The Use of Service-Learning Among Special Education Faculty

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the use of service-learning (SL) by special education faculty at 4-year colleges and universities across the United States, and to determine faculty attitudes and beliefs about the application of SL in special education. Participants included faculty with experience in SL teaching and/or research in special education (N = 48). Data were gathered using a survey. Results show that faculty represented a wide range of institutions and had varying levels of SL experience. There was variability in beliefs about and implementation of SL across faculty. Barriers to incorporating SL in courses and research were minimal. Significant differences in attitudes and beliefs were found based on type of institution, size of institution, and size of community.

Keywords

service-learning special education higher education faculty perceptions teacher education and community engagement

Connecting institutions of higher education (IHEs) to their surrounding communities through scholarship is a national movement that continues to gain momentum. In 2008, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching developed the Community Engagement Classification. This voluntary (i.e., self-reported) classification recognizes IHEs for their community engagement efforts (Driscoll, 2009). In addition, the recent passing of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act provides increased funding to the Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal agency that coordinates community engagement funding and resources across government programs, K-12 schools, and IHEs (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2010). Service-learning (SL) is one form of community engagement recognized by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Corporation for National and Community Service.

There has been a steady increase in the percentage of students engaged in service, the number of campuses that recognize SL in decisions regarding promotion and tenure, and the overall number of SL courses offered across campuses (Campus Compact, 2007). The continued rise in SL across IHEs has led to an increased focus on research on this pedagogy as well as the emergence of professional organizations (e.g., American Educational Research Association Special Interest Group on Service-Learning and Experiential Learning, International Association for Research in Service-Learning and Community Engagement) and professional journals (e.g., Journal of Research in Service-Learning and Teacher Education, Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning) to disseminate findings.

The adoption of SL continues to become more widespread in teacher education programs; therefore, it is important to distinguish SL from other forms of community engagement (Anderson & Callahan, 2005; Anderson & Erickson, 2003). Although there is debate regarding the definition of SL, one commonly referenced is that of Bringle and Hatcher (1995) who defined SL in higher education as a

course-based, credit bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs, and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility. (p. 112)

SL differs from community service, volunteer work, or site-based practica in that it aims to be mutually beneficial to all participants and is directly tied to course content (Anderson, 1998; Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Mayhew & Welch, 2001). For example, with SL, preservice teachers in a literacy course may work with their instructor and a local school district to develop, implement, and monitor an ongoing after-school tutoring program for emerging readers. Faculty use structured reflections throughout the process to evaluate learning and to guide preservice teachers toward greater understanding of their role as future educators (Welch & James, 2007).

SL provides learning experiences for students that would not otherwise be possible in the context of a typical higher education course. As a form of pedagogy, SL can create authentic learning environments and opportunities for linking theory to practice (Root, 1994). SL programs that focus on the needs of children provide chances for preservice teachers to gain insight into the lives of their students and allow for the development of student-focused instruction (Harwood, Fliss, & Gaulding, 2006; Potthoff et al., 2000; Root, 1994; Root, Callahan, & Sepanski, 2002; Wade, 1997). Additional benefits to incorporating SL in teacher education have included opportunities for preservice teachers to gain hands-on experience with instructional strategies, improve understanding of course content, develop problem-solving skills, create community connections, heighten self-esteem and self-efficacy, and solidify career choices (Potthoff et al., 2000; Root et al., 2002; Wade, 1995, 1997; Wasserman, 2009).

While there is growing evidence to support the positive impact of SL courses on future educators and noneducators, there has been less attention given to faculty involvement in SL teaching and research (Abes, Jackson, & Jones, 2002; Driscoll, 2000; Hammond, 1994; Harwood et al., 2005; Pribbenow, 2005; Schnaubelt & Statham, 2007). One aspect of faculty involvement that has a growing literature base surrounds the challenges associated with implementing SL. Most barriers are localized in the areas of community, curriculum, faculty, and institution (Anderson & Pickeral, 2000). For example, coordination and collaboration with various community sites may present a variety of challenges such as developing community partnerships, student transportation, and liability issues (Anderson & Pickeral, 2000). Furthermore, SL may not align with the priorities of an IHE or department, resulting in limited resources (e.g., training, funding) and lack of recognition of SL efforts in decisions regarding rewards, promotions, and tenure (Anderson & Erickson, 2003; Anderson & Pickeral, 2000). One of the greatest challenges associated with the implementation of SL is lack of time to plan and coordinate SL courses due to job demands and overcrowded curricula (Anderson & Pickeral, 2000; Furco & Ammon, 2000). Moreover, faculty may be unprepared to use SL as a teaching method, lack understanding regarding SL pedagogy, or be uninterested in using SL (Anderson & Pickeral, 2000; Potthoff et al., 2000).

