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 19
Year Began Question #6: In what year did you begin incorporating service-learning into your courses? and Question #34: In what year did you begin incorporating community-based research into your courses?
Western Region
Response Average
SL Faculty (N=936)
Western Region
Response Average
CBR Faculty (N=431)
Weber State U
Response Average
SL Faculty (N=46)
Weber State U
Response Average
CBR Faculty (N=23)
2000 2000 1999 2002 Number of Courses Question #7: How many of your courses have incorporated service-learning? and Question # 35: How many of your courses have incorporated community-based research?
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Average
SL Faculty (N=944)
Western Region
Response Average
CBR Faculty (N=432)
Weber State U
Response Average
SL Faculty (N=47)
Weber State U
Response Average
CBR Faculty (N=21)
In the past year, how many courses did you teach? 5.68 5.05 8.19 5.95
Of these, how many of your courses during the past year have incorporated service-learning?
2.58 1.77 3.00 1.71
Approximately how many service-learning courses have you taught since you began teaching?
16.06 10.47 18.51 10.81
Number of Students Question #8: Approximately how many students participated in service-learning through your course(s) from August 2007 to August 2008?
Western Region
Response Average
SL Faculty (N=927)
Weber State U
Response Average
SL Faculty (N=47)
56.75 69.57
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 20
Number of Hours Question #9: About how many hours did your students spend doing service-learning from August 2007 to August 2008? For example, if 10 students served 4 hours per week for 10 weeks, then 10 x 4 x 10 = 400 hours.
Western Region
Response Average
SL Faculty (N=884)
Weber State U
Response Average
SL Faculty (N=45)
1717.24 3291.16 Courses/Fields Question #10: Into which courses/fields have you incorporated service-learning? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=956)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=47) Business/Management/Marketing/Advertising 9.2% 6.4% Communications 9.0% 10.6% Computer Sciences 2.1% 4.3% Cross-Cultural Relations/International Education 10.1% 10.6% Education 22.4% 34.0% Engineering 1.6% 2.1% Health Professions 18.0% 23.4% Humanities 16.1% 14.9% Law/Legal Studies 3.3% 0.0% Leadership 6.0% 4.3% Math 1.6% 0.0% Sciences 6.6% 10.6% Social Sciences 23.2% 17.0% Urban Planning 2.4% 2.1% Vocational/Technical 4.0% 4.3% Other (please specify): 24.1% 21.3%
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 21
9.2%
9.0%
10.1% 22.4%
18.0%
16.1%
6.0%
6.6%
23.2%
24.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Busine
ss/M
anagem
ent/
Marketin
g/Advertising
Commun
ications
Cross‐Cu
ltural
Relatio
ns/Internatio
nal
Education
Education
Health
Professions
Hum
anities
Leadership
Sciences
Social Scien
ces
Other
Figure 12a: Most Prominent Courses/Fields – Western Region Response Frequencies
6.4% 10.6%
4.3% 10
.6%
34.0%
23.4%
14.9%
10.6%
17.0%
21.3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Busine
ss/M
anagem
ent/
Marketin
g/Advertising
Commun
ications
Compu
ter S
cien
ces
Cross‐Cu
ltural
Relatio
ns/Internatio
nal
Education
Education
Health
Professions
Hum
anities
Sciences
Social Scien
ces
Other
Figure 12b: Most Prominent Courses/Fields – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 22
Student Populations Question #11: Which of the following student populations have participated in service-learning through your courses? Please check all that apply. and Question #36: Which of the following student populations have participated in community-based research through your courses? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=954)
Western Region
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N=421)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=47)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N=22)
Undergraduate students 90.4% 82.4% 100.0% 100.0% Graduate students 27.3% 43.0% 2.1% 22.7% High School students 6.3% 5.5% 14.9% 9.1%
90.4%
27.3%
6.3%
82.4%
43.0%
5.5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Undergraduate students
Graduate students High School students
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 13a: Student Populations – Western Region Response Frequencies
100.0%
2.1%
14.9%
100.0%
22.7%
9.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Undergraduate students
Graduate students High School students
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 13b: Student Populations – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 23
Selection of Projects Question #12: Who chooses the students’ service projects? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=955)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=46) I choose service projects for my students. 54.5% 52.2% Each individual student chooses her/his own service project. 45.2% 52.2% Student groups select their own service projects. 27.1% 43.5% The students pick project(s) as a class. 9.3% 17.4% Other (please specify): 15.4% 8.7%
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 24
54.5%
45.2%
27.1%
9.3% 15
.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I cho
ose service projects fo
r my stud
ents.
Each individu
al stude
nt
choo
ses he
r/his ow
n service project.
Stud
ent g
roup
s select th
eir
own service projects.
The stud
ents pick project(s)
as a class.
Other
Figure 14a: Selection of Projects – Western Region Response Frequencies
52.2%
52.2%
43.5%
17.4%
8.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I cho
ose service projects fo
r my stud
ents.
