Amanda Taggart,
Gloria Crisp
Service Learning
at Community
Colleges:
Synthesis,
Critique, and
Recommendations
for Future
Research
The purpose of this paper is to review and critique empirical work done, to
date, specific to service learning experiences at the community college level.
A review of the literature was conducted in order to examine the empirical
work that has been developed regarding service learning, a form of experien-
tial learning, at community colleges. The narrative defines service learning,
describes types of service learning taking place on community college cam-
puses, and synthesizes and critiques the service learning empirical work done
to date. The review closes with specific recommendations for both researchers
and practitioners regarding future research.
Keywords: service learning, experiential learning, community college,
programs, student development
With the exception of the 2008
presidential election that saw the second-largest youth voter turnout in
American history (Morgenstern, 2008), the American public has recently
demonstrated a decline in civic and social participation. This decline
has been shown to be particularly evident among college students
(Hodge, Lewis, Kramer, & Hughes, 2001). As such, civic engagement has
reemerged as a central goal of higher education (Jones & Abes, 2004),
24 Service Learning
Service Learning 25
as evidenced by the growing number of college and university mission
statements that emphasize the importance of developing good and moral
citizens (Kezar, 2002). According to Kezar (2002), “Community service
learning has burgeoned and captured the attention of educators, politi-
cians, and students alike as a way to develop skills for democratic life”
(p. 15). In turn, colleges and universities across the country have become
increasingly engaged in efforts to provide students with opportunities
to participate in some form of volunteer service (Astin, Sax, & Avalos,
1999; Hodge et al., 2001).
Community colleges are in an ideal position to promote civic engage-
ment, as their mission emphasizes the role of the institution in serving
the community (Hodge et al., 2001). The challenge, however, lies with
finding ways to engage community college students in volunteer or civic
related activities, as this unique group of students typically has fewer
opportunities to engage with faculty and peers or participate in social
and academic activities outside of the classroom (Bailey & Alfonso, 2005;
Cohen & Brawer, 2003; McIntosh & Rouse, 2009). As such, the classroom
experience must be strategically designed to promote meaningful learn-
ing experiences for community college students (Bailey & Alfonso, 2005;
Barnett, 1996; Duffy, Franco, Hendricks, Henry, Baratain, & Renner,
2007; Franco, 2009; Robinson, 2004). One strategy often employed to
reach this goal is service learning, a unique form of experiential educa-
tion (Berson & Younkin, 1998).
Service learning can be defined as “a teaching and learning strategy
that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and
reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility,
and strengthen communities” (National Service-Learning Clearing-
house, 2009). Although the term service learning has been used to refer
to a wide range of activities, including volunteer work and community
service (Robinson, 2004; Robinson & Barnett, 1996) or internships
and work-study positions (Lester & Robinson, 2007), service learning
is typically structured as part of a credit-bearing course that requires
students to participate in organized service to the community (e.g.,
Robinson & Barnett, 1996). More specifically, service learning programs
commonly include a requirement of around 20 hours of community
service in conjunction with an academic course (Berson & Younkin,
1998; Cram, 1998; Haines, 2002). Furthermore, some service learn-
ing courses typically mandate active and guided reflection as part of
the volunteer service required in the course (Exley, 1996; Largent &
Horinek, 2008). The use of service learning within the context of devel-
oping college students’ moral development and social and academic
involvement is supported by numerous higher education theories,
26 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
including Astin’s Theory of Student Development (1984), Tinto’s Model
of Student Integration (1975; 1993), and Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral
Development (1984).
One prominent national service learning project is the American Asso-
ciation of Community Colleges (AACC) Broadening Horizons through
Service Learning project, whose goal is to integrate service learning
into the institutional climate of community colleges and to increase
the number, quality, and sustainability of service learning programs in
higher education (American Association of Community Colleges, n.d.).
Similarly, Campus Compact is a national organization that has brought
more than 570 college presidents to the idea that service should be a
primary component of their institutional agendas. Moreover, support for
community colleges engaged in service learning is provided through the
AACC, which has a clearinghouse to assist more than 650 community
colleges by providing program-related announcements and publications
(AACC, 1998).
A growing body of research demonstrates the relationship between
participation in service learning and engagement in student learning.
Engagement in learning improves academic outcomes (e.g., Berson &
Younkin, 1998) and leads students to become active citizens (e.g., Pren-
tice, 2009). However, the majority of research to date has been conducted
specific to students attending four-year institutions (e.g., Amtmann,
Evans, & Powers, 2002; Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Hollis, 2002; Shiarella,
McCarthy, & Tucker, 2000). Research focusing specifically on four-year
institutions is problematic as there is a wealth of empirical support for
the assertion that a community college setting uniquely impacts student
outcomes such as persistence (e.g., Pascarella, 1999; Pierson, Wolniak,
Pascarella, & Flowers, 2003). As such, it is not appropriate to assume that
a service learning experience will impact students attending two-year
colleges and four-year institutions in the same ways. Rather, method-
ologically sound empirical work done with community college samples
is required to establish the relationship between service learning and
outcomes for community college students.