When Mayhew and Welch wrote their call to service in 2001, there was little evidence that SL was being implemented by special education faculty; however, several examples of successful programs that highlight the benefits of the pedagogy have since emerged. Many of the benefits relate to the enhancement of preservice teachers’ overall understanding of the discipline. One of the primary benefits is that SL provides opportunities for preservice teachers to gain hands-on experience using effective teaching strategies (e.g., progress monitoring, literacy instruction, individualized instruction, behavior interventions; Al Otaiba, 2005; Griffith, 2005; Jenkins & Sheehey, 2009; Muscott, 2001; Muscott & O’Brien, 1999). SL courses can be designed to coordinate experiences with specific populations (e.g., persons with severe disabilities, culturally and linguistically diverse students, parents of students with disabilities, rural communities) that would not otherwise be possible in classroom settings (Al Otaiba, 2005; Alvarez-McHatton, Thomas, & Lehman, 2006; Davis, Emery, & Lane, 1998; Jenkins & Sheehey, 2009; Novak, Murray, Scheuermann, & Curran, 2009; Smith, 2003). A second benefit of SL courses appears to be the increased understanding of persons with disabilities and the societal issues that have marginalized this population. For example, SL may be used as an instructional approach to promote inclusion and increase positive perceptions of persons with disabilities within their schools and communities (Karayan & Gathercoal, 2003; Muwana & Gaffney, 2011; Parker, 2009). In addition, some courses may be specifically designed to promote public awareness regarding the contributions persons with disabilities make to their communities (Curran, 1999; Karayan & Gathercoal, 2003; Novak, 2010; Smith, 2003) or facilitate the inclusion of new special educators and students with disabilities in their schools and communities (Kennedy, 2005).

The literature provides evidence that SL is being incorporated into special education departments in numerous ways and that the goals differ depending on the course objectives. In many ways, the literature on SL in special education parallels the teacher education literature. A wide number of special education SL courses have been developed including introductory courses (see Griffith, 2005; Mayhew & Welch, 2001; Parker, 2009) and methods courses (see Al Otaiba, 2005; Griffith, 2005), undergraduate courses (see Parker, 2009; Smith, 2003) and graduate courses (see Jenkins & Sheehey, 2009), and courses involving mandatory participation in SL (see Al Otaiba, 2005) and voluntary participation (see Griffith, 2005). SL courses have addressed a broad array of curricular areas such as literacy instruction (see Al Otaiba, 2005), supported employment (see Novak et al., 2009), recreation (see Parker, 2009), and family collaborations (see Jenkins & Sheehey, 2009; Novak et al., 2009). The courses have focused on a wide range of students with disabilities including students with emotional and behavior disorders, learning disabilities (see Griffith, 2005; Muscott & O’Brien, 1999), and developmental disabilities (see Curran, 1999; Smith, 2003) as well as students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (see Al Otaiba, 2005). SL has been implemented in urban (see Alvarez-McHatton et al., 2006) and rural (see Davis et al., 1998) communities. One notable difference between the teacher education and special education literature is that special education SL courses are often also offered to nonmajors (see Alvarez-McHatton et al., 2006; Mayhew & Welch, 2001; Novak et al., 2009; Smith, 2003).

The incorporation of SL in special education teacher preparation and other disability-related courses appears to be an emerging trend in higher education that is gaining momentum. Descriptions of special education SL courses and benefits are promising. Due to the growing emphasis on community engagement within IHEs, it is likely that SL will continue to expand across disciplines and courses. The literature provides some empirical evidence to support positive student outcomes associated with special education SL courses; however, only one study was identified that addressed faculty involvement. Jenkins and Sheehey (2009) analyzed course documents and student evaluations from SL courses they had offered over a 9-year period. They determined that SL was an effective instructional approach to teach course objectives in special education, and that after the initial planning of the course, the required time devoted to future planning, implementing, and evaluating was no more time intensive than other project-based courses.