Each individu
al stude
nt
choo
ses he
r/his ow
n service project.
Stud
ent g
roup
s select th
eir
own service projects.
The stud
ents pick project(s)
as a class.
Other
Figure 14b: Selection of Projects – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 25
Project Selection Criteria Question #13: How important is each of the following criterion in selecting service projects? Survey respondents were asked to respond using a three-point scale with the following values: “very important” (three points), “somewhat important” (two points), and “not important” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=954)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=47) Engaging students 2.91 3.00 Effective pedagogy 2.63 2.67 Convenience/availability 2.40 2.30 Personal interest 2.46 2.30 Relevance to course/subject 2.87 2.85 Relevance to academic objectives 2.84 2.85 Relevance to community engagement learning objectives 2.53 2.54 Addressing community need(s) 2.55 2.57 Satisfying grant criteria 1.22 1.31
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 26
2.91
2.63
2.40 2.46
2.87
2.84
2.53
2.55
1.22
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Engaging
stude
nts
Effective pe
dagogy
Conven
ience/availability
Person
al interest
Relevance to
course/sub
ject
Relevance to acade
mic
objectives
Relevance to com
mun
ity
engagemen
t learning
objectives
Add
ressing commun
ity
need
(s)
Satisfying grant criteria
Figure 15a: Project Selection Criteria – Western Region Rating Averages
3.00
2.67
2.30
2.30
2.85
2.85
2.54
2.57
1.31
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Engaging
stude
nts
Effective pe
dagogy
Conven
ience/availability
Person
al interest
Relevance to
course/sub
ject
Relevance to acade
mic
objectives
Relevance to com
mun
ity
engagemen
t learning
objectives
Add
ressing commun
ity
need
(s)
Satisfying grant criteria
Figure 15b: Project Selection Criteria – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 27
Community Issues Addressed Question #14: What are the community issues addressed by your service-learning courses? Please check all that apply. and Question #37: What are the community issues addressed by your community-based research? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=960)
Western Region
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N=438)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=47)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N=21)
Addiction 18.6% 15.1% 4.3% 14.3% Animals 10.1% 4.3% 12.8% 0.0% Crisis response and assistance 17.3% 11.9% 14.9% 14.3% Cultural awareness 52.0% 38.8% 57.4% 47.6% disAbilities 28.4% 15.5% 40.4% 9.5% Domestic and/or dating violence 17.7% 10.7% 12.8% 9.5% Education and/or literacy 53.6% 41.6% 74.5% 61.9% Environmental issues 34.2% 32.9% 29.8% 19.0% Family asset building 12.1% 9.1% 8.5% 9.5% Health care 31.7% 25.8% 40.4% 14.3% Homelessness 29.3% 16.2% 19.1% 9.5% Immigration/refugee assistance 19.2% 14.4% 6.4% 14.3% Incarcerated youth and/or adults 13.1% 11.0% 10.6% 4.8% Low-income assistance 27.7% 14.2% 21.3% 19.0% Mental health 21.1% 14.6% 8.5% 14.3% Parks and gardens 14.2% 7.3% 12.8% 4.8% Recreation, sports, and fitness 14.9% 9.6% 23.4% 14.3% Senior citizens 24.6% 12.8% 23.4% 9.5% Urban planning 7.9% 11.2% 4.3% 19.0% Visual and performing arts 12.2% 11.4% 12.8% 14.3% Vulnerable youth 30.8% 19.4% 38.3% 28.6% Workforce development 11.4% 8.7% 10.6% 9.5% Youth asset building 18.4% 9.6% 27.7% 14.3% Other (please specify): 15.6% 22.1% 14.9% 19.0%
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 28
52.0%
28.4%
53.6%
34.2%
31.7%
29.3%
27.7%
24.6% 30.9%
15.6%
38.8%
15.5%
41.6%
32.9%
25.8%
16.2%
14.2%
12.8% 19.4%
22.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cultu
ral awaren
ess
disAbilities
Education and/or literacy
Environm
ental issue
s
Health
care
Hom
elessness
Low‐in
come assistance
Senior citizens
Vulnerable you
th
Other
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 16a: Most Prominent Community Issues Addressed – Western Region Response Frequencies
57.4%
40.4%
74.5%
29.8%
40.4%
21.3%
23.4%
23.4%
4.3%
38.3%
27.7%
47.6%
9.5%
61.9%
19.0%
14.3%
19.0%
14.3%
9.5%
19.0% 28
.6%
14.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cultu
ral awaren
ess
disAbilities
Education and/or literacy
Environm
ental issue
s
Health
care
Low‐in
come assistance
Recreatio
n, spo
rts and
fitne
ss
Senior citizens
Urban
plann
ing
Vulnerable you
th
Youth asset b
uilding
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Learning Faculty
Figure 16b: Most Prominent Community Issues Addressed – Campus-Specific Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 29
Reflection Strategies Question #15: What reflection strategies do you incorporate into your service-learning courses? Please check all that apply. and Question #38: What reflection strategies do you incorporate into your community-based research courses? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=955)
Western Region
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N=416)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=47)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty(N=21)
Students write personal journals 40.3% 31.3% 51.1% 28.6% Students write structured reflection journals 42.0% 36.0% 42.6% 52.4%
Students share written journals with their peers 17.2% 15.3% 25.5% 23.8%
Students participate in structured group reflections/discussions 59.7% 49.4% 72.3% 61.9%
Students write final reflection papers 56.1% 44.9% 51.1% 52.4%
Students do final reflection presentations 35.8% 34.1% 46.8% 61.9%