There is a need for synthesis, critique, and dissemination of program-
matic efforts at community colleges to assist both faculty and practi-
tioners involved in efforts to promote civic and social participation
(Kozeracki, 2000). Despite calls from researchers for critical analyses of
service learning programs, with the exception of descriptions of service
learning programs offered by Prentice (2000) and Kozeracki (2000), as
well as suggestions for establishing service learning programs provided
by Peterman (2000), there has been little formal analysis of service
learning programs at the community college level.
Service Learning 27
To date, there have been narrative reviews conducted specific to ser-
vice learning programs at the K-12 level (e.g., Johnson & Notah, 1999)
as well as broad overviews of service learning in higher education.
For example, a narrative review that included both two- and four-year
institutions by Giles and Eyler (1998) provides a synthesis of service
learning research in higher education. Their work contributes to the
literature by providing a synthesis of the benefits of service learning as
well as an agenda for service learning research, but is limited in that it
does not exclusively focus on nor compare work done at the community
college level.
Similarly, Eyler, Giles, Stenson, and Gray (2001) conducted a com-
prehensive summary of findings of service learning research at both
two- and four-year institutions. In line with their earlier work, the
review suggests that service learning has a positive impact on numerous
personal, social, learning, career, institutional, and faculty outcomes.
The exception is reviewed studies examining grade point average (GPA),
course grades, and cognitive moral development, which have indicated
both positive and negative findings. Unfortunately, the synthesis pro-
vided by Eyler et al. (2001) did not provide an examination or critique
of the methodology, sample, or analysis of previous work. As such, it is
difficult to assess the quality and focus of the literature, including identi-
fying and comparing studies that included community college students.
In turn, the purpose of the current narrative is to review and critique
empirical work done to date specific to service learning experiences at
the community college level. The following review consists of five sec-
tions. First, we outline the methodological and other criteria used for
inclusion in the narrative review. Second, we describe and synthesize
empirical work on service learning at community colleges. Third, we
detail the programmatic outcomes identified in the reviewed empirical
studies. Fourth, we provide a critique of the empirical work on service
learning. Finally, we offer recommendations for both future research
and practice, as our intended audiences include academic research-
ers, community college faculty, and student affairs practitioners and
administrators.
Method
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
The following criteria were used to identify studies on service learn-
ing to be included in the synthesis and critique sections. First, the
included studies all involved empirical research on or evaluation of
service learning programs and experiences. Descriptions of programs,
28 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
existing narrative reviews, and theoretical or opinion pieces were used
to structure the introduction but were not included in the research
synthesis section. Second, studies had to be concerned with programs
at the community college level. Empirical studies conducted at the
K-12 level or at four-year institutions were excluded. Third, studies had
to explore the impact of the program/experience on students. Studies
that focused on other samples, such as faculty members, were excluded.
Fourth, studies that were incorporated into the review did not have to
be published. However, they had to be publicly accessible or archived
in summer 2009. Finally, included studies could be conducted in the
United States or overseas, but must have been published in English.
Search Procedures
Within the boundaries mentioned above and as part of a larger narrative
review process, we searched journal articles, conference presentations,
dissertations, unpublished policy reports, and book chapters. We also
conducted electronic searches via the following databases: Education
Full Text, ERIC via EBSCO, JSTOR, and Project Muse. Next, we completed
manual searches in 39 journals, including the top tier higher education
journals and those specific to experiential learning, community colleges,
evaluation, or student affairs (e.g., Journal of College Student Development,
NASPA Journal, Journal of Experiential Education, Journal of College Orien-
tation and Transition, Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, Community
College Review). Search terms included different combinations of the
following key words: “programs,” “student development,” “community
college,” “service learning,” “experiential learning,” and “student success.”
Due to the scarcity of published empirical studies, the review was
extended to books and unpublished manuscripts from policy centers
and other groups focused on student success among community college
students (e.g., How College Affects Students, Student Success in College:
Creating Conditions that Matter). Additionally, websites from 29 organiza-
tions and centers that were known to concentrate efforts and/or conduct
research on student success (e.g., Community College Research Center
(CCRC), MDRC, and the Lumina Foundation) were also searched (see
Appendix A). The reference lists of identified books, narrative reviews,
and empirical studies were also reviewed for potential inclusions.
Results
Description of Empirical Studies
In total, we reviewed 17 empirical studies on service learning at
community colleges (studies are highlighted in the reference list).
