Assessing Faculty Interest in Service Learning at Augusta State University

Julie Miller

Augusta State University

Spring 2009

Abstract

Service Learning is an educational approach being used at institutions of higher learning across the nation to improve academic outcomes and connect students to the broader community. The intent of this study is to determine how Augusta State University faculty are using this technique, to what extent, and what attitudes professors have toward service learning. Results of this study can be used to highlight what service learning is already occurring on campus and provide an opportunity for professors who use this approach to show others how it can be effective in improving student engagement.

Introduction

Throughout America, institutions of higher learning are reframing their mission to educate students to become responsible citizens, rather than educating students solely for a career (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Involving students in community service contributes to that process. Service learning takes it one step further, connecting classroom teaching to meaningful service activities to create an enhanced sense of civic responsibility among students and a greater sense of community on campus (Ward, 1996). During the past two decades, service learning has become an increasingly influential pedagogical approach on college and university campuses. Increasingly, community service is being incorporated into the university setting through the integration of service learning in college classrooms (Zlotkowski, 1996). Recent nationwide studies report that more than 90% of higher education institutions in the U.S. now offer service-learning courses and that more students are participating in service projects than ever before (Campus Compact¹, 2005).

This study assesses Augusta State University faculty members’ interest in service-learning, current use of service-learning, and factors that would deter use of service learning. Results of this survey help to identify what service learning is currently being done at ASU and gauge the level of support for implementing service learning campus wide. Follow-up interviews were conducted with faculty members who provided their contact information in the survey. The findings provide useful information to the university in its mission to be “responsive to the needs of its community, and to measure its success by the success of its students” (http://www.aug.edu/mission.html).

1. Campus Compact is a national coalition of more than 1,100 college and university presidents - representing 6 million students - and a leader in building civic engagement into academic life.

Literature Review

Service learning represents a powerful vehicle for enhancing student development during the undergraduate years while fulfilling a basic institutional mission of providing service to the community (Astin & Sax, 1998). A teaching strategy that depends on reciprocal university-community partnerships, service-learning provides an innovative pedagogical approach to realizing higher education’s civic responsibilities (Bringle, Games, & Malloy, 1999; Bringle, Hatcher, & Games, 1997). Linking community contributions to the curriculum and educational goals of an institution are topics of growing interest to universities (Holland, 2001).

Campus Compact, a coalition of 1,144 colleges and universities, states that 90% of its members have a mission statement that drives policies supporting community service, service-learning, and civic engagement. These statements are backed by policies and structures that support faculty, student, and staff involvement in community-based work (Campus Compact Survey, 2007). Like many other institutions across the country, Augusta State University includes “responsiveness to the needs of the community” in its mission statement and uses student success as a measure to determine its effectiveness (http://www.aug.edu/mission.html).

Service has traditionally been mentioned in almost every institution's mission statement, but rarely is it defined or explained to internal or external audiences. It is only recently that the role of service as a potentially distinguishing characteristic has taken on greater national visibility, inspiring some institutions to try to define service more specifically. The national conversation on the nature of faculty scholarship, as framed by Boyer's work (1990), has compelled many institutions to be more specific about the role of service.

“Virtually all universities are interested in committing their resources to develop effective citizenship among their students, to address complex needs in their communities through the application of knowledge, and to form creative partnerships between the university and the community” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996, p. 14). Service learning is one method that allows students, faculty, and administrators to work toward these goals. Bringle and Hatcher, who have written extensively on service learning and its implementation in higher education, describes the process as “a credit-bearing educational experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and 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 civic responsibility” (1996, p. 2). Service learning is differentiated from voluntary community service in that it is a service experience that works best when meaningful service activities are related to course material through reflection activities such as directed writings, small group discussions, and class presentations (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). The two researchers found that “Faculty who use service learning discover that it brings new life to the classroom, enhances performance on traditional measures of learning, increases student interest in the subject, teaches new problem solving skills, and makes teaching more enjoyable” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996, p. 2).