Students write professional papers (e.g., theses) 20.9% 40.8% 23.4% 33.3%
None 2.2% 6.9% 0.0% 4.8%
Other (please specify): 13.2% 15.8% 10.6% 4.8%
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 30
40.3%
42.0%
17.2%
59.7%
56.1%
35.8%
20.9%
2.2%
13.2%
31.3%
36.0%
15.3%
49.4%
44.9%
34.1% 40.8%
6.9%
15.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Stud
ents write personal jou
rnals
Stud
ents write structured
refle
ction journals
Stud
ents share written
journals
with
their p
eers
Stud
ents participate in structured
grou
p refle
ctions/discussions
Stud
ents write final reflection
pape
rs
Stud
ents do fin
al re
flection
presen
tatio
ns
Stud
ents write professional papers
(e.g., theses)
Non
e
Other
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 17a: Reflection Strategies – Western Region Responses Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 31
51.1%
42.6%
25.5%
72.3%
51.1%
46.8%
23.4%
10.6%
28.6%
52.4%
23.8%
61.9%
52.4% 61
.9%
33.3%
4.8%
4.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Stud
ents write personal jou
rnals
Stud
ents write structured
refle
ction journals
Stud
ents share written
journals
with
their p
eers
Stud
ents participate in structured
grou
p refle
ctions/discussions
Stud
ents write final reflection
pape
rs
Stud
ents do fin
al re
flection
presen
tatio
ns
Stud
ents write professional
pape
rs (e
.g., theses) Non
e
Other
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 17b: Reflection Strategies – Campus-Specific Responses Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 32
Student Impacts: Course-Specific Outcomes Question #16: What kinds of student learning and development outcomes do you expect service-learning experiences to enhance? Please rate how often you expect the following student outcomes to occur. Survey respondents were asked to respond using a four-point scale with the following values: “frequently” (four points), “sometimes” (three points), “rarely” (two points), and “never” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=899)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=47) Application of course content 3.78 3.81 Deeper understanding of course content 3.77 3.85 Engagement with course content 3.82 3.94 Knowledge of community issues 3.58 3.49
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 33
3.78
3.77
3.82
3.58
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
App
lication of cou
rse
conten
t
Deepe
r und
erstanding
of
course con
tent
Engagemen
t with
cou
rse
conten
t
Know
ledge of com
mun
ity
issues
Figure 18a: Student Impacts: Course-Specific Outcomes – Western Region Rating Averages
3.81
3.85
3.94
3.49
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
App
lication of cou
rse
conten
t
Deepe
r und
erstanding
of
course con
tent
Engagemen
t with
cou
rse
conten
t
Know
ledge of com
mun
ity
issues
Figure 18b: Student Impacts: Course-Specific Outcomes – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 34
Student Impacts: Intrapersonal Outcomes Question #17: What kinds of student learning and development outcomes do you expect service-learning experiences to enhance? Please rate how often you expect the following student outcomes to occur. Survey respondents were asked to respond using a four-point scale with the following values: “frequently” (four points), “sometimes” (three points), “rarely” (two points), and “never” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=894)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=47) Maturity 3.51 3.60 Adaptability 3.58 3.60 Compassion 3.54 3.74 Values/attitudes 3.62 3.64 Confidence 3.60 3.63 Management of emotions 2.94 3.13
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 35
3.51 3.58
3.54 3.62
3.60
2.94
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Maturity
Adaptability
Compassion
Values/attitu
des
Confiden
ce
Managem
ent o
f em
otions
Figure 19a: Students Impacts: Intrapersonal Outcomes – Western Region Rating Averages
3.60
3.60
3.74
3.64
3.63
3.13
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Maturity
Adaptability
Compassion
Values/attitu
des
Confiden
ce
Managem
ent o
f em
otions
Figure 19b: Student Impacts: Intrapersonal Outcomes – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 36
Student Impacts: Interpersonal Outcomes Question #18: What kinds of student learning and development outcomes do you expect service-learning experiences to enhance? Please rate how often you expect the following student outcomes to occur. Survey respondents were asked to respond using a four-point scale with the following values: “frequently” (four points), “sometimes” (three points), “rarely” (two points), and “never” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=890)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=47) Respect (giving and/or receiving) 3.72 3.79 Friends, belonging, social support 3.09 3.13 Mentorship 3.30 3.54 Facilitation skills 3.26 3.28 Collaboration skills 3.64 3.77 Communication: oral 3.68 3.69 Communication: written 3.44 3.49 Communication: electronic formats (e.g., email, text messaging) 2.87 2.93
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 37
3.72
3.09 3.30
3.26
3.64
3.68
3.44
2.87
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Respect (giving
and
/or
receiving)
Friend
s, belon
ging, social
supp
ort
Men
torship
Facilitation skills
Collabo
ratio
n skills
Commun
ication: oral
Commun
ication: written
Commun
ication: electronic
form
ats (e.g., em
ail, text
messaging)
Figure 20a: Student Impacts: Interpersonal Outcomes – Western Region Rating Averages
3.79
3.13
3.54
3.28 3.
