H E L E N R O S E N B E R G U N I V E R S I T Y O F W I S C O N S I N - PA R K S I D E

S U S A N R E E D D E PA U L U N I V E R S I T Y

A N N E S TAT H A M U N I V E R S I T Y O F S O U T H E R N I N D I A N A

H O WA R D R O S I N G D E PA U L U N I V E R S I T Y

Community-based learning and the nontraditional student:

What’s age got to do with it?

Working with nontraditional students in CBSL classrooms

Growing proportion of adult and working students on college campuses

Challenges of juggling busy schedules with community-based learning

Affinity of “nontraditional” students for experiential and problem-based learning

Need for research into these students’ experiences

Previous Scholarship

Previous scholarship inconclusive:

Students who work are just as satisfied with CBSL as students who don’t work (Sather, Reed-Bouley and Fair, 2008).

Adults are just as likely to be involved in service learning as younger students (Holland and Robinson, 2008).

However…

Largent and Horinek (2008) analyzed the satisfaction of students and found that adults were less positive about their service learning experiences but found no age differences after adjusting for service learning practices.

Rosenberg, Reed, Statham and Rosing, 2008

Previously, we compared students’ perceptions of their CBSL experiences at our three universities and found that age predicted less satisfaction at DePaul but not the two other schools.

We redesigned the study to use the same survey questions; and regression to control the effects of each variable.

Previous Scholarship (cont.)

Methods

Three schools used the same survey with CBSL undergraduate students in spring, 2009

Sample sizes vary, but preliminary analyses showed significant differences among schools.

We analyzed each school separately, in addition to examining independent variable contributions across all schools combined.

Demographic Descriptor

University of Southern Indiana University of Wisconsin-Parkside DePaul University

Undergraduates CBL students Undergraduates CBL students Undergraduates CBL studentsN=8438 N=480 N=4337 N=293 N=14,236 N=146

% % % % % %26 and older 16.3 9.4 19.2 21.8 17.0 10.3Female 59.0 84.2 54.3 45.7 54.7 66.4White 90.0 93.5 73.4 76.8 57.8 65.813+ Credits 62.0 77.9 51.8 57.7 78.8Class Standing Freshman 30.3 13.5 26.4 1.4 14.9 7.5 Sophomore 21.9 11.5 22.2 3.4 21.3 15.8 Junior 21.1 35.4 21.0 32.4 22.1 29.5 Senior 27.7 39.6 30.5 62.8 41.6 47.3Hours Worked 0 28.3 4.4 24.0 1-15 28.5 20.5 37.0 16-20 16.0 17.1 12.3 21+ 27.1 58.0 26.7Parents have degree 45.4 36.2 62.3

Volunteered Before 70.0 53.6 62.3

Demographic Description Comparing Three University Undergraduate Populations for students who Participated in Community-Based Learning Spring,

2009

• University of Southern Indiana has the highest percentage of white students (94%) and women (84%) in CBSL classes.

•The University of Southern Indiana is a public regional university established in 1965. Currently there are 11,000 students enrolled in one of the 66 majors and 11 graduate degrees. The university recently instituted a Doctorate of Nursing Practice. The university serves as a regional center for a rural tri-state area that includes more that 20 counties in Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky.

University of Southern Indiana

•The University of Wisconsin-Parkside has the highest percentage of adult students (22%) among all campuses, with more full time working students (58%), fewer full time students (58%) and the fewest percentage of students who have volunteered before (54%).

The University of Wisconsin-Parkside is a comprehensive undergraduate university serving 5,000 students. Ninety-two percent of students come from counties in Kenosha or Racine, Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. UW-Parkside offers 34 majors and has Master’s Degree Programs in Business and Microbiology

University of Wisconsin-Parkside

• DePaul University has the highest percentage of students with parents who have a college degree (62%) who take

CBSL classes

DePaul University is a 4 year comprehensive University in Chicago that is the largest Catholic institution in the United States with an enrollment in 2009 of 25,072 students.