Additional data must be gathered about the involvement of special education faculty in SL teaching and research to begin to understand the use of SL in special education university courses. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the use of SL by special education faculty and to determine their attitudes and beliefs about its use within their departments. SL practices among faculty were investigated as well as perceived barriers and facilitators to SL teaching that may be unique to the field of special education, and faculty views regarding the elements of a quality SL course. Given the need for additional research echoed across the SL literature (P-16), an investigation into possible barriers to conducting SL research and the focus and supports of SL research were explored.

Method

Participants

The participants for this study were purposefully selected. Criteria for selection were that the individuals be employed by a 4-year IHE in the United States, be a member of the special education faculty or teach disability-related courses, and teach and/or conduct research on SL. In an effort to represent SL across the field of special education, selection criteria did not require faculty to be teacher educators because not all special education faculty members are involved in teacher preparation.

There is no formal list of special education faculty involved in SL teaching and research; therefore, five methods were used to locate potential participants. First, a literature review was conducted using the ERIC, PsychINFO, and Service-Learning National Clearinghouse databases to locate special education faculty who had authored manuscripts on SL (P-16). This resulted in the initial identification of 56 faculty members. All subsequent searches were employed to add to the initial list of potential participants. Second, Campus Compact (www.campuscompact.org) and Learn and Serve America (www.service-learning.org), two organizations that compile SL syllabi, were contacted to locate special education faculty members who teach courses using SL. Representatives of each site provided syllabi that resulted in the identification of 4 additional faculty members who met the criteria. Third, conference program materials from two nationally recognized special education organizations (Council for Exceptional Children and formerly known as The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps [TASH]) were scanned, resulting in the identification of four additional special education faculty who presented on the topic of SL within the last 2 years. Fourth, a manual search was conducted using Internet search engines (i.e., Google, Yahoo, Google Scholar) in combination with special education and SL related search terms. Once a potential participant was located, the faculty profiles (e.g., vita, research interests, courses taught) of the other members in the department were then scanned (when available) to determine if additional faculty members were engaged in SL research and/or teaching. A total of 19 special education faculty members were identified who had not previously been identified. Finally, snowball sampling, a common procedure used to identify participants who would not otherwise be identified without referral (Krathwohl, 1998), was used. Faculty members identified through the first four methods were asked to forward the survey information to colleagues who met the selection criteria and might be interested in participating. This resulted in the identification of 3 additional faculty members. The combined search methods identified a total of 86 faculty members without duplication across searches.

Each individual identified from the search process was sent an email inviting participation in the study. A total of 58 (67%) faculty members responded. Of this group, 48 (56%) completed the study and 9 declined for various reasons (e.g., did not consider themselves special education faculty, lack of time). Participants represented a wide range of institutions and varied in their SL experience. Most faculty members (85%) reported that their primary responsibilities were related to special education; however, 15% reported primary roles outside of special education including administrative duties. Table 1 provides an overview of the participants’ demographic information.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics (N = 48)

Demographic variable	n	%
Faculty rank (n = 48)
Associate/full	26	54
Assistant	16	33
Other	6	13
Years of SL experience (n = 47)
Less than 5	20	43
5 or more	27	57
Type of institution (n = 48)
Research	16	33
Teaching	32	67
Funding of institution (n = 48)
Public	34	71
Private	14	29
Size of institution (n = 48)
10,000 or more students	31	65
1-9,999 students	17	35
Size of community (n = 46)
Urbanized area (50,000 + residents)	29	63
Nonurbanized area (1-49,999 residents)	17	37

Note: SL = service-learning.

Instrument

A survey was developed based on a review of the literature on SL and higher education. The survey contained 79 questions and included single response questions (i.e., select one), multiple response questions (i.e., check all that apply), and 6-point Likert-type scale questions. There were seven sections of the survey: (a) demographic information, (b) faculty views toward the use of SL in their departments, (c) SL teaching in higher education, (d) important elements of a quality SL course, (e) barriers to SL teaching in higher education, (f) SL research, and (g) barriers to conducting SL research. A definition of SL was purposefully omitted from the survey because there is no “one-size-fits-all” definition (Mayhew & Welch, 2001). In addition, because purposive sampling resulted in a limited number of potential participants (n = 86) and the goal of the study was to represent faculty from across the field of special education, it was hypothesized that defining SL would limit understanding of the multiple and diverse ways in which faculty are using the pedagogy.