77
3.69
3.49
2.93
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Respect (giving
and
/or
receiving)
Friend
s, belon
ging, social
supp
ort
Men
torship
Facilitation skills
Collabo
ratio
n skills
Commun
ication: oral
Commun
ication: written
Commun
ication: electronic
form
ats (e.g., em
ail, text
messaging)
Figure 20b: Student Impacts: Interpersonal Outcomes – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 38
Student Impacts: Career Outcomes Question #19: What kinds of student learning and development outcomes do you expect service-learning experiences to enhance? Please rate how often you expect the following student outcomes to occur. Survey respondents were asked to respond using a four-point scale with the following values: “frequently” (four points), “sometimes” (three points), “rarely” (two points), and “never” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=883)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=47) Career-specific skills 3.45 3.43 Leadership skills 3.49 3.45 Professionalism 3.67 3.70 Systematic/organizational skills 3.44 3.49 Research skills 3.04 2.98
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 39
3.45
3.49 3.67
3.44
3.04
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Career‐spe
cific skills
Leadership skills
Profession
alism
System
atic/organizational
skills
Research skills
Figure 21a: Student Impacts: Career Outcomes – Western Region Rating Averages
3.43
3.45 3.70
3.49
2.98
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Career‐spe
cific skills
Leadership skills
Profession
alism
System
atic/organizational
skills
Research skills
Figure 21b: Student Impacts: Career Outcomes – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 40
Student Impacts: Disposition-, Motivation-, and Value-Related Outcomes Question #20: What kinds of student learning and development outcomes do you expect service-learning experiences to enhance? Please rate how often you expect the following student outcomes to occur. Survey respondents were asked to respond using a four-point scale with the following values: “frequently” (four points), “sometimes” (three points), “rarely” (two points), and “never” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=882)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=47) Sense of place 3.22 3.24 Aloha spirit of people and planet 2.81 2.86 Stereotyping and prejudice (decrease in) 3.37 3.54 Tolerance and openness 3.50 3.70 Self-directed learning 3.53 3.49 Self-efficacy 3.45 3.51 Ability to deal with ambiguity 3.39 3.33 Confidence 3.61 3.66 Willingness to take responsibility and become involved in community issues 3.54 3.59
Capacity for dealing with complexity 3.49 3.46 Empathy 3.50 3.67 Willingness to become a community leader 3.07 3.04 Desire to promote social justice and equity 3.30 3.38
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 41
3.37 3.50
3.53
3.45
3.39 3.61
3.54
3.49
3.50
3.30
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Stereo
typing
and
prejudice
(decrease in)
Tolerance and op
enne
ss
Self‐directed
learning
Self‐efficacy
Ability to deal w
ith
ambiguity
Confiden
ce
Willingness to ta
ke
respon
sibility and be
come
involved
in com
mun
ity issues
Capacity fo
r dealing with
complexity Em
pathy
Desire to promote social
justice and eq
uity
Figure 22a: Most Prominent Student Outcomes: Disposition-, Motivation-, and Value-Related Outcomes – Western Region Rating Averages
3.54
3.70
3.49
3.51
3.33 3.66
3.59
3.46 3.67
3.38
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Stereo
typing
and
prejudice
(decrease in)
Tolerance and op
enne
ss
Self‐directed
learning
Self‐efficacy
Ability to deal w
ith
ambiguity
Confiden
ce
Willingness to ta
ke
respon
sibility and be
come
involved
in com
mun
ity issues
Capacity fo
r dealing with
complexity Em
pathy
Desire to promote social
justice and eq
uity
Figure 22b: Most Prominent Student Outcomes: Disposition-, Motivation-, and Value-Related Outcomes – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 42
Student Impacts: Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes Question #21: What kinds of student learning and development outcomes do you expect service-learning experiences to enhance? Please rate how often you expect the following student outcomes to occur. Survey respondents were asked to respond using a four-point scale with the following values: “frequently” (four points), “sometimes” (three points), “rarely” (two points), and “never” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=889)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=47) Critical thinking 3.73 3.87 Problem solving 3.76 3.94 Reflective judgment 3.71 3.81 Consciousness of self 3.47 3.54 Perspective-taking 3.59 3.63 Evaluation of evidence 3.43 3.44
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 43
3.73
3.76
3.71
3.47 3.59
3.43
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Critical thinking
Prob
lem solving
Refle
ctive judgmen
t
Consciou
sness of self