DePaul University

Factors

Conducted factor analysis on each dependent measure (n=27) and came up with 4 factors that best reflected significant outcomes for individual items in the survey.

Community projects…1. Enhance learning content2. Develop personal skills3. Provide career preparation4. Promote the value of community involvement

Loadings Alpha

Factor 1: Connecting learning to community .824The community project aspect of this course helped me to understand the subject matter and how it can be used in everyday life.

.744

The community project helped me to better understand the course lectures and readings

.737

I understood the purpose of this community project in relation to the subject matter being taught in class

.715

Factor 2: Development of personal skills .842The community project helped me to become aware of my personal strengths and weaknesses

.758

The community project enhanced my ability to communicate with others in a ‘real world’ setting

.781

The community project helped me to develop my problem-solving skills .706This project helped me to see how I can contribute to my community .744Factor 3: Career Preparation .722This community project helped me gain professional contacts for future employment .333

The community project in this course assisted me in clarifying my career plans .397Factor 4: Community Involvement .848After college I will volunteer/participate in the community .596I think it is very important to be actively involved in the community .547

Four factors for civic engagement

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

USI PARKSIDE DEPAUL ENTIRE SAMPLE

R2

CONSTANT

.04 6.55

.02 6.82

.08 6.51

.03 6.23

AGE -.31 -.12 -.92 -.28*GENDER .17 .11 -.24 .04RACE -.34 -.19 .319 -.08CREDITS -.07 .04 .17 -.06WEEKLY HOURS WORKED

-.00 -.02 -.03 .00

CLASS STANDING .23* .09 .02 .19*PARENTS DEGREED

-.28* -.03 -.44 -.23*

VOLUNTEERED BEFORE

.09 .23 .53 .17

SCHOOL .08

SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS FOR THREE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRDUATE POPULATIONSFACTOR 1: COMMUNITY PROJECTS ENHANCE STUDENT LEARNING

*p<.05

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USI PARKSIDE DEPAUL ENTIRE SAMPLE

AGE 25 or younger 6.93 7.09 6.76 6.95 * 26+ 6.75 6.99 5.75 6.75GENDER Male 6.82 7.01 6.69 6.90 Female 6.94 7.13 6.64 6.93RACE People of color 7.29 7.23 6.41 6.97 White 6.89 7.02 6.78 6.91CREDITS 12 or fewer 6.95 7.06 6.42 6.94 13+ 6.91 7.07 6.72 6.92WEEKLY HOURS WORKED 0 6.90 6.75 6.80 6.87 1-15 6.76 7.33 6.64 6.87 16-20 7.29 6.94 6.83 7.11 21+ 6.87 7.03 6.47 6.91CLASS STANDING

Freshman 6.55 * 6.94 7.19 6.66 *

Sophomore 6.77 7.10 6.59 6.76 Junior 6.76 6.93 6.42 6.76 Senior 7.23 7.14 6.74 7.11PARENTS DEGREED* * Yes 6.76 7.04 6.59 6.79 No 7.05 7.08 6.77 7.03PREVIOUSLY VOLUNTEER Yes 6.92 7.18 6.83 6.97 No 6.92 6.93 6.37 6.83ENTIRE MODEL 6.92 * 7.07 6.66 6.92 *

SCALE MEANS FOR THREE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRDUATE POPULATIONSFACTOR 1: COMMUNITY PROJECTS ENHANCE STUDENT LEARNING Scale Range = 2 - 9

Mean Differences across schools are not significant

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USI PARKSIDE DEPAUL ENTIRE SAMPLE

R2 CONSTANT

.02 9.19

.03 10.07

.15 9.83

.03 8.75

AGE -.10 -.00 -1.8* -.27

GENDER .16 .03 -.43 .01

RACE -.63 -.60 .27 -.33

CREDITS -.05 -.10 .19 -.04

WEEKLY HOURS WORKED -.09 -.13 -.21 -.13*

CLASS STANDING .25* -.10 -.21 .13

PARENTS DEGREED -.29 -.12 -.50 -.24*

VOLUNTEERED BEFORE .02 .28 .56 .16

SCHOOL .21*

SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS FOR THREE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRDUATE POPULATIONSFACTOR 2: DEVELOPS PERSONAL SKILLS