Universities that promote student involvement in out-of-class experiences that are educationally purposeful create a powerful learning environment and a greater sense of belonging (Schuh, Andreas & Strange, 1991). This approach connects students to the community and the campus, especially important for schools that include a large commuter population (Schuh, Andreas & Strange, 1991, Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). A 2008 survey of ASU students indicated that a majority of the respondents did not feel connected to the Augusta community (Dye & Miller, 2008. Unpublished manuscript). Successful service programs, including both voluntary service and service learning, can build a greater sense of community on campus. Participating in service activities during the undergraduate years substantially enhances the student’s academic development, life skills development, and sense of civic responsibility (Astin & Sax, 1998). College students who participate regularly in community service are more likely to obtain their degree, attend graduate school, make contributions to alumni associations, and continue to be involved in service to their community throughout their lives (Berger & Milem, 2002).

Community service contributes to the process of developing a sense of self and social responsibility for college students (Rhoads, 1998, Youniss & Yates, 1997). Studies indicate, for example, that service-learning experiences enhance students’ learning of course material (Astin & Sax, 1998; Ward, 2000) and positively affect their critical thinking and problem solving abilities (Batchelder & Root, 1994; Eyler & Giles, 1999). Other research suggests that service learning develops students’ cultural understanding (Astin & Sax, 1998) and citizenship skills (Gray, et al. 1998; Mason 1999).

Students engaged in service learning projects also report higher levels of satisfaction with college (Gray, et al., 1998) and more confidence about their career choices (Astin & Sax, 1998). Just as important, service learning strengthens university-community relationships (Gray, et al. 1998), in large part because community groups value the services students provide (Clarke, 2000).

Aligning service-learning with a university’s mission is a key factor associated with successful institutionalization. Others have suggested that the role of service must be adopted at the core of faculty work and the student experience, and is not marginalized by being treated as an extra or add-on assignment or duty (Lynton, 1995)

Zlotkowski asserts that institutionalization of service-learning requires institutions to go far beyond implementation issues to a complete transformation of academic assumptions (1995, p. 130). Institutional service-learning strategies must be distinctive and appropriate to the individual institution if a commitment is to be realized and sustained (Holland, 1997, p 30-41).

For service learning to be successful, faculty support is crucial (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). For service-learning to be institutionalized, faculty recruitment must be followed by efforts to sustain involvement (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000). Case studies revealed that creation of a campus unit, such as a service-learning center, to provide leadership and assistance was seen as a powerful force necessary to a sustained or expanded effort.

In 2007, the University of South Carolina surveyed nearly a quarter of its 1,600 faculty members on the subject of service learning and found high levels of interest and significant use of service learning occurring on its campus. Nearly 9 out of 10 respondents indicated they believed in the general effectiveness of service learning, 3 out of 4 were interested in learning more about the topic, and 2 out of 3 reported interest in incorporating service learning into their courses. Deterrents to implementing service learning included transportation, coordination with outside organizations, insufficient resources and time, lack of information about how to integrate into coursework and a lack of departmental support (Smith, Swick, Friend et al., 2007). “Faculty are the arbiters of the curriculum and without their involvement and participation the success of an initiative that wants to find its way into the curriculum will be short-lived” (Ward, 1996, p. 26). It is therefore necessary to understand why some faculty use service learning and others do not.

In a study that examined more than 500 faculty members from 5 different types of institutions, Abes, Jackson and Jones (2002) found that professors of mathematics, biological sciences, computer science and business were significantly less likely to see service learning as a useful tool to improve student learning. However, professors of education, social sciences, health and agriculture were significantly more likely to use service learning as an important way to connect classroom theory with real world experience and improve academic performance. In general, student-learning outcomes provided the strongest motivation for service-learning faculty (Abes, Jackson & Jones, 2002, p. 8).

This incongruence suggests that it is essential for service-learning to be assessed formally, and its successes distributed in those disciplines least likely to participate.

Assessing the success of service learning is the newest frontier for research.

Efforts to measure [service learning] must recognize that current conceptions and institutional exploration of the potential role of engagement are still in an early stage of development on a national level. In terms of academic maturity, this is a very young institutional reform movement that is still taking shape. There’s a lot of work going on, and some patterns are emerging, but there is much work and experimentation yet to accomplish before engagement reaches some later stage of consistency and coherence as an academic activity (Holland, 2001, p. 24).