The survey was piloted with three special education faculty members from a university in the Midwest who had experience with SL teaching and research. Pilot data were collected related to length of time for survey completion, clarity of survey directions and questions, and the appropriateness of the survey content. Each faculty member was given a copy of the survey and a questionnaire to obtain feedback. The final version of the instrument was revised using the collective feedback gathered during the piloting process (Czaja & Blair, 1996).

Data Collection

Participants were initially contacted via email and invited to participate in the study. The use of email correspondence is an effective tool to increase response rates among sample populations that use email as their primary mode of communication (Krathwohl, 1998). The email message included the purpose and significance of the study, selection criteria, description of the survey, description of an incentive for completion of the survey, a direct link to the web-based survey, and an institutional review board (IRB) approval letter ensuring confidentiality and security of all data collected. Participants were prompted to reply to the email if additional IRB approval was needed or if they preferred to receive a paper copy of the survey. An email confirmation notice was sent to those participants requesting a paper copy of the survey once the materials (e.g., consent letter, survey, prepaid envelope) had been mailed. Participants who chose to complete the web-based survey followed the link included in the initial email. Most of the participants (92%) chose to complete a web-based survey whereas the remainder (8%) completed a paper copy of the survey.

Data were collected over a 3-week period. A reminder email was sent each week to participants who had not completed their survey. As an incentive to increase survey completion, a US$5-gift card to Amazon.com was emailed to each faculty member who agreed to participate prior to survey completion. Precontact and incentives have been shown to affect response rates in web-based surveys (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000).

Data Analysis

Completed electronic surveys were exported from the host site to an electronic spreadsheet. Paper surveys were entered into the electronic spreadsheet by hand. A second researcher checked the accuracy of the data entered by hand. All data were then uploaded to Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 17.0). Survey questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics including percentages, means, and standard deviations. An ANOVA was performed to determine if there were significant differences between type of institution (i.e., teaching, research), size of institution (i.e., large, small), and size of community (i.e., urban, nonurban), and departmental views toward SL, barriers to SL teaching, and barriers to SL research. Type of institution referred to the primary focus of the institution on either teaching or research. Large institutions were defined as having 10,000 or more students, and small institutions were defined as having less than 10,000 students (Carnegie Foundation, 2009). Urban communities were defined as having a population of 50,000 or more, and nonurban communities were defined as having a population less than 50,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). An alpha level of .01 was used to determine statistical significance in an effort to minimize the potential for Type I errors.

Results

Supports for SL Implementation and Departmental Course Offerings

Faculty reported a variety of supports that are linked to the spread of SL. In all, 74% of the participants indicated that one or more of their colleagues were engaged in SL activities in their departments. In fact, about 20% reported having five or more colleagues engaged in SL-related activities. Most participants (68%) stated they had a campus-wide SL center and an initiative to increase SL on their campus. Half reported that their IHEs provided faculty training related to SL implementation, and approximately 60% were members of Campus Compact.

Participants were asked to report the types of SL courses offered over the last 3 years in their departments. Most indicated that their department offered SL courses for undergraduate and graduate students (53%), whereas some offered courses solely for undergraduate students (30%) or graduate students (11%). Six percent reported that their department had not offered a SL course in the past 3 years. Stand-alone courses on SL pedagogy were provided for undergraduate (17%) and graduate students (11%) in relatively few of the participants’ departments. Among those participants who said their department offered SL courses, 52% offered courses for majors and nonmajors, 28% offered courses for special education majors only, 3% offered courses for nonmajors only, and 17% were unsure.

Faculty Views Toward the Use of SL in Their Department

Participants were asked to report the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements about their department and institution pertaining to SL using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Mean scores ranged from 2.56 to 4.74, with only 2 of the 11 statements rated above a mean score of 4.00 (see Table 2). The participants clearly held diverse views toward policies, practices, and climate as evidenced by the large range in standard deviations (1.39-1.81).

Table 2.