Service Learning 29
Of these, the majority of studies (59%) were published in journal articles,
five (29%) were dissertations or theses, one (6%) was a conference
presentation, and one (6%) was a book chapter. Eight studies (47%)
utilized quantitative methods, five (29%) used qualitative methods,
and the remaining four studies (24%) used a mixed methods approach.
The most common data collection tools were questionnaires and
interviews, though secondary data analysis, multiple choice tests,
observations, and document analysis were also utilized.
Community college students were used as participants in all of the
reviewed studies. However, faculty members’ opinions were also used
in several studies as a means to triangulate students’ perceptions (e.g.,
Berson & Younkin, 1998; Reed & Pietrovito, 2000; Weglarz & Seybert,
2004). Courses that utilized service learning covered a wide range of
content areas, with health sciences, communications, English, sociology,
and psychology courses being the most frequently used. The service
learning experience was also examined within the context of several
specific student populations such as English language learners and
developmental students (i.e., Elwell & Bean, 2001; Prentice, 2009). It is
also noteworthy that service learning was operationalized or measured
in different ways across the reviewed studies (e.g., 20-hour extracur-
ricular experience, working with an aging population).
Programmatic Outcomes
Within the context of a community college setting, researchers have
found generally positive outcomes for participation in service learning.
The following section synthesizes these outcomes (see Appendix B).
Student success. Four of the reviewed studies examined the impact
or relationship between participation in service learning and student
success as measured by course completion, grades, or students’ decisions
to persist. For instance, results of a quasi-experimental study involving
286 students enrolled in six paired community college courses in history,
sociology, and English classes found that service learning activities were
associated with higher final course grades as well as more stimulating
class discussions (Berson & Younkin, 1998). Similarly, Hollis (2002)
utilized a quasi-experimental design to compare reflective essays and
test scores of two comparable sociology courses (i.e., experimental and
treatment groups). Among other findings, Hollis (2002) found that stu-
dents in the service learning class earned higher grades.
Moreover, findings by Hodge et al. (2001) indicated that participation
in service learning was positively related to student retention. Although
the study used longitudinal data to support the validity of the findings, it
should be noted that the design utilized by the researchers involved an
30 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
examination of multiple treatments (i.e., combination of service learning
activities in a learning community setting) in multiple courses that had
different service learning requirements. As such, it is not entirely clear
if students’ experiences with service learning were solely responsible
for higher retention rates or whether participants were more likely to
be retained due to a combination of service learning and the supportive
learning environment provided by a learning community.
In contrast, mixed findings were found by Prentice (2009), who com-
pared student outcomes in eight sections of a developmental reading
and writing and student life skills course that contained a service learn-
ing component with outcomes in eight comparable courses that did not
contain a service learning component. Findings indicated that students
enrolled in the courses that utilized service learning were less likely to
earn a satisfactory grade than students enrolled in non-service learning
sections. However, retention to subsequent semesters was found to be
higher for students who were provided a service learning experience
(Prentice, 2009).
Attitudes/perceived personal benefits. Many of the reviewed
studies examined students’ attitudes about civic involvement (e.g.,
understanding democratic ideals, social linkages to poverty, awareness
of community needs) and/or perceived personal benefits to participat-
ing in service learning (e.g., sense of personal or moral growth, gains
in interpersonal skills or self-esteem). Overall, findings were positive,
indicating a positive relationship between students’ attitudes with civic
involvement and/or positive student perceptions of the experience (e.g.,
Eklund-Leen, 1994; Exley, 1996; Gutheil, Chernesky, & Sherratt, 2006;
Hodge et al., 2001; Hollis, 2002; Hughes, 2002; Prentice, 2007; Prentice,
2009; Weglarz & Seybert, 2004).
For instance, a grounded theory investigation by Hughes (2002) involv-
ing interviews with 24 students at Virginia Highland and Mountain
Empire Community Colleges found that participation in service learning
was perceived by participants to lead to benefits in civic responsibility,
civic mindedness and community building, personal efficacy, develop-
ing a meaningful philosophy on life, appreciation for diversity, and
altruism. Similarly, although the study design did not utilize a control
or comparison group, observations, interviews and questionnaires col-
lected and analyzed by Elwell and Bean (2001) revealed that students
benefitted from the infusion of service learning into the course cur-
riculum. Moreover, qualitative findings involving 11 women enrolled
in a course on aging suggest that participation in a service learning
experience improved students’ attitudes toward older adults as well
as increased their interest in working with older adults in the future
Service Learning 31
(Gutheil, Chernesky, & Sherratt, 2006).