In addition to a lack of assessment, most institutions surveyed did not have a mechanism in place to know who was using service learning and how it was being used (Abes, Jackson & Jones, 2002, p. 7). Therefore, the authors considered it important for institutions to highlight professors using service learning and create opportunities for them to promote service learning among their peers. This study also found that students and community members have significant influence on whether a professor uses service learning and the motivation to implement this time-consuming process is primarily an intrinsic desire to see students achieve (Abes, Jackson & Jones, 2002, p. 8).

The most common factor cited by the case study institutions as critical to expansion of service-learning was a faculty reward system seen by faculty as compatible and consistent with the institutional expectation for involvement in service. The relationship between the factors on student and faculty involvement is a key indicator of the depth of institutional commitment to service. In fact, the interplay of the factors on mission, rewards, and faculty involvement revealed that no institution, regardless of level of commitment to service, expected all faculty members to reflect the institution's service mission.

Rather, each institution's academic aim was to identify the role of service in the mission and then build the organizational context to support the participation of a critical mass of faculty to fulfill that role for the institution. Service was viewed as a component of a larger or expanded view of the campus mission that must be met along with other scholarly roles. The interpretation of faculty scholarship defines the fundamental character of higher education institutions and the choices each makes regarding teaching, research and service (Holland, 1995).

While there has been a great deal of attention paid to service learning research, there are still many unanswered questions, especially around ways to motivate faculty to use the method in their teaching. Rigorous evaluation of service learning programs considered to be successful will likely determine whether the approach gets a second look from the skeptics. While this study will not advance that cause, it will give ASU an opportunity to see what is being done on its campus, determine faculty attitudes about service learning and provide a starting point for future assessment.

Methodology

This section describes the research questions and methodology used to conduct this study on service learning occurring on the ASU campus. The research questions and the operational definitions used are covered in this section, followed by a description of how the data was collected, the survey instrument and sample, and research methodology.

Research Questions

There are no studies to date to gauge the level of community service integrated into ASU courses. This study seeks to answer the following research questions.

1. What service learning is already occurring on the ASU campus?

2. What are the attitudes of faculty members toward service learning?

3. What are the perceived barriers to implementing service learning into the curriculum?

Definitions

For the purposes of this study, service learning is defined as a form of experiential education or method used to engage students in active, direct involvement with the subject they are studying. According to Abes, Jackson and Jones (2002, p. 2), service learning should include each of the following:

(1) student participation in an organized service activity;

(2) participation in service activities connected to specific learning outcomes;

(3) participation in service activities that meet identified community needs, and

(4) structured time for reflection and connection of the service experience to learning.

Structured reflection connects and reinforces in-class work, text book readings, and civic engagement experiences. It provides an opportunity to think critically about civic experiences, examine and challenge personal values, beliefs, and opinions. It provides a platform for students to ask questions, share ideas and experiences, challenge current solutions to community issues and develop plans to address community needs. (Faculty Service Learning Manual, Monroe Community College, p. 13)

Data Collection Methods

To answer the research questions, a survey instrument was developed using information gathered from several sources as no single instrument captured the information needed for this study. This survey was administered to the faculty by email during March 2009 and professors were given two weeks to respond. Confidentiality was maintained by using Survey Monkey, a commercially available tool that allowed faculty to anonymously reply via the internet. No individual faculty member’s results were identifiable unless that professor agreed to participate in a follow-up interview and that person’s identity is known only to the researcher. Once the survey was completed, those professors who provided their information were contacted for follow-up interviews to more fully explore their beliefs and practices with regard to service learning.

The Survey Instrument

A survey was selected as the most appropriate method to gather this information for two reasons: accuracy and efficiency. A survey allows faculty to have direct input and it was designed to take less than 10 minutes to respond. The survey was tested to determine response times and ease of administration. For those instructors who are not using service learning, the response time was reduced by two thirds. The survey contains both closed and open-ended questions and is comprised of eight items that allowed faculty to answer yes or no, five items that are check lists and three items that gave faculty an opportunity to provide their individual thoughts. Questions were adapted from surveys used by Brevard College, Buffalo State College, Monroe Community College, and Abes, Jackson & Jones (2002, p. 2). Specifically, questions 2, 6 and 9 were adapted from Brevard College Survey; question 4 was adapted from Buffalo State College Survey; question 7 was adapted from the Monroe Community College Service Learning Manual; question 3 was adapted from Abes, Jackson & Jones (2002). The remaining questions were constructed specifically for this study.