Faculty Views Toward the Use of Service-Learning in Their Department (N = 48)

Statement about department	n	M	SD
Service-learning has increased my collaboration with community members.	47	4.74	1.54
The faculty in my department value service-learning pedagogy.	48	4.04	1.46
Participation in service-learning activities has increased my collaboration with other faculty members outside my department.	48	3.90	1.81
In comparison with other departments on campus, I would consider my department one of the leaders in regard to service-learning implementation.	48	3.56	1.81
Participation in service-learning activities has increased my collaboration with other faculty members within my department.	48	3.38	1.68
The majority of faculty in my department have an understanding of service-learning.	48	3.38	1.39
The number of faculty members in my department who are using service-learning in their courses is increasing.	48	3.27	1.61
Participation in service-learning activities is considered in decisions about promotion and tenure.	47	2.79	1.57
Increasing faculty engagement in research and or teaching on service-learning is considered a departmental priority.	47	2.79	1.56
Student teaching is considered a form of service-learning in my department.	48	2.67	1.58
My department has a shared definition of service-learning.	48	2.56	1.67

Note: Scale for variables: 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree.

Few participants reported that their department had a shared definition of SL (M = 2.56, SD = 1.67). In addition, there was not a strong consensus about the statement “student teaching is not considered a form of SL” (M = 2.67, SD = 1.58), suggesting that many departments had not defined SL as separate from other forms of experiential learning. There was general agreement that SL increased collaboration. In fact, three of the five highest rated statements related to increased collaboration with other parties (i.e., community members, faculty members within and outside the department). Most participants agreed that faculty in their department value SL pedagogy (M = 4.04, SD = 1.46); however, philosophical agreement was not supported by departmental actions that demonstrated support for the pedagogy. For example, “participation in SL activities is considered in decisions about tenure and promotion” (M = 2.79, SD = 1.57) and “increasing faculty engagement in research and or teaching on SL is considered a departmental priority” (M = 2.79, SD = 1.56) were not reported as favorable across participants.

Type of institution was the only variable that produced group differences. Faculty members from teaching institutions (M = 3.23, SD = 1.53), F(1, 44) = 8.55, p = .005, reported stronger agreement that participation in SL is considered in decisions about tenure and promotion than faculty from research institutions (M = 1.94, SD = 1.34).

SL Teaching in Higher Education

Participants were asked to report the SL teaching activities in which they engaged, the amount of time students participated in SL activities, and methods used to evaluate student learning and community participants’ satisfaction. All faculty members reported that they participated in some form of teaching related to SL. More than half of the participants were involved in the following activities: (a) offering a SL component to an existing course (85%), (b) conducting conference presentations on SL (71%), and (c) developing SL instructional materials (56%). Additional SL teaching activities included (a) participating on a committee about SL (46%), (b) mentoring a faculty member interested in SL (46%), (c) conducting workshops on SL (42%), (d) teaching undergraduate courses about SL (21%), and (e) teaching graduate courses about SL (17%).

The number of hours that participants required their students to engage in service varied. Among the 41 participants who had taught a course with a SL component, most (67%) required 11 to 30 hours of service, whereas 17% required 1 to 10 hours, and 10% required 31 or more hours. A small sample (7%) of the participants indicated that they had no set time requirements.

All faculty members who taught courses that included a SL component reported that they evaluated student learning on service projects. Participants were asked to report up to three methods for evaluating student learning that they found most effective in their courses. Final projects (e.g., portfolio, final paper; 75%) were the most frequently reported evaluation method followed by student journals (43%), class presentations (40%), project completion (e.g., required hours; 30%), and community participants’ feedback (23%).

Those with SL course experience reported a variety of methods that they use to evaluate community participants’ level of satisfaction with SL projects. Most (60%) stated that they use personal correspondence (e.g., email, conversations). Additional methods included surveys (50%), interviews (38%), and focus groups (14%). Ten percent of the participants reported that they did not evaluate community participants’ level of satisfaction.

