What Works in Service-Learning? Achieving Civic Outcomes, Academic Connection, Career Preparation, and Personal Growth in Students at Ngee Ann Polytechnic

Service-learning (S-L) was adopted as a signature pedagogy in Ngee Ann Polytechnic in 2016. The present study investigated students’ civic and academic learning, personal growth, and career preparation in S-L at the School of Humanities & Social Sciences, using mixed methods. The scales and subscales used in this study had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .71 to .93). Results showed that students perceived significant improvement to their civic outcomes when they participated in S-L compared to when they did not (n = 351), strong academic connection and career preparation development through the S-L experience (n = 832), and growth in interpersonal and personal development. Significant relationships were found between the student outcomes and S-L design and delivery features, such as perceived impact of S-L, preparedness for S-L, quality of reflection prompts, and amount of interaction with community. Frequency of reflection activities was significantly related to academic connection and career preparation but not civic outcomes. The findings suggest that student outcomes can be optimized through improvements in S-L course design and hold implications for faculty training and development. 10/10/2019 What Works in Service-Learning? Achieving Civic Outcomes, Academic Connection, Career Preparation, and Personal Growth in Stude... https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=mjcsloa;c=mjcsl;c=mjcsloa;idno=3239521.0025.208;view=text;rgn=main;xc=1;g=mjcslg 2/33 Schools in Singapore have been embracing community service through a compulsory Community Involvement Program since 1998 (and replacing it with Values in Action in 2012) with the aim to develop students into socially responsible citizens (Tang & Lim, 2017). As service-learning (S-L) gains prominence in higher education as a high-impact educational practice in the United States (Kuh, 2008), there is also a growing interest in S-L in Singapore’s institutions of higher learning. Although a few local universities have made community service a graduation requirement, Ngee Ann Polytechnic (NP) adopted S-L as its signature pedagogy in 2016 (Wong, 2016) and established an Office of Service-Learning to facilitate the institutionalization of S-L in the polytechnic (Tang & Bringle, 2019). NP adopted the definition of S-L proposed by Bringle and Clayton (2012) as a “coursebased, credit-bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in mutually identified service activities that benefit the community, and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility” (pp. 114– 115). This study examined students’ participation in S-L modules (or courses) across eight diplomas in the School of Humanities & Social Sciences over three semesters, from April 2017 to August 2018. The research was conducted within the strategic planning and other activities to promote the institutionalization of S-L at NP (Tang & Bringle, 2019). Specifically, the research was designed to inform the Office of Service-Learning staff and NP instructors on how best to design and implement S-L and to improve future offerings. The literature on S-L has provided evidence that S-L courses lead to positive student outcomes across academic, civic, personal, and social domains (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011; Taylor et al., 2015; Yorio & Ye, 2012). For example, in terms of civic outcomes, studies have found S-L to be associated with significant increases in students’ valuing of and commitment to future volunteering service and in students’ belief that they could make a difference (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Local studies in Singapore have found improved civic attitudes in student-teachers who participated in S-L projects (Shumer, Goh, & D’Rozario, 2010) and significant increases in students’ helping behavior and beliefs (Goh, Lim, Ch’ng, D’Rozario, & Cheah, 2009). The S-L literature on academic outcomes, however, has yielded less consistent results. For example, when self-reported academic impact was measured, McKenna and Rizzo (1999) found positive impact on students’ acquisition and understanding of course concepts, whereas Gray, Ondaatje, Fricker, and Geschwind (2000) found no effect in students’ reported academic abilities. Similarly, where academic outcome was measured objectively in terms of grades, Markus, Howard, and King (1993) found that students assigned to a political science section that included service achieved higher exam scores than those who did not, and Astin et al. (2000) reported a positive effect on students’ academic performance (critical thinking, writing skills, and college grade point average). In a review of the literature, Jameson, Clayton, and Ash (2013) noted that service-learning appears to contribute to equivalent basic factual knowledge acquisition but enhanced critical thinking within disciplinary contexts. Conversely, Lambright (2008) found that students’ participation in S-L was not related to their performance on the final exam. Adding to the complexity, Mungo (2017) found that the better performance by service-learners than nonservice learners was mediated by better high school grades. This suggested that having better academic preparation and cultural capital might have helped these students to better navigate the higher education environment. What was consistent in S-L research studies, however, was that effective S-L courses often included deliberate linking of service to curriculum (Billig, Root, & Jesse, 2005; Celio et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2015). 