Two additional questions were posed to 16 faculty members who provided their contact information to the researcher. Those questions are:

1) Would ASU benefit from having an Office of Service Learning to help coordinate, support and publicize service-learning efforts on campus?

2) Would it be beneficial to ASU to join an organization such as Campus Compact to be a part of a national movement of service learning?

Sample

This study attempted to survey every faculty member (both part-time and full-time) teaching classes during the Spring 2009 semester. Two hundred and thirty six instructional faculty were identified by ASU’s Office of Institutional Research. Each professor received an email with the survey link attached. A minimum of demographic information was collected as the literature suggests the most important differences in opinion on service learning occur based on academic discipline, not necessarily on gender or race. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the survey results were performed. Follow-up questions were posed to professors who agreed to participate.

Procedures for Answering Research Questions

Question 2, 3 and 4 were designed to answer Research Question 1.

Questions 1, 5, 8 were designed to answer Research Question 2.

Questions 6 and 7 were designed to answer Research Question 3.

The demographic question, 10, provides insight as to whether academic discipline and employment status plays a significant role in the attitude toward service learning.

Question 9 provides access to faculty members willing to discuss in detail their attitudes toward service learning, allowing for a better understanding of their positions.

Findings

This section presents the findings of this study, including a discussion of the response rates to the survey, the demographic distribution of the respondents, and the answers relevant to each research question. It also includes information gathered from follow-up interviews with ASU faculty who agreed to be contacted.

Survey Response

The survey was sent to 236 ASU faculty and 66 surveys were returned for a response rate of 28%. All academic departments were represented in the responses except for military science. All but three of the respondents answered all the relevant questions, resulting in a missing data rate of 4.5%.

Of the 66 faculty surveyed, 49 answered that they considered service learning to be an important element of higher education for a rate of 76.6%. Two respondents skipped the question. Thirty six (or 54.5%) answered that they do not use service learning as a method of instruction, while 31 (or 47%) said they did. Thirty respondents or 62.5% of those who use service learning said they connected projects with classroom objectives. For those who do not use service learning, 20 respondents or 51.3% said they would be motivated to implement service learning in their classrooms if ASU leadership recognized and rewarded faculty members who use this approach. Almost

80% of the respondents said they see service learning as a benefit that connects ASU with the community. Only 6% of respondents found no benefit to service learning.

Table 1.

Survey Respondents by Academic Department (Office of Institutional Research)

Count

Art 2

Biology 2

Business Administration 5

Chemistry and Physics 5

Communications, Professional Writing 2

Educational Leadership

Counseling, Special Education 6

English, Foreign Languages 5

History, Anthropology and Philosophy 3

Kinesiology and Health Sciences 3

Learning Support 3

Mathematics and Computer Science 5

Military Science 0

Nursing 2

Political Science 7

Psychology 5

Sociology 3

Teacher Development 4

Other 2

Did not answer 2

__________________________________________________

N= 66

A summary of benefits perceived by faculty respondents is as follows:

Table 2.

Perceived Benefits of Service Learning (2009)

% Response Actual Count

None 6.3 4

Development of

Leadership Ability 51.6 33

Increased Social

Self Confidence 57.8 37

Understanding Problems 78.1 50

Facing the Community

Creating Connection

Between ASU and Community 79.7 51

Preparation for a Career 67.2 43

Provides Relevance of

Coursework to Everyday Life 70.3 45

Improves Ability to

Work with Others 67.2 43

Knowledge of People of 64.1 41

Different Races or Cultures

Other 3.1 2

N= 64

Deterrents to Service Learning

Time constraints was the predominate concern listed by 73% of the respondents

as a possible deterrent to implementing service learning. However, 58% said their

concerns would not deter them from implementing service learning. Fifteen respondents said they did not consider service learning to be an important element of higher education; 60% of those were from departments or disciplines such as the hard sciences and business that the literature indicated were the least likely to participate in service learning. Of those, four respondents said they see no value in service learning.