Important Elements of a Quality SL Course

Using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = not important, 6 = very important), participants were asked to report the extent to which elements of SL reported in the literature were important to the development of a quality SL course (see Table 3). A total of 8 out of the 10 elements were rated at a mean score of 5.00 or greater, suggesting strong agreement with the SL literature. The 2 elements that were rated below a 5.00 pertained to the evaluation of student outcomes, suggesting differing views regarding the evaluation of student learning. For example, participants were divided on whether “community participants should have input on student grades” (M = 2.91, SD = 1.59), but they strongly agreed that “feedback regarding community members’ satisfaction with service should be collected” (M = 5.43, SD = 0.78). Likewise, most participants agreed that “SL courses should include an evaluation component to determine if course objectives were met” (M = 5.33, SD = 0.82); however, fewer participants believed that “student learning should be assessed using formal measures such as tests and papers” (M = 3.83, SD = 1.45).

Table 3.

Elements of a Quality Service-Learning Course (N = 48)

Elements	n	M	SD
Students should be given opportunities to reflect on their service-learning experiences.	46	5.80	0.54
Service-learning should be directly linked to course content.	45	5.64	0.68
Feedback regarding community members’ satisfaction with service should be collected.	46	5.43	0.78
Students should be given opportunities to collaborate with other students.	46	5.41	0.67
Students should be given opportunities to celebrate their accomplishments.	46	5.35	0.77
Service-learning courses should include an evaluation component to determine if course objectives were met.	46	5.33	0.82
Service-learning courses that include direct service with individuals with disabilities should provide instruction about the populations of individuals with disabilities prior to service implementation.	46	5.11	1.04
Students should be given opportunities to increase ownership by selecting their service experience.	46	5.00	0.97
Student learning should be assessed using formal measures (e.g., tests, papers).	46	3.83	1.45
Community participants should have input regarding student grades.	46	2.91	1.59

Note: Scale for the variables: 1 = not important, 6 = very important.

Barriers to SL Teaching in Higher Education

Participants were asked to report the extent to which they viewed various factors cited in the literature as barriers to implementing SL teaching using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = not a barrier, 6 = extreme barrier). Extreme barriers to using SL within courses did not emerge (see Table 4), although, clearly, some participants experienced barriers as evidenced by the range in standard deviations (1.19-1.83). Only two mean scores were rated above a 4.00. Both of these barriers pertained to time: “lack of time to supervise students in the community” (M = 4.34, SD = 1.32) and “lack of preparation time” (M = 4.32, SD = 1.34).

Table 4.

Barriers to Implementing Service-Learning in Higher Education Courses (N = 48)

Barriers	n	M	SD
Lack of time to supervise students in the community	47	4.34	1.32
Lack of preparation time	47	4.32	1.34
Lack of recognition of service-learning efforts in tenure/promotion	47	3.64	1.83
Lack of departmental understanding of service-learning pedagogy	46	3.61	1.77
Lack of student transportation to community placements	47	3.51	1.47
Lack of funding	47	3.43	1.51
Lack of departmental support (e.g., alignment with mission, interest)	46	3.26	1.71
Limited personal experience implementing service-learning	47	3.19	1.68
Liability issues related to community placements	47	3.19	1.56
Reduced time for classroom instruction	47	3.19	1.44
Difficulty establishing community partners	47	3.02	1.48
Difficulty evaluating service-learning outcomes	47	2.96	1.52
Lack of student follow-through in service delivery	46	2.89	1.25
Difficulty recruiting students for service-learning courses	45	2.67	1.31
Difficulty meeting accreditation standards	46	2.41	1.45
Difficulty connecting service-learning activities to course content	47	2.28	1.19
Previous bad experience implementing service-learning	47	2.06	1.36

Note: Scale for the variables: 1 = not a barrier, 6 = extreme barrier.

Although there did not appear to be substantial barriers to using SL, group differences were evident across all three variables. Faculty from teaching institutions reported meeting accreditation standards (M = 2.90, SD = 1.45), F(1, 43) = 10.79, p = .002, and liability issues related to community placements (M = 3.71, SD = 1.47), F(1, 44) = 14.41, p = .001, as greater barriers than faculty from research institutions (accreditation standards: M = 1.53, SD = 0.99; liability: M = 2.07, SD = 1.16). With regard to size of institution, participants from small institutions (M = 3.53, SD = 0.80), F(1, 43) = 7.59, p = .009, reported that lack of student follow-through in service delivery posed more of a problem to implementing SL courses in higher education than did participants from large institutions (M = 2.54, SD = 1.35). Finally, faculty members from nonurban communities (M = 2.94, SD = 1.34), F(1, 42) = 8.08, p = .007, viewed connecting SL activities to course content as a greater barrier than faculty members from urban communities (M = 1.96, SD = 1.42).