The only reviewed study that failed to find gains in students’ attitudes
toward civic engagement or personal outcomes was a dissertation by
Cram (1998). The study utilized a quasi-experimental design to compare
students’ scores on the defining issues test (DIT) and the self esteem
questionnaire (SEQ-3) among students enrolled in a section of an ethics
course that included a service learning component with two sections
that did not involve service learning. In contrast to the other reviewed
studies, the researcher found no statistical evidence to support growth
of self-esteem or significant moral growth among students who did and
did not engage in a service learning experience.
Participants’ satisfaction. In regard to satisfaction with a service
learning experience, many studies have identified positive feelings
toward participation in service learning programs (e.g., Amtmann
et al., 2000; Berson & Younkin, 1998; Elwell & Bean, 2001; Exley, 1996;
Largent & Horinek, 2008; Reed & Pietrovieto, 2000; Weglarz & Seybert,
2004). In particular, Berson and Younkin (1998) found that students
who participated in a section of a history, sociology, or English course
that incorporated a service learning experience reported higher overall
satisfaction with the course when compared to students who enrolled
in classes without a service learning requirement. In addition, findings
of program evaluations at Mount Wachusett Community College and
Johnson County Community College both revealed that service learn-
ing program participants were satisfied and felt that the programs had
merit and worth (Reed & Pietrovito, 2000; Weglarz & Seybert, 2004).
Similarly, data collected by Largent and Horinek (2008) indicated
that students enrolled in nursing, humanities, communications, and
occupational therapist assistant courses were satisfied with the service
learning program. However, older students, defined as students older
than 23 years of age, were found to be less satisfied than traditional aged
students. Interviews with older students were conducted to investigate
the causes for their lower levels of satisfaction with the program, and
responses revealed that older students desired service learning assign-
ments that were clearly meaningful and that connected their prior
knowledge to activities.
Application of knowledge. The value of service learning programs
in the application of course knowledge was examined in three of the
reviewed studies. The first, a case study by Amtmann et al. (2000),
revealed the importance of service learning to students’ ability to apply
what they learned in their classes, as community college students in
a health program were required to participate in service learning via
work with a prison wellness program, giving them both challenging
32 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
and practical work experience. Similarly, faculty-reported data as part
of a program evaluation by Reed and Pietrovito (2000) suggested that
service learning allowed participants to apply the course material and
provided an opportunity for real learning about work and life. More-
over, qualitative findings by Hughes (2002) indicated that many service
learning participants emphasized the benefits of “hands-on experience”
provided by service learning activities.
Program challenges. Finally, several of the reviewed studies examined
challenges to implementing service learning on a community college
campus (i.e., Hughes, 2002; Largent & Horinek, 2008; Reed & Pietrovito,
2000; Ward, 1996). Findings indicated that both students and faculty
identified finding time for the additional work as a major challenge to
service learning (Hughes, 2002; Largent & Horinek, 2008; Prentice, 2009;
Reed & Pietrovieto, 2000). Other challenges included multiple competing
priorities, such as job and family responsibilities (Hughes, 2002; Largent
& Horinek, 2008). Moreover, a case study on institutional support for
service learning at a tribally controlled community college and three
four-year institutions also identified funding as a frequent barrier to the
implementation of effective service learning (Ward, 1996).
Critique of Service Learning Studies
We noted numerous methodological strengths across the reviewed
studies focused on service learning programs at community colleges.
For instance, several of the reviewed studies were theoretically grounded
(e.g., Eklund-Leen, 1994), which allowed the researchers to understand
the findings within the broader context of the higher education literature.
Second, although few studies utilized experimental designs to measure
the causal effect of service learning (Smith, 2008), several of the reviewed
studies utilized well-designed quasi-experimental designs that made
attempts to control for extraneous variables and/or included a comparable
control group (e.g., Berson & Younkin, 1998; Cram, 1998; Hollis, 2002).
Third, we observed that many of the studies that utilized a qualitative or
mixed methods design used one or more forms of triangulation (i.e., data,
method, investigator) in an effort to promote validity (e.g., Burr, 1999;
Elwell & Bean, 2001; Gutheil, Chernesky, & Sherratt, 2006). Finally, several
of the reviewed studies provided a detailed description of the program to
allow future researchers the ability to replicate the implementation of the
service learning activities/experience (e.g., Cram, 1998; Prentice, 2009).
We also observed several weaknesses in the reviewed studies. For
example, like Kozeracki (2000), we determined that much of the service
learning literature is descriptive, focusing on the structure of and partici-
pation in service learning programs rather than measuring the impact of
Service Learning 33
service learning on student success. In addition, the majority of measured
outcomes were self-reported, focusing on participants’ perceptions rather
than measuring observed benefits to participation in service learning
activities (e.g., increases in the frequency of civic involvement behavior).