“Service is a personal choice. We should not use academia as a pulpit to preach the need for service,” wrote one respondent. Eleven of the respondents who responded no to Question 1 said they would not be persuaded to add service learning to their instruction even if ASU leadership recognized and rewarded faculty who use this approach.

Another dissenting theme was that service learning does not lend itself to all fields or disciplines and that while it may have some benefits, it is not “necessary” to a student mastering the class material. A third line of thinking was that students are already overwhelmed with working and family obligations that to add one more requirement would be unfair to many students.

Table 3.

Perceived Deterrents to Service Learning (2009)

% Response Actual Count

Relevance to Coursework 33.3 21

Lack of Interest

Or Knowledge 15.9 10

Time Constraints 73.0 46

Coordination of Placements 34.9 22

Supervision of Students 39.7 25

Reduced Time for

Classroom Instruction 27.0 17

Assessment of Students’

Learning and Work 28.6 18

Effectively Incorporating

Reflection Activities 12.7 8

Communication with

Community Representatives 12.7 8

Cost 11.1 7

Other 14.3 9

N= 63

Examples of Service Learning at ASU

A broad array of service-learning projects was reported by survey respondents. As seen in the literature, some fields such as education, nursing and social work provide a natural fit for service to the community while others such as chemistry or mathematics require non-traditional thinking to make those connections. Specific examples include: designing marketing plans, conducting research and surveys for non profits, mentoring youth, working with community art projects and clean-ups, performing medical checks at health fairs, tutoring at the Literacy Center, facilitating anger management classes for school children, developing community action projects that tackle a specific issue such as sexual assault, organizing book drives, creating web sites for community groups, participating in health-related walks such as Relay for Life, fitness testing and wellness screenings in public schools, volunteering to serve the homeless, advocating for groups with special needs, assisting with school science Olympiads, fund-raising for grassroots groups, preparing meals for the hungry, and donating blood. This is not an exhaustive list as there were many more examples provided in the survey, but these represent the types of activities that are currently being conducted by ASU professors and their students.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this survey, there appears to be a solid level of support among faculty recognizing the benefits of service learning to students and the community. Significant service-learning efforts are already under way at ASU and some are being highlighted in the community. With a coordinated effort, the work that is being done could be compiled into a guide for service learning for students, faculty and the community. As previously noted in the literature, for service learning programs to be successful, it is not necessary for every department or every instructor to use this approach. There does need to be a campus-wide embrace of the concept as it relates to the school’s mission and recognition for the committed group of people using service learning. Implementing a service-learning recognition program for fields such as education, social work, public administration and nursing might help persuade others to see its value.

While there are differing opinions on this subject, there is some level of support for setting up an Office of Service Learning on campus would help faculty make connections in the community, give them a point of contact for best practices and provide a collection point for all the great work that is being done. One respondent wrote that “Institutions seriously committed to service learning have a staff to direct

and provide leadership for this initiative. Twenty-first century education requires

academia to change its model. No longer can learning be confined to the classroom.

Learning should be a continuum of theory and practical application.” Another said: “It would provide avenues of exploration for those interested in service learning, avoid duplication of efforts, and showcase our student talent on this campus.”

In addition, the study suggests that ASU would benefit from joining Campus Compact to become part of a national network of colleges and universities promoting civic engagement. One respondent said “Our mission statement reflects our commitment to the CSRA community. Why not join an organization on the cutting edge of civic engagement? Here’s our opportunity to define our mission in broader terms.”

Limitations of Study

The small sample size of individual academic departments prohibited the researcher from performing chi square tests that would have provided significance to the cross-tabulation results of the survey. Only academic instructors were surveyed for this study. University leadership did not have an opportunity to provide input and any movement to create an Office of Service Learning or to raise the profile of service learning on campus would require support from the top.

Reference List

Abes, E., Jackson, G. & Jones, S. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9 (1), 5-17.

Astin, A. & Sax, L. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39 (3), 251-263.

Augusta State University. Mission Statement. Retrieved January 20, 2009 from

(http://www.aug.edu/mission.html).

Batchelder, T.H. & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate

academic learning and service: Cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity

outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 341-355.