SL Research

Most participants (79%) reported that they engaged in some form of SL research. The most frequently reported research activity was conducting conference presentations (66%) followed by writing empirical articles (40%), writing position papers (38%), writing case studies (34%), writing book chapters (26%), and mentoring graduate students conducting research on SL (23%).

To determine the focus of research activities, participants were asked if their research activities were geared toward higher education, P-12 education, or both. There was a relatively even distribution of participants who reported their focus on P-12 education (35%), higher education (27%), and both P-12 and higher education (35%).

Participants engaged in SL research received funding from a wide range of sources. Funding sources included (a) college/university (43%), (b) private sector (30%), (c) federal (24%), (d) state (24%), and (e) local organizations (22%). The majority of participants (87%) conducting SL research were not currently funded.

Barriers to Conducting SL Research

Using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = not a barrier, 6 = extreme barrier), participants were asked to report the extent to which they viewed barriers identified from the literature as barriers to conducting SL research (see Table 5). Overall, participants as a group did not identify any extreme barriers (means ranged from 1.93 to 3.87), but some individuals perceived the barriers to be greater challenges as evidenced by the range in standard deviations (1.12-1.90). Only three barriers were reported as having a mean score above 3.00 including (a) “lack of funding” (M = 3.87, SD = 1.64), (b) “SL research is time-consuming” (M = 3.54, SD = 1.80), and (c) “lack of recognition of SL research in tenure/promotion decisions” (M = 3.09, SD = 1.90). Between-group differences were not evident for any variable.

Table 5.

Barriers to Conducting Service-Learning Research (N = 48)

Barriers	n	M	SD
Lack of funding	46	3.87	1.64
Service-learning research is time-consuming	46	3.54	1.80
Lack of recognition of service-learning research in tenure/promotion decisions	46	3.09	1.90
Limited access to participants	46	2.80	1.78
Lack of faculty members to collaborate with on service-learning research	46	2.67	1.42
Special education journals are not receptive to publishing my articles related to service-learning	46	2.64	1.33
Service-learning research is not valued in my department	46	2.63	1.65
Difficulty recruiting university students interested in service-learning research	46	2.61	1.53
Difficulty gaining IRB approval	45	2.51	1.60
Difficulty establishing service-learning projects to research	46	2.50	1.57
Conference organizers have not been receptive to service-learning presentations	46	1.93	1.12

Note: IRB = institutional review board. Scale for the variables: 1 = not a barrier, 6 = extreme barrier.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to describe the use of SL by special education faculty at 4-year IHEs across the United States, and to determine faculty attitudes and beliefs about the application of SL in special education. The findings from this study contribute to the literature on teacher education and special education by offering a preliminary description of faculty involvement in SL teaching and research that is specific to the discipline of special education. Several findings align with the existing literature on teacher education; however, there appear to be aspects of SL that are unique to special education. A primary outcome of this study is that it provides further evidence that SL is being incorporated into special education programs in higher education, and research is being conducted on its use. Although there were faculty members who had differing views, collectively, there was relative agreement among special education faculty across all sections of the survey.

Who Is Using SL?

Faculty from a wide range of IHEs and all ranks of the professoriate are engaging in SL activities. Moreover, some participants reported having been engaged in SL activities for more than 20 years, making it a viable pedagogical option for faculty in the field of special education. The majority of faculty in this study had a variety of supports (e.g., SL colleagues, campus-wide SL initiatives, faculty training) that may have contributed toward their SL development and are considered key factors that aid in the widespread adoption of SL (Anderson & Callahan, 2005; Furco & Ammon, 2000). It is worth noting that several faculty members were engaged in SL activities that had access to minimal or no additional supports. This suggests that faculty who value SL pedagogy can spearhead the efforts to develop SL in their department or IHE regardless of the support given.

Perhaps one of the most interesting findings from this study is the wide range of experiences and views among the participants. The overall mean ratings for each survey item do not adequately convey the magnitude of diverging faculty attitudes, beliefs, and experiences that were present across each section of the survey. For example, what one faculty member identified as an extreme barrier to implementing SL was a nonbarrier to another faculty member. The varying paths faculty members have traveled to incorporate SL in their courses may account for these diverse views.