Perspe
ctive‐taking
Evaluatio
n of evide
nce
Figure 23a: Student Impacts: Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes – Western Region Rating Averages
3.87
3.94
3.81
3.54 3.63
3.44
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Critical thinking
Prob
lem solving
Refle
ctive judgmen
t
Consciou
sness of self
Perspe
ctive‐taking
Evaluatio
n of evide
nce
Figure 23b: Student Impacts: Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 44
Obstacles/Challenges Question #22: What are the biggest obstacles/challenges to implementing service-learning on your campus? and Question #39: What are the biggest obstacles/challenges to implementing community-based research on your campus? Survey respondents were asked to respond using a three-point scale with the following values: “a major obstacle” (three points), “a minor obstacle” (two points), and “not an obstacle” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=851)
Western Region Rating
Average CBR Faculty
(N=407)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=47)
Weber State U Rating
Average CBR Faculty
(N<20) Grading/assessing student learning 1.70 1.59 1.61 ---
Identifying options for alternative assignments 1.73 1.72 1.63 ---
Managing the classroom 1.49 1.44 1.52 --- Absence of a coordinating body/office on campus 1.33 1.48 1.26 ---
Developing/maintaining community partnerships 1.79 1.90 1.59 ---
Completing paperwork 1.67 1.79 1.65 --- Handling logistics (i.e., scheduling, transportation) 1.98 2.12 1.83 ---
Finding appropriate service-learning experiences 1.88 1.97 1.74 ---
Lacking time 2.10 2.34 1.98 ---
Students lacking time 2.32 2.30 2.39 ---
Lacking energy 1.69 1.76 1.65 ---
Students lacking energy 1.90 1.91 1.96 ---
Lack of funding/grants 1.82 2.22 1.47 ---
Lack of recognition 1.50 1.74 1.24 --- Negative campus attitudes toward service-learning 1.28 1.40 1.22 ---
Liability issues 1.64 1.73 1.60 ---
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 45
1.73 1.79
1.67
1.98
1.88 2.
10 2.32
1.69 1.
90
1.82
1.72 1.90
1.79
2.12
1.97
2.34
2.30
1.76 1.91
2.22
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Iden
tifying
options fo
r alternative assignmen
ts
Develop
ing/maintaining
commun
ity partnerships
Completing pape
rwork
Handling logistics (i.e.,
sche
duling, transportatio
n)
Find
ing approp
riate service‐
learning
experiences
Lacking tim
e
Stud
ents lacking tim
e
Lacking en
ergy
Stud
ents lacking en
ergy
Lack of fun
ding/grants
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 24a: Most Prominent Obstacles/Challenges – Western Region Rating Averages
1.61
1.63
1.59 1.
83
1.74 1.
98
2.39
1.65
1.96
1.60
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Grading/assessing
stude
nt
learning
Iden
tifying
options fo
r alternative assignmen
ts
Develop
ing/maintaining
commun
ity partnerships
Handling logistics (i.e.,
sche
duling, transportatio
n)
Find
ing approp
riate service‐
learning
experiences
Lacking tim
e
Stud
ents lacking tim
e
Lacking en
ergy
Stud
ents lacking en
ergy
Liability issues
Service‐Learning Faculty
Figure 24b: Most Prominent Obstacles/Challenges – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 46
Supports Question #23: What have been the most valuable sources of support for you in your efforts to use service-learning in your teaching? and Question #40: What have been the most valuable sources of support for you in your efforts to use community-based research in your teaching? Survey respondents were asked to respond using a three-point scale with the following values: “a major support” (three points), “a minor support” (two points), and “not a support” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=837)
Western Region Rating
Average CBR Faculty
(N=376)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=46)
Weber State U Rating
Average CBR Faculty
(N<20) Creating connections/networking on campus 2.27 2.06 2.39 ---
Creating connections/networking in the community 2.54 2.50 2.61 ---
Peer mentoring/facilitation 2.08 1.89 2.27 ---
Exposure to best practices 2.18 2.02 2.31 --- Presence of a coordinating body/office on campus 2.11 1.75 2.33 ---
Funding/grants 1.54 1.72 1.73 --- Positive campus attitudes toward service-learning 2.34 1.99 2.58 ---
Recognition 1.68 1.56 1.78 ---
Support from Campus Compact 1.59 1.44 1.71 ---
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 47
2.27
2.54
2.08 2.18
2.11
1.54
2.35
1.68
1.59
2.06
2.50
1.89 2.02
1.75
1.72
1.99
1.56
1.44
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Creatin
g conn
ectio
ns/networking
on
cam
pus
Creatin
g conn
ectio
ns/networking
in th
e commun
ity
Peer m
entoring/facilitatio
n
Expo
sure to
best p
ractices
Presen
ce of a
coo
rdinating
body/office on
cam
pus
Fund
ing/grants
Positive campu
s attitud
es to
ward
service‐learning Recognition
Supp
ort from Cam
pus Co
mpact
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 25a: Supports – Western Region Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 48
2.39 2.