Similarly, the focus of many of the studies to date has been program
evaluation, which in turn has influenced the outcomes of interest toward
program satisfaction or merit and worth rather than measuring the influ-
ence of programs on student success and/or civic involvement. We also
noted that the majority of studies were conducted by community college
faculty or staff, which may have biased the data collection or findings
(e.g., students may have told the professor that they were satisfied and/
or learned from the program in order to earn a good grade).
Additionally, the majority of reviewed work was limited to samples at a
single community college, or in many cases, one or a few classes within
a single college. As such, the generalizability of the findings to other
institutional types and student groups is not known. The limitations
with regard to external validity are especially noteworthy given the het-
erogeneity of student samples used (e.g., ESL students, developmental
students, students enrolled in non-core courses such as architecture) as
well as the lack of consistency in program design and implementation
in the studies that were reviewed. Moreover, we observed that several of
the reviewed studies (e.g., Gutheil, Chernesky, & Sherratt, 2006; Hodge
et al., 2001) failed to utilize multivariate analyses such as ordinary least
squares (OLS) or binary logistic regression, thereby limiting the ability
to control for confounding variables.
Furthermore, many times more than one intervention was being
measured simultaneously, such as work by Hodge et al. (2001), who,
as previously mentioned, concurrently measured both service learn-
ing and learning communities. Within the studies reviewed, neither
the definition nor measurement of service learning was consistent. In
some studies, for example, researchers defined service learning as an
extracurricular, or out-of-class, experience (i.e., Amtmann et al., 2000),
while others examined service learning experiences within the context
of academic courses (i.e., Berson & Younkin, 1998; Burr, 1999; Cram,
1998; Haines, 2002; Largent & Horinek, 2008). Of the studies examin-
ing service learning as part of an academic course, service learning was
examined both as a required part of course curriculum (i.e., Cram, 1998;
Haines, 2002; Largent & Horinek, 2008) and as an optional component
of the course (i.e., Hollis, 2002).
In addition, although some of the studies made reference to relevant
theoretical frameworks (e.g., Berson & Younkin, 1998; Cram, 1998;
Eklund-Leen, 1994; Hughes, 2002), it was often unclear how theory
34 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
was connected to the development and/or measurement of service
learning programs. In turn, the service learning experience itself was
implemented and/or measured differently across studies. For example,
several studies examined courses where 20 hours of service learning
were required in addition to regular course curriculum (i.e., Berson
& Younkin, 1998; Cram, 1998; Haines, 2002). However, other studies
examined courses that treated service learning as whole-class projects
integrated into a course theme (i.e., Hodge et al., 2001). For instance,
one instructor, as part of her teaching of the novel Of Mice and Men,
organized a supply drive to help migrant workers suffering from a
destructive weather freeze (Elwell & Bean, 2001).
Recommendations for Research and Practice
In response to the above-mentioned weaknesses of the reviewed
empirical work, we offer several recommendations to advance the
literature specific to service learning at community colleges. First and
foremost, there is a need for research that is able to substantiate the
causal link between service learning and various student outcomes
(Berson & Younkin, 1998). As such, we recommend that more research
be conducted with the focus of isolating the effect of service learning
programs on traditional measures of student success (e.g., academic
achievement, persistence). More specifically, we recommend that
researchers extend the use of experimental or quasi-experimental
designs that include a control group and are able to properly control
for selection bias. Although these types of designs add to the complex-
ity of conducting research on a community college campus, the use of
experimental and/or quasi-experimental designs necessarily addresses
issues of internal validity by properly isolating or controlling for pos-
sible confounding variables.
Second, there is a need for future research to address the issue of
external validity, or the generalizability of findings, across different
institutional types and student groups. For instance, while prior research
on student success suggests that the impact of service learning might be
different for students at two- and four-year institutions, at this time we do
not understand how service learning programs vary across institutional
types (Kozeracki, 2000). As such, researchers should attempt to replicate
well-designed studies conducted on four-year institutions (e.g., Einfeld
& Collins, 2008) in an effort to assess the variability of programmatic
outcomes across institutional types. Additionally, because community
college students are so diverse, there is also a need to better understand
how service learning impacts different groups of students. For example,
findings by Largent and Horinek (2008) suggest that older students may
Service Learning 35
be less satisfied with a service learning experience than younger stu-
dents. Similarly, findings by Prentice (2009) suggest that service learn-
ing may have a different effect on students enrolled in developmental
courses. Moreover, researchers should consider investigating the impact
of experiences on student sub-populations previously found to experi-
ence community college differently (e.g., full- and part-time students).