Berger, J. B. & Milem, J.F. (2002). The impact of community service involvement

on three measures of undergraduate self-concept. NASPA Journal, 40(1),

85-103.

Bringle, R.G. & Hatcher, J.A. (2000). Institutionalization of service learning in higher

education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 273-290.

Bringle, R.G. & Hatcher, J.A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221-239.

Bringle, R.G., Games, R. & Malloy, E. (1999). Colleges and universities as citizens.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bringle, R.G., Hatcher, J.A. & Games, R. (1997). Engaging and supporting faculty in

service learning. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 2(1), 43-51.

Campus Compact. (2007). Campus compact annual membership survey, 2006. Providence, RI: Campus Compact. Retrieved on October 6, 2007, from: http://www.compact.org/about/statistics/2006/service_statistics.pdf

Conville, R.L. &Weintraub, S.C. Service learning and communication: A disciplinary

toolkit. National Communication Association, Washington, D.C.

Faculty Service Learning Manual, Monroe Community College. Retrieved January

18, 2009, from http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/other/engagement/SAFEProject

/ServiceLearningFacultyManual.pdf

Giles, D. E., Jr. and Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service learning laboratory on students' personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 327-339.

Gray, M. J., Ondaatje, E.H. & Zakaras, L. (1999). Combining service and learning in

higher education: Summary report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Holland, B. (2001). Exploring the challenge of documenting and measuring civic

engagement endeavors of colleges and universities: Purposes, issues, ideas .

Campus Compact Advanced Institute on Classifications for Civic Engagement.

Holland, B. (1997) Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,

30-41.

Rhoads, R.A. (1998). In the service of citizenship: A study of student involvement in community service. Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 277-297.

Schuh, J.H., Andreas, R.E. & Strange, C.C. (1991). Students at Metropolitan

Universities. Metropolitan Universities, 2 (1991), 64-74.

Smith, B., Swick, K., Friend, C, et al., (2007). Recommendations for building a service-

learning infrastructure at the University of South Carolina: Extending

scholarship beyond the classroom into the community. Provost’s Task Force on

Service Learning.

Ward, K. (1996). Service-learning and student volunteerism: Reflections on

institutional commitment. New York, N.Y.

Ward, K. (1998). Addressing academic culture: Service learning, organizations, and

faculty work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Youniss & Yates, 1997 Youniss, J. and Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Zlotkowski, E. (1996). Opportunity for all: Linking service-learning and business

education. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 5-19.

Appendix A

ASU Faculty Survey on Service Learning

For the purpose of this study, service learning is defined as a form of experiential education characterized by all of the following:
(1) student participation in an organized service activity;
(2) participation in service activities connected to specific learning outcomes;
(3) participation in service activities that meet identified community needs, and
(4) structured time for reflection and connection of the service experience to learning.

1. Do you consider service learning to be an important component of higher education? Please elaborate in the box below.

o Yes

o No

2. Do you currently involve students in public service and/or community service activities?

o Yes

o No

3. If you use community service projects in your class, do you connect those service projects with your classroom objectives?

o Yes

o No

4. Please describe the service learning activities that you employ in your classes.

5. What do you see as the benefit for students who participate in service learning/community involvement programs? Mark all that apply.

o None

o development of leadership ability

o increased social self confidence

o understanding of problems facing the community

o creating a connection between college and community

o preparation for a career

o provides relevance of coursework to everyday life

o improves ability to work with others

o knowledge of people of different races and cultures

o Other

6. Please mark your three most serious concerns about teaching a service learning course.

o relevance to coursework

o lack of interest or knowledge

o time constraints

o coordination of placements

o supervision of students

o reduced time for classroom instruction

o assessment of students’ learning and work

o effectively incorporating reflection activities

o communication with community representative(s)

o cost

o other

7. Would these concerns keep you from implementing service learning into your coursework?

o Yes

o No

8. If you currently do not use service learning in your classroom, would you be motivated to do so if ASU leadership recognized and rewarded faculty who use this approach?

o Yes

o No

9. Would you be willing to be interviewed on this topic? If so, please put your contact information in the comment section.

o Yes

o No

10. What is your department and your employment status?