61
2.27 2.31
2.33
1.73
2.58
1.78
1.71
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Creatin
g conn
ectio
ns/networking
on
cam
pus
Creatin
g conn
ectio
ns/networking
in th
e commun
ity
Peer m
entoring/facilitatio
n
Expo
sure to
best p
ractices
Presen
ce of a
coo
rdinating
body/office on
cam
pus
Fund
ing/grants
Positive campu
s attitud
es to
ward
service‐learning Recognition
Supp
ort from Cam
pus Co
mpact
Service‐Learning Faculty
Figure 25b: Supports – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 49
Information and Support Needed Question #24: What types of information and/or support would help further your service-learning efforts? Please check all that apply. and Question #41: What types of information and/or support would help further your community-based research efforts? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=753)
Western Region
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N=368)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=39)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N<20)
Basic written information about service-learning (i.e., examples of projects, best practices)
39.0% 45.4% 38.5% ---
An information session about service-learning (i.e., examples of projects, best practices)
30.7% 36.7% 28.2% ---
Individualized discussion about how to incorporate service-learning into my course(s)
27.6% 30.2% 17.9% ---
Information about how to turn my engaged teaching into scholarship
37.8% N/A 48.7% N/A
A paid staff person/ administrative support for my service-learning efforts
33.5% 39.7% 38.5% ---
Grant writing support 38.1% 52.7% 38.5% --- Logistical support (i.e., transportation, supplies, petty cash fund)
47.0% 51.6% 38.5% ---
Access to community contacts and needs 39.8% 40.8% 43.6% ---
Other (please specify): 11.8% 9.2% 10.3% ---
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 50
39.0%
30.6%
27.6%
37.8%
33.6% 38.1%
47.1%
39.8%
11.8%
45.4%
36.7%
30.2%
39.7%
52.7%
51.6%
40.8%
9.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Basic written
inform
ation abou
t service‐le
arning
(i.e., examples of p
rojects, best p
ractices)
An inform
ation session abou
t service‐le
arning
(i.e., examples of p
rojects, best p
ractices)
Individu
alized
discussion abou
t how
to
incorporate service‐learning
into m
y course(s)
Inform
ation abou
t how
to tu
rn m
y en
gaged
teaching
into scholarship
A paid staff p
erson/administrative supp
ort for
my service‐learning
efforts
Grant writin
g supp
ort
Logistical sup
port (i.e., transportatio
n, sup
plies,
petty cash fu
nd)
Access to com
mun
ity con
tacts and ne
eds
Other
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 26a: Information and Support Needed – Western Region Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 51
38.5%
28.2%
17.9%
48.7%
38.5%
38.5%
38.5% 43.6%
10.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Basic written
inform
ation abou
t service‐le
arning
(i.e., examples of p
rojects, best p
ractices)
An inform
ation session abou
t service‐le
arning
(i.e., examples of p
rojects, best p
ractices)
Individu
alized
discussion abou
t how
to
incorporate service‐learning
into m
y course(s)
Inform
ation abou
t how
to tu
rn m
y en
gaged
teaching
into scholarship
A paid staff p
erson/administrative supp
ort for
my service‐learning
efforts
Grant writin
g supp
ort
Logistical sup
port (i.e., transportatio
n, sup
plies,
petty cash fu
nd)
Access to com
mun
ity con
tacts and ne
eds
Other
Service‐Learning Faculty
Figure 26b: Information and Support Needed – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 52
Intention to Continue Question #25: Do you intend to continue using service-learning in your teaching? and Question #42: Do you intend to continue using community-based research in your research or teaching?
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=857)
Western Region
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N=410)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=47)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N<20)
Yes 90.7% 79.8% 97.9% --- No 1.3% 3.9% 0.0% --- I don’t know 8.1% 16.3% 2.1% ---
90.7%
1.3% 8.0%
79.8%
3.9%
16.3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Yes No I don't know
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 27a: Intention to Continue – Western Region Response Frequencies
97.9%
2.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Yes No I don't know
Service‐Learning Faculty
Figure 27b: Intention to Continue – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 53
Faculty Impacts: Professional Question # 26: Have you experienced any positive PROFESSIONAL impacts from using service-learning? Please rate the extent to which you agree (or disagree) with each of the following statements. Survey respondents were asked to respond using a five-point Likert scale with the following values: “strongly agree” (five points), “agree” (four points), “neutral” (three points), “disagree” (two points), and “strongly disagree” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=804)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=46) My awareness of the community has expanded. 4.27 4.52 My relationship with the community has improved. 4.08 4.30 My relationships with students have improved. 4.02 4.13 My relationships with administrators have improved. 3.23 3.59 My relationships with colleagues in my department have expanded. 3.31 3.52 My relationships with colleagues in different disciplines have expanded. 3.52 3.93
My use of effective pedagogy has evolved. 3.91 4.26 My patience working with diverse learning styles has increased. 3.68 3.72 I have become a more effective educator. 4.01 4.24 My disciplinary knowledge has increased. 3.72 3.82 My research interests have broadened. 3.66 4.00 I have received formal recognition (i.e., awards, asked to speak, highlighted in newspaper). 2.83 3.09
I have received informal recognition. 3.21 3.36 I have received funding. 2.49 2.62 I am more interested in my own discipline. 3.30 3.35 My professional satisfaction has increased. 3.83 4.00 I am more satisfied with my campus. 3.35 3.67 My job satisfaction has increased. 3.59 3.78 I am now more likely to stay at my institution. 3.16 3.39
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 54
4.27
4.08
4.02
3.91
3.68 4.