Third, there is a need to better connect relevant student develop-
ment and psychological theory (i.e., Astin, 1984; Kohlberg, 1958,
1984; Tinto, 1993) to the design and assessment of service learning
programs. For example, a service learning project developed within
the context of a philosophy course may involve activities specifically
designed to facilitate community college students’ transition from the
conventional to post-conventional stage of morality as theorized by
Kohlberg’s (1958) theory of moral development (e.g., volunteering as a
child advocate). In this case, the research design may involve control
and experimental groups either randomly assigned or matched to be
equivalent. The assessment of programmatic outcomes could include
the comparison of pre and post measures of moral development using
a previously validated scale.
Fourth, there is a need for studies that examine the long-term effects
of service learning on civic involvement (Kozeracki, 2000). Similarly,
the findings from this review substantiate both Cram (1998) and Smith’s
(2008) call from more than a decade ago for work that examines the
relationship between the developmental impacts of service learning.
Moreover, it would be beneficial to conduct more studies that examine
the effect of service learning models on students’ mastery of discipline-
specific course material (Hollis, 2002). Furthermore, there have been
few attempts to establish the conditions under which service learning is
most effective (Hughes, 2002). As such, we recommend that additional
empirical work be conducted specific to this purpose.
Both community college faculty and practitioners who engage in
service learning program evaluation should be encouraged to present
their findings at conferences and publish their research in journals. It is
assumed that well-designed evaluations and/or action research studies
that could be presented at conferences are not often presented or pub-
lished in mainstream journals, such as the work of Berson and Younkin
(1998) that studied the effects of service learning at six community col-
leges. As Elwell and Bean (2001) suggest, programs that incorporate ser-
vice learning offer community college faculty the opportunity to conduct
research that directly connects and adds to their teaching. Therefore,
community colleges should encourage and support the development
and dissemination of service learning research on their campuses.
36 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
We acknowledge that researchers, faculty, and staff desiring to conduct
service learning research/evaluation may face a variety of obstacles
when attempting to address the above-mentioned methodological limita-
tions. Namely, resources (e.g., time, financial support, methodological
expertise) needed to utilize experimental or longitudinal designs, build
in necessary controls, and/or perform inferential analyses are often
not available to researchers, community college faculty, and/or student
affairs practitioners at the community college level. It has been suggested
that service learning is one of the best ways for academic and student
affairs professionals to collaborate (Berson & Younkin, 1998). Therefore,
we strongly recommend that faculty and staff explore creative ways
to combine resources and expertise when collecting, analyzing, and
disseminating research on service learning. Moreover, we recommend
that researchers, faculty, and staff seek external funding support in an
effort to produce and disseminate the most methodologically sound
research possible.
References
American Association of Community Colleges (1998). Service learning and community
colleges: Building a national network. Final progress report. Washington, DC. Retrieved
from ERIC database. (ED455899)
*Amtmann, J., Evans, R., & Powers, J. (2002). Case study of a service-learning partner-
ship: Montana Tech and the Montana State Prison. JCE, 53(1), 23-27.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-808.
Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism during the
undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 187-202.
Bailey, T. R., & Alfonso, M. (2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on pro-
gram effectiveness at community colleges. Lumina Foundation for Education New Agenda
Series, 6(1). Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.
Barnett, L. (1996). Service learning: Why community colleges? New Directions for
Community Colleges, 93, 7-15.
*Berson, J. S., & Younkin, W. F. (1998). Doing well by doing good: A study of the effects of
a service-learning experience on student success. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual
Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL. Retrieved
from Eric database. (ED427568)
*Burr, K. (1999). Problems, politics, and possibilities of a progressive approach to service
learning in a community college: A case study. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education,
36(3), 1-21.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Service Learning 37
*Cram, S. B. (1998). The impact of service-learning on moral development and self-esteem of
community college ethics students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertation
Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9834451)
Duffy, D., Franco, R., Hendricks, A., Henry, R., Baratian, M., & Renner, T. (2007). Service-learning
course design for community colleges. Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Einfeld, A., & Collins,
D. (2008). The relationships between service-learning, social justice, multicultural com-
petence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 49(2), 95-109.
Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service-learning, social
justice, multicultural competence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(2), 95-109.
*Eklund-Leen, S. J. (1994). A study of the relationship of student cocurricular activity, intensity
of involvement and other selected variables to attitude and estimated behavior toward com-
munity involvement among community college students (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9534477)
*Elwell, M. D., & Bean, M. S. (2001). Editor’s choice: The efficacy of service-learning for
community college ESL students. Community College Review, 28(4), 47-61.
*Exley, R. J. (1996). Commitment to community: Service learning at Miami Dade
Community College. New Directions for Community Colleges, 93, 35-42.
Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E., Jr., Stenson, C. H., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At a glance: What we know
about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities,
1993-2000 (3rd ed.).Funded by the corporation for National Service Learn and Serve
American National Service Learning Clearinghouse. Retrieved from the National Service-
Learning Clearinghouse website: http://www.servicelearning.org/pubs/materials/L054
Franco, R. W. (2009). Service-learning: Reconciling research and teaching, tackling
capacious issues. Campus Compact. Retrieved from the Campus Compact web site:
http://www.compact.org
Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. S. (1998). A service-learning research agenda for the next five
years. In R. Rhoads & J. Howard (Eds.), Academic service-learning: A pedagogy of action
and reflection (pp. 65-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
*Gutheil, I. A., Chernesky, R. H., & Sherratt, M. L. (2006). Influencing student attitudes
toward older adults: Results of a service-learning collaboration. Educational Gerontology,
32, 771-784.
*Haines, D. L. (2002). A study of community college attitudes related to service learning
(Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University). Retrieved from Eric database. (ED479826)
*Hodge, G., Lewis, T., Kramer, K., & Hughes, R. (2001). Collaboration for excellence:
Engaged scholarship at Collin County Community College. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 25, 675-690.
*Hollis, S. A. (2002). Capturing the experience: Transforming community service into
service learning. Teaching Sociology, 30(2), 200-213.
*Hughes, A. (2002). A study of service-learning at Virginia Highlands Community College
and Mountain Empire Community College (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3042420)
38 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
Johnson, A. M., & Notah, D. J. (1999). Service learning: History, literature review,
and a pilot student of eighth grade students. The Elementary School Journal, 99(5),
453-467.
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2004). Enduring influences of service-learning on col-
lege students’ identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2),
149-166.
Kezar, A. (2002). Assessing community service learning: Are we identifying the right
outcomes? About Campus, 7(2), 14-20.
Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10 to
16. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The philosophy of moral development moral stages and the idea of justice.
Cambridge, MA: Harper & Row.
Kozeracki, C. A. (2000). ERIC review: Service learning in the community college. Com-
munity College Review, 27(4), 54-70.
*Largent, L., & Horinek, J. B. (2008). Community colleges and adult service learners:
Evaluating a first-year program to improve implementation. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 118, 37-47.
Lester, C., & Robinson, G. (Eds.). (2007). An American mosaic: Service learning stories.
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
McIntosh, M. F., & Rouse, C. E. (2009). The other college: Retention and completion rates
among two-year college students. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.
Morgenstern, C. (2008, November 10). Election 2008: Second-largest youth voter turnout in
American history. The Tartan. Retrieved from http://thetartan.org/2008/11/10/news/
elections
National Service Learning Clearinghouse. (2009). What is Service-Learning? Retrieved from
http://www.servicelearning.org/what-service-learning
Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students. Research in
Higher Education, 26(1), 31-59.
Pascarella, E. (1999). New studies track community college effects on students. Community
College Journal, 69, 9-14.
Peterman, D. (2000). Service learning in community colleges. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 24, 321-325.
Pierson, C. R., Wolniak, G. C., Pascarella, E. T., & Flowers, L. A. (2003). Impact of two-year
and four-year college attendance on learning orientations. Review of Higher Education,
26(3), 299-321.
Prentice, M. (2000). Service learning programs on community college campuses. ERIC Clear-
inghouse for Community Colleges, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(ED451857)
*Prentice, M. (2007). Social justice through service learning: Community colleges as
ground zero. Equity and Excellence in Education, 40(3), 266-273.
*Prentice, M. (2009). Service-learning’s impact on developmental reading/writing and stu-
dent life skills courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(3), 270-282.
Service Learning 39
*Reed, C. B., & Pietrovito, J. A. (2000). Evaluation of the service learning program at Mount
Wachusett Community College. History, philosophy, and practices of adult education. (Ed.D.
Practicum paper). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED482717)
Robinson, G. (2004). Community colleges broadening horizons through service learning, 2003-
2006. American Association of Community Colleges.
Robinson, G., & Barnett, L. (1996). Service learning and community colleges: Where we are.
AACC Survey Report. AACC, Washington, DC. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED394612)
Shiarella, A. H., McCarthy, A. M., & Tucker, M. L. (2000). Development and construct
validity of scores on the community service attitudes scale. Educational and Psychologi-
cal Measurement, 60(2), 286-300.
Smith, M. C. (2008). Does service learning promote adult development? Theoretical
perspectives and directions for research. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Edu-
cation, 118, 5-15.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago,
IL: University Chicago Press.
Ward, K. (1996, April). Service learning and student volunteerism: Reflections on institutional
commitment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, NY.
*Weglarz, S. G., & Seybert, J. A. (2004). Participant perceptions of a community college
service-learning program. Community College of Research and Practice, 28, 123-132.
