WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary · 2010-05-26 · Faculty Engagement in . Service-Learning & Community-Based Research . WRCCC Survey Data Summary. Weber State University

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 [email protected] 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

mailto:[email protected]

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


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


• 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.


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


Hours Question #53: Which of the following best describes your hours?

Answer Options

Western Region


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


Primary Emphasis Question #54: Which of the following best describes your primary emphasis?

Answer Options

Western Region


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


Gender Question #56: Which of the following best describes your gender?

Answer Options

Western Region


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


Ethnicity Question #57: Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Please check all that apply.

Answer Options

Western Region


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


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


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%


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


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


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%


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


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


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%



I don't know 1.8%

Figure 8a: Service-Learning – Western Region Response Frequencies Figure 8b: Service-Learning – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies


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


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%



I don't know 7.0%

Yes 20.7%



I don't know 8.1%

Figure 9a: Community-Based Research – Figure 9b: Community-Based Research – Western Region Response Frequencies Campus-Specific Response Frequencies


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


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


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%


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



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



on my

campu

s.

I atten



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


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


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


Weber State U


(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%


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


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


Western Region

Response Frequency

CBR Faculty (N=421)

Weber State U


(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



Figure 13b: Student Populations – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies


Selection of Projects Question #12: Who chooses the students’ service projects? Please check all that apply.

Answer Options

Western Region


Weber State U


(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%


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


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




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


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


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


Western Region

Response Frequency

CBR Faculty (N=438)

Weber State U


(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%


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



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


Community‐Based Learning Faculty

Figure 16b: Most Prominent Community Issues Addressed – Campus-Specific Frequencies


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


Western Region

Response Frequency

CBR Faculty (N=416)

Weber State U


(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%


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



Figure 17a: Reflection Strategies – Western Region Responses Frequencies


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



Figure 17b: Reflection Strategies – Campus-Specific Responses Frequencies


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




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


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


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




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


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


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




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


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


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




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


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


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




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


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


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




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


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


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




Average CBR Faculty

(N=407)


Average SL Faculty

(N=47)


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 ---


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



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


Figure 24b: Most Prominent Obstacles/Challenges – Campus-Specific Rating Averages


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




Average CBR Faculty

(N=376)


Average SL Faculty

(N=46)


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 ---


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



Figure 25a: Supports – Western Region Rating Averages


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


Figure 25b: Supports – Campus-Specific Rating Averages


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


Western Region

Response Frequency

CBR Faculty (N=368)

Weber State U


(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% ---


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


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



Figure 26a: Information and Support Needed – Western Region Response Frequencies


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


rojects, best p

ractices)

An inform

ation session abou

t service‐le

arning


rojects, best p

ractices)

Individu

alized

discussion abou

t how

to


into m

y course(s)

Inform

ation abou

t how

to tu

rn m

y en

gaged

teaching

into scholarship

A paid staff p


ort for


efforts

Grant writin

g supp

ort

Logistical sup


n, sup

plies,

petty cash fu

nd)

Access to com

mun

ity con

tacts and ne

eds

Other


Figure 26b: Information and Support Needed – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies


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


Western Region

Response Frequency

CBR Faculty (N=410)

Weber State U


(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



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


Figure 27b: Intention to Continue – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies


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




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


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


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


Western Region

Response Frequency

CBR Faculty (N=429)

Weber State U


(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



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


Figure 29b: Conference Presentations – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies


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


Western Region

Response Frequency

CBR Faculty (N=426)

Weber State U


(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



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


Figure 30b: Published Works – Campus-Specific Response Frequencies


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




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


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


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%


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


rojects, best p

ractices)

An inform

ation session abou

t service‐le

arning


rojects, best p

ractices)

Individu

alized

discussion abou

t how

to


into m

y course(s)

Inform

ation abou

t how

to tu

rn m

y en

gaged

teaching

into scholarship

A paid staff p


ort for


efforts

Grant writin

g supp

ort

Logistical sup


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



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


rojects, best p

ractices)

An inform

ation session abou

t service‐le

arning


rojects, best p

ractices)

Individu

alized

discussion abou

t how

to


into m

y course(s)

Inform

ation abou

t how

to tu

rn m

y en

gaged

teaching

into scholarship

A paid staff p


ort for m

y service‐learning

efforts

Grant writin

g supp

ort

Logistical sup


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

Documents

WRCCC Faculty Engagement Survey Data Summary · 2010-05-26 · Faculty Engagement in . Service-Learning & Community-Based Research . WRCCC Survey Data Summary. Weber State University