10/10/2019 What Works in Service-Learning? Achieving Civic Outcomes, Academic Connection, Career Preparation, and Personal Growth in Stude... https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=mjcsloa;c=mjcsl;c=mjcsloa;idno=3239521.0025.208;view=text;rgn=main;xc=1;g=mjcslg 3/33 The benefits of S-L on students’ personal growth in terms of personal and interpersonal development and leadership skills have been demonstrated in various studies (e.g., Astin et al., 2000; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Prentice & Robinson, 2010; Simons & Cleary, 2006). A local study also found enhanced personal relationships and problem-solving skills in studentteachers after participation in S-L projects (Teo & Lim, 2009). In terms of S-L’s potential in students’ career preparation, such as helping students to clarify their career goals and develop skills for the workplace, Gray et al. (2000) found S-L courses to have no effects. However, other studies found S-L to have a positive impact on students’ awareness of career options (Fisher, 2014) and to increase career knowledge and skills and teamwork for service learners (Prentice & Robinson, 2010). Although evaluative studies of S-L might have shown mixed results, reflection has consistently been identified as a predictor of better student outcomes (Celio et al., 2011; Conway, Amel, & Gerwien, 2009; Mabry, 1998; van Goethem, van Hoof, Orobio de Castro, Van Aken, & Hart, 2014; Yorio & Ye, 2012). Furthermore, stronger positive effects were observed when reflection activities were structured and regular (Hatcher, Bringle, & Muthiah, 2004; Mabry, 1998; Moely & Ilustre, 2014; van Goethem et al., 2014) and when the content of reflection activities was aligned with the desired outcome category (i.e., students’ civic attitudes improved when they reflected on their civic attitudes during service) (van Goethem et al., 2014). Reflecting on the connection of service experience to course materials enhances learning (Astin et al., 2000); reflection activities with clear guidelines and directions were also one of the predictors of course quality (Hatcher et al., 2004). In addition, Ash, Clayton, and Atkinson (2005) found improvement in cognitive complexity on independently scored reflection papers across a semester when student reflections were guided by specific prompts designed to facilitate higher-order reasoning. Jameson, Clayton, and Bringle (2008) also found progressively more sophisticated understanding of course materials in students’ reflection products from first to second S-L course. Billig (2007) has argued that course quality matters in S-L: “it is the way in which S-L is implemented that makes a difference” (p. 18). Indeed, more recent studies have uncovered important S-L features associated with effective S-L, and these features have been compiled to develop rubrics and instruments to assess S-L course quality. For example, the IUPUI S-L taxonomy (Bringle, Hatcher, & Hahn, 2017; Hahn, Hatcher, Price, & Studer, 2016) delineates six attributes, namely, assessment, civic competencies, critical reflection, community activities, diversity of interactions, and reciprocal partnerships. The Service– Learning Quality Assessment Tool (SLQAT) measures the quality of S-L courses in the dimensions of course design dimension (e.g., reflection, assessment of student performance), learning dimension (e.g., academic content learning from S-L, connection between service and learning), and student dimension (e.g., student preparedness for S-L, student voice) (Furco & Matthews, 2018). Although there are many studies on S-L outside North America (e.g., International Christian University, 2009; Ma & Chan, 2013; McIlrath & MacLabhrainn, 2007; Aramburuzabala, McIlrath, & Opazo, 2019), the effectiveness of S-L in the polytechnic context of Singapore has not yet been established. This study evaluated S-L within the School of Humanities & Social Sciences in NP using multiple sources of evidence to triangulate the results as well as investigate what S-L features are associated with the desired student outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale, systematic evaluation of S-L in Singapore in higher education. The research questions of this study were: 1. What is the impact of S-L on s