*Included in narrative review
Amanda Taggart is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Leadership and
Foundations in the College of Education at Mississippi State University. Her research
interests include issues related to the achievement of traditionally underrepresented
groups of students throughout the P-20 educational pipeline, including their access
and transition to college.
Gloria Crisp is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership
and Policy Studies at The University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research interests
include understanding the factors that influence access and success of traditionally
underserved populations, including Hispanic and community college students.
40 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
Appendix A
Reviewed Organizations/Centers
Achieving the Dream (http://www.achievingthedream.org/default.tp)
American Counseling Association (http://www.counseling.org/)
American Council on Education (http://www.acenet.edu/AM/)
American Diploma Project (http://www.achieve.org/ADPNetwork)
American Association of Community Colleges
(http://www2.aacc.nche.edu/research/index.htm)
Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy (CRDEUL)
(http://www.cehd.umn.edu/CRDEUL/)
Center for Student Success - California Community Colleges
(http://css.rpgroup.org/)
Center for the Study of College Student Retention (http://www.cscsr.org/)
Civil Rights Project (http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/)
Community College Research Center (CCRC) (http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/)
Council for Opportunity in Education (http://www.coenet.us/)
Council for the Advancement of Standards (https://www.cas.edu/index.html)
Education Commission of the States (http://www.ecs.org/)
Educational Policy Institute (http://www.educationalpolicy.org/)
Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) (http://www.ihep.org/)
Lumina Foundation for Education (http://www.luminafoundation.org/)
MDRC (http://www.mdrc.org/)
National Academic Advising Association (http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/)
National Coalition Building Institute (http://ncbi.org/)
National Center for Postsecondary Improvement
(http://www.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/)
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE)
(http://www.highereducation.org/)
National Resource Center for the Freshmen Year Experience
(http://www.sc.edu/fye/)
Pathways to College Network (http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/)
Policy Center on the First Year of College
(http://www.brevard.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=652)
The Puente Project (http://www.puente.net/)
State Policy Inventory Database Online (http://www2.wiche.edu/spido)
Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA)
(http://www.naspa.org/)
U.S. Department of Education (http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml)
Service Learning 41
Appendix B
Summary of Reviewed Studies
Method Sample Data Analysis
Student
Success
Attitudes/
Perceived
Personal
Benefits Satisfaction
App. of
Knowledge
Program
Challenges Other
Amtmann,
Evans &
Powers
(2002)
Qualitative
6 college
students
Identify
themes
XX X
Berson &
Younkin
(1998)
Quantitative 286 students t-tests,
chi-square
tests
X X
Burr
(1999)
Qualitative 8 students
Categorize
data
X X
Cram
(1998)
Quantitative
32 students for
one test, 65
students for
another test
Descriptive
statistics,
convergence
analysis, lin-
ear regression
X
42 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
Eklund-
Leen
(1994)
Quantitative 177 students
Descriptive
statistics
X
Elwell
& Bean
(2001)
Qualitative 28 students
Identify
themes
X
Exley
(1996)
Quantitative 428 students
Descriptive
statistics
XX X
Gutheil,
Chernesky,
& Sherratt
(2006)
Quantitative
9 student
papers
Content
analysis
X
Haines
(2002)
Quantitative 35 students
Descriptive
statistics
X
Hollis
(2002)
Qualitative
95 students,
journals and
reflective
essays
Inductive
content
analysis
XX
Appendix B Continued
Summary of Reviewed Studies
Method Sample Data Analysis
Student
Success
Attitudes/
Perceived
Personal
Benefits Satisfaction
App. of
Knowledge
Program
Challenges Other
Service Learning 43
Hughes
(2002)
Qualitative 24 students
Constant
comparative
method,
identify
themes
X XX
Largent &
Horinek
(2008)
Mixed
Methods
475 student
surveys,
4 student
interviews
ANOVA X X
Prentice
(2007)
Quantitative
42 non- service
learners and
107 service
learners from 6
colleges
Descriptive
statistics
X
Prentice
(2009)
Quantitative 199 students
Linear
regression,
descriptive
statistics
XX X
Appendix B Continued
Summary of Reviewed Studies
Method Sample Data Analysis
Student
Success
Attitudes/
Perceived
Personal
Benefits Satisfaction
App. of
Knowledge
Program
Challenges Other
44 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), Fall 2011
Reed &
Pietrovito
(2000)
Quantitative
20 students,
16 faculty,
20 community
partners
Descriptive
statistics
XXX
Weglarz
& Seybert
(2004)
Quantitative
28 faculty,
204 students
Descriptive
statistics
XX
Appendix B Continued
Summary of Reviewed Studies
Method Sample Data Analysis
Student
Success
Attitudes/
Perceived
Personal
Benefits Satisfaction
App. of
Knowledge
Program
Challenges Other