01
3.72
3.66 3.83
3.59
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
My aw
aren
ess of th
e commun
ity has expande
d.
My relatio
nship with
the
commun
ity has im
proved
.
My relatio
nships with
stud
ents have im
proved
.
My use of effectiv
e pe
dagogy has evolved
.
My patie
nce working
with
diverse learning
styles has
increased.
I have be
come a more
effective ed
ucator.
My disciplinary know
ledge
has increased.
My research interests have
broade
ned.
My profession
al
satisfaction has increased.
My job satisfaction has
increased.
Figure 28a: Most Prominent Faculty Impacts: Professional – Western Region Rating Averages
4.52
4.30
4.13
3.93 4.
26
4.24
3.82 4.00
4.00
3.78
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
My aw
aren
ess of th
e commun
ity has expande
d.
My relatio
nship with
the
commun
ity has im
proved
.
My relatio
nships with
stud
ents have im
proved
.
My relatio
nships with
colleague
s in differen
t disciplines have expand
ed.
My use of effectiv
e pe
dagogy has evolved
.
I have be
come a more
effective ed
ucator.
My disciplinary know
ledge
has increased.
My research interests have
broade
ned.
My profession
al
satisfaction has increased.
My job satisfaction has
increased.
Figure 28b: Most Prominent Faculty Impacts: Professional – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 55
Conference Presentations Question #27: Have you presented your service-learning work at one or more conferences? and Question #43: Have you presented your community-based research at one or more conferences?
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=806)
Western Region
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N=429)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=47)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N<20)
Yes 33.6% 50.6% 46.8% --- No 66.4% 49.4% 53.2% ---
33.6%
66.4%
50.6%
49.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes No
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 29a: Conference Presentations – Western Region Response Frequencies
46.8%
53.2%
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%60%
70%80%
90%100%
Yes No
Service‐Learning Faculty
Figure 29b: Conference Presentations – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 56
Published Works Question #28: Have you published your service-learning work? and Question #44: Have you published your community-based research?
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency SL Faculty (N=801)
Western Region
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N=426)
Weber State U
Response Frequency SL Faculty
(N=47)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
CBR Faculty (N<20)
Yes 15.7% 35.4% 17.0% --- No 84.3% 64.6% 83.0% ---
15.7%
84.3%
35.4%
64.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes No
Service‐Learning Faculty
Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 30a: Published Works – Western Region Response Frequencies
17.0%
83.0%
0%
10%20%
30%40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
Yes No
Service‐Learning Faculty
Figure 30b: Published Works – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 57
Faculty Impacts: Personal Question #29: Have you experienced any positive PERSONAL impacts from using service-learning? Please rate the extent to which you agree (or disagree) with each of the following statements. Survey respondents were asked to respond using a five-point Likert scale with the following values: “strongly agree” (five points), “agree” (four points), “neutral” (three points), “disagree” (two points), and “strongly disagree” (one point).
Answer Options
Western Region Rating
Average SL Faculty (N=793)
Weber State U Rating
Average SL Faculty
(N=47) I have experienced a sense of accomplishment. 4.26 4.40 I have been inspired. 4.17 4.26 I have felt new energy/enthusiasm. 3.99 4.26 My relationships with students have improved. 3.92 4.09 My relationships with colleagues have expanded. 3.50 3.79 My relationship with the community has improved. 3.93 4.06 My relationship with the environment has expanded. 3.47 3.51 I have experienced personal growth. 3.93 4.20 I have become aware of some of my own biases and prejudices. 3.56 3.77 My appreciation of diversity has increased. 3.65 4.00 I have an increased sense of self as a global citizen. 3.62 3.91 I am more adaptable/tolerant. 3.53 3.81 I feel personal satisfaction. 4.05 4.19 I feel an increased sense of responsibility toward my community. 3.84 4.23 My civic skills have expanded. 3.66 3.94 I have developed stress-related coping skills. 3.11 3.32
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 58
4.26
4.17
3.99
3.92
3.93
3.94
3.65 4.