*p<.05

Mean Differences across schools are significant

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USI PARKSIDE DEPAUL ENTIRE SAMPLE

AGE 25 or younger 9.18 9.06 8.99 * 9.11 26+ 9.22 9.08 6.88 8.87GENDER Male 9.08 9.01 8.79 8.99 Female 9.20 9.12 8.76 9.12RACE People of color 9.84 9.55 8.44 9.24 White 9.14 8.91 8.95 9.05CREDITS 12 or fewer 9.21 9.05 8.37 9.04 13+ 9.17 9.07 8.88 9.10WEEKLY HOURS WORKED 0 9.24 9.14 9.00 9.18 * 1-15 9.15 9.44 9.21 9.23 16-20 9.44 8.94 8.44 9.14 21+ 9.01 8.96 8.12 8.88CLASS STANDING Freshman 8.77 * 9.72 9.88 8.97 Sophomore 9.20 9.56 8.81 9.14 Junior 8.92 8.92 8.94 8.92 Senior 9.55 9.10 8.48 9.20PARENTS DEGREED Yes 9.01 8.99 8.77 8.95 * No 9.32 9.10 8.78 9.18PREVIOUSLY VOLUNTEER Yes 9.16 9.21 8.99 9.14 No 9.24 8.90 8.41 8.96ENTIRE MODEL 9.18 * 9.06 8.77 * 9.08 *

SCALE MEANS FOR THREE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRDUATE POPULATIONSFACTOR 2: DEVELOPS PERSONAL SKILLS Scale Range = 3-12

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

USI PARKSIDE DEPAUL ENTIRE SAMPLE

R2

CONSTANT

.02 3.22

.07* 1.82

.02 1.76

.06 1.56

AGE -.098 .07 -.31 -.08

GENDER .13 -.03 .12 .07

RACE -.12 -.19* .03 -.08

CREDITS -.03 -.03 -.22 -.06

WEEKLY HOURS WORKED

-.04 -.05 -.04 -.04*

CLASS STANDING .08 .07 .02 .04

PARENTS DEGREED?

-.05 -.02 -.02 -.04

VOLUNTEERED BEFORE

.10 .14* .16 .09*

SCHOOL .14*

SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS FOR THREE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRDUATE POPULATIONSFACTOR 3: PROVIDES CAREER PREPARATION

*p<.05

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USI PARKSIDE DEPAUL ENTIRE SAMPLE

AGE 25 or younger 2.04 1.83 1.79 1.94 26+ 1.91 1.91 1.42 1.85GENDER Male 1.92 1.85 1.64 1.83 Female 2.05 1.85 1.81 1.97RACE People of color 2.07 2.01 * 1.72 1.93 White 2.03 1.80 1.76 1.93CREDITS 12 or fewer 2.03 1.86 1.86 1.93 13+ 2.03 1.84 1.72 1.93WEEKLY HOURS WORKED 0 2.04 1.94 1.73 1.98 * 1-15 2.03 1.97 1.82 1.97 16-20 2.10 1.83 1.96 1.99 21+ 1.98 1.81 1.57 1.85CLASS STANDING Freshman 1.91 1.77 1.66 1.87 Sophomore 2.21 1.66 1.74 2.03 Junior 1.98 1.79 1.85 1.90 Senior 2.07 1.90 1.70 1.94PARENTS DEGREED Yes 2.01 1.83 1.77 1.91 No 2.05 1.86 1.71 1.95PREVIOUSLY VOLUNTEER Yes 2.03 1.93 * 1.82 1.97 * No 2.03 1.76 1.64 1.86ENTIRE MODEL 2.03 1.85 1.75 1.93 *