05
3.84
3.66
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
I have expe
rien
ced a sense of
accomplishm
ent.
I have be
en inspired
.
I have felt ne
w
energy/enthu
siasm.
My relatio
nships with
stud
ents have im
proved
.
My relatio
nship with
the
commun
ity has im
proved
.
I have expe
rien
ced pe
rson
al
grow
th.
My appreciatio
n of diversity
has increased.
I feel personal satisfaction.
I feel an increased sense of
respon
sibility toward my
commun
ity.
My civic skills have expande
d.
Figure 31a: Most Prominent Faculty Impacts: Personal – Western Region Rating Averages
4.40
4.26
4.26
4.09
4.06 4.20
4.00 4.19
4.23
3.94
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00
I have expe
rien
ced a sense of
accomplishm
ent.
I have be
en inspired
.
I have felt ne
w
energy/enthu
siasm.
My relatio
nships with
stud
ents have im
proved
.
My relatio
nship with
the
commun
ity has im
proved
.
I have expe
rien
ced pe
rson
al
grow
th.
My appreciatio
n of diversity
has increased.
I feel personal satisfaction.
I feel an increased sense of
respon
sibility toward my
commun
ity.
My civic skills have expande
d.
Figure 31b: Most Prominent Faculty Impacts: Personal – Campus-Specific Rating Averages
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 59
NON-SERVICE-LEARNING/COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH FACULTY RESPONSES
Information and Support Needed Question #32: What types of information and/or support would help you incorporate service-learning into your teaching? Please check all that apply. and Question #47: What types of information and/or support would help you incorporate community-based research into your teaching or research? Please check all that apply.
Answer Options
Western Region
Response Frequency
Non-SL Faculty (N=786)
Western Region
Response Frequency Non-CBR Faculty (N=866)
Weber State U
Response Frequency
Non-SL Faculty (N=37)
Weber State U
Response Frequency Non-CBR Faculty (N=43)
Basic written information about service-learning (i.e., examples of projects, best practices)
59.4% 63.5% 67.6% 58.1%
An information session about service-learning (i.e., examples of projects, best practices)
46.8% 55.2% 62.2% 60.5%
Individualized discussion about how to incorporate service-learning into my course(s)
43.3% 44.1% 59.5% 46.5%
Information about how to turn my engaged teaching into scholarship 27.2% N/A 32.4% N/A
A paid staff person/administrative support for my service-learning efforts 25.3% 29.9% 8.1% 16.3%
Grant writing support 31.0% 43.8% 40.5% 51.2% Logistical support (i.e., transportation, supplies, petty cash fund) 40.5% 40.4% 24.3% 25.6%
Access to community contacts and needs 57.3% 51.7% 59.5% 44.2%
Other (please specify): 7.3% 6.4% 8.1% 4.7%
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 60
59.4%
46.8%
43.3%
27.2%
25.3% 31.0%
40.4%
57.2%
7.2%
63.5%
55.2%
44.1%
29.9%
43.8%
40.4%
51.7%
6.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Basic written
inform
ation abou
t service‐le
arning
(i.e., examples of p
rojects, best p
ractices)
An inform
ation session abou
t service‐le
arning
(i.e., examples of p
rojects, best p
ractices)
Individu
alized
discussion abou
t how
to
incorporate service‐learning
into m
y course(s)
Inform
ation abou
t how
to tu
rn m
y en
gaged
teaching
into scholarship
A paid staff p
erson/administrative supp
ort for
my service‐learning
efforts
Grant writin
g supp
ort
Logistical sup
port (i.e., transportatio
n, sup
plies,
petty cash fu
nd)
Access to com
mun
ity con
tacts and ne
eds
Other
Non‐Service‐Learning Faculty
Non‐Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 32a: Information and Support Needed – Western Region Response Frequencies
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 61
WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary – Fall 2009: Weber State University 62
67.6%
62.2%
59.5%
32.4%
8.1%
40.5%
24.3%
59.5%
8.1%
58.1%
60.5%
46.5%
16.3%
51.2%
25.6%
44.2%
4.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Basic written
inform
ation abou
t service‐le
arning
(i.e., examples of p
rojects, best p
ractices)
An inform
ation session abou
t service‐le
arning
(i.e., examples of p
rojects, best p
ractices)
Individu
alized
discussion abou
t how
to
incorporate service‐learning
into m
y course(s)
Inform
ation abou
t how
to tu
rn m
y en
gaged
teaching
into scholarship
A paid staff p
erson/administrative supp
ort for m
y service‐learning
efforts
Grant writin
g supp
ort
Logistical sup
port (i.e., transportatio
n, sup
plies,
petty cash fu
nd)
Access to com
mun
ity con
tacts and ne
eds
Other
Non‐Service‐Learning Faculty
Non‐Community‐Based Research Faculty
Figure 32b: Information and Support Needed – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies
Recommended