SCALE MEANS FOR THREE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRDUATE POPULATIONSFACTOR 3: PROVIDES CAREER PREPARTION Scale Range = .5 - 3

Mean Differences across schools are significant

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

USI PARKSIDE DEPAUL ENTIRE SAMPLE

R2

CONSTANT

.03 3.52

.19 3.41

.15 3.87

.11 3.47

AGE -.01 .18 -.03 .06GENDER .18* .24* .26* .25*RACE -.12 -.18 .06 -.10CREDITS .09 .11 .12 .09WEEKLY HOURS WORKED

.00 -.04 -.05 -.03

CLASS STANDING

.02 -.01 -.14 -.01

PARENTS DEGREED

-.04 -.19* -.22 -.10*

VOLUNTEERED BEFORE

.21* .55* .40* .36*

SCHOOL .002

SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS FOR THREE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRDUATE POPULATIONSFACTOR 4: VALUES COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

*p<.05

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USI PARKSIDE DEPAUL ENTIRE SAMPLE

AGE 25 or younger 3.81 3.52 3.81 3.73 26+ 3.77 3.69 3.46 3.69GENDER Male 3.62 * 3.44 * 3.55 * 3.51 * Female 3.84 3.70 3.89 3.82RACE People of color 3.90 3.76 3.73 3.78 White 3.80 3.50 3.80 3.71CREDITS 12 or fewer 3.71 3.50 3.61 3.60 13+ 3.83 3.60 3.82 3.77WEEKLY HOURS WORKED 0 3.81 3.78 3.81 3.81 1-15 3.83 3.79 3.90 3.83 16-20 3.81 3.37 3.78 3.65 21+ 3.78 3.52 3.57 3.62CLASS STANDING Freshman 3.88 3.43 4.46 * 3.94 Sophomore 3.77 3.59 3.73 3.74 Junior 3.74 3.47 3.80 3.66 Senior 3.85 3.60 3.67 3.72PARENTS DEGREED Yes 3.79 3.44 * 3.78 3.70 * No 3.82 3.63 3.78 3.74PREVIOUSLY VOLUNTEER Yes 3.87 * 3.81 * 3.92 * 3.86 * No 3.65 3.26 3.54 3.47ENTIRE MODEL 3.80 * 3.56 * 3.78 * 3.72 *

SCALE MEANS FOR THREE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRDUATE POPULATIONSFACTOR 4: VALUES COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Scale Range = 1 - 5

Mean Differences across schools are not significant

Summary: Comparison of three schools and overall samples

There are important similarities and differences among campuses that should be highlighted, e.g., the effects of class standing, parents’ degree and previous volunteer experience in predicting factors. Yet, campuses are different in size, culture and application of civic engagement.

In general, age does not have a strong effect on whether a student will perceive the benefits of CBSL. However, older students are less likely to report that their learning was enhanced by their community project and that they developed personal skills from their community project.

Students 26 years and older were just as likely as younger students to report that the project enhanced their career preparation and that they value community involvement.

Summary: Comparison of three schools and overall samples (Cont’)

Students who work the most hours are less likely to agree that CBSL has helped them develop personal skills; and these students were less likely to agree that CBSL enhances their career preparation.

Female students on all three campuses are more positive than male students about the value of community involvement.

Students who have volunteered in the past are consistently positive about the benefits of CBSL.

Students whose parents have a college degree were less likely to perceive the benefits of CBSL than their counterparts who are first generation college students.

Conclusions: What’s age got to do with it?

There is some indication that non-traditional students are less enthusiastic than traditional aged students about the benefits of CBSL to their development.

For the most part, non-traditional students ARE seeing the benefits of CBSL classes and value community involvement as much as any student.

The benefits of CBSL may build with experience.

Recommendations for future work

Collect qualitative data from non-traditional students to learn more about what types of placements might enhance their learning, develop their personal skills and aid with career preparation

Conduct longitudinal study of cohorts of students rather than relying on cross-sectional data