How Is SL Being Used?

SL appears to meet a variety of curricular needs across special education departments. Special education faculty reported using SL with undergraduate students, graduate students, majors, and nonmajors. A variety of SL courses were offered across departments; however, one area of concern is the small number of departments that offered stand-alone SL courses. These courses are often developed to give preservice/in service teachers opportunities to gain a greater understanding of SL pedagogy as well as guided practice in developing and implementing SL. Although it is possible that instruction on SL pedagogy is included in other teacher education courses, it is unlikely that students would have exposure to the wide range of experiences needed to implement well-developed SL projects on their own. Moreover, participation in a variety of SL activities that allow students to be actively engaged in SL as well as take a lead role in developing SL activities for K-12 students increases the likelihood teachers will implement quality SL in their own classrooms (Anderson & Erickson, 2003; Cepello, Davis, & Hill-Ward, 2003).

Several recommendations for implementing SL in higher education courses can be gleaned from the findings. First, faculty were in strong agreement regarding the elements (e.g., reflection, link to course content) that are most closely aligned with quality SL courses. Second, the majority of participants who taught SL courses reported that they require their students to be engaged in service for an average of 11 to 30 hours. Third, faculty believe that final projects such as portfolios or final papers are the most effective for evaluating student learning. Last, personal correspondence (e.g., email, telephone) was used to evaluate community participants’ level of satisfaction. Developing collaborative relationships with community members was viewed as vital to the success of a SL program.

The use of SL pedagogy by special education faculty appears to be related to increased collaboration among other faculty and community members. This is promising given the number of IHEs that tout SL as a means to increase collaboration between universities and their surrounding communities in an effort to diminish “town-gown” issues (Driscoll, 2009; Rooney, 2009). Faculty collaboration with community members is the crux of SL; however, there is a lack of discussion within the special education literature related to methods for developing and sustaining these relationships. Ensuring that SL efforts are mutually beneficial is critical to developing sustainable projects and building positive relationships between IHEs and their surrounding communities.

Participation in SL activities also increased special education faculty members’ collaboration with faculty inside and outside their departments. Increased collaboration may be due to faculty participation on SL committees, the number of faculty that reported their departments as leaders on campus regarding SL implementation, or the number of courses that were offered to nonmajors. Pribbenow (2005) found that faculty engaged in SL were able to develop faculty networks outside their discipline due to their common interest in SL pedagogy. This assisted faculty in developing ideas for implementing SL and overcoming challenges to developing SL courses.

One notable difference from the general education literature is that many special education faculty offer SL courses to majors outside the special education discipline. This suggests that SL may act as a conduit for instructors to give students outside the field of special education exposure to persons with disabilities. This finding reinforces the need for instructors to develop quality SL experiences that focus on the contributions persons with disabilities make to their communities rather than reinforcing negative stereotypes (Gent & Gurecka, 2001; Karayan & Gathercoal, 2003; Smith, 2003). Quality SL projects that involve persons with disabilities and nonmajors may act as a recruitment tool for departments to build interest in the field of special education in an effort to meet teacher shortages in the field (Mayhew & Welch, 2001; Muwana & Gaffney, 2011; Pugach, 2001).

What Are the Challenges Associated With SL Teaching?

Special education faculty from the present study reported minimal barriers to implementing SL pedagogy in higher education courses; however, faculty variables such as type of institution (i.e., teaching or research) or size of community (i.e., urban vs. nonurban) appear to have an impact on faculty views. The barriers that were identified related to time (e.g., supervision, preparation), a major barrier that is well documented in the teacher education literature on SL (Anderson & Erickson, 2003; Anderson & Pickeral, 2000; Furco & Ammon, 2000). Jenkins and Sheehey (2009) stated that over multiple trials implementing SL in special education courses, less time was devoted to developing projects and more time was spent teaching about SL suggesting that time demands and teaching focus may shift with faculty experience.

Barriers related to curricular issues, which are commonly reported in the teacher education literature as challenges to implementation, were ranked among the lowest in the present study. Several hypotheses could be made regarding why SL would align with the curricular demands of the field of special education. One reason may be the increased emphasis placed on future educators to be prepared to use instructional strategies that are inclusive, easily differentiated, flexible enough to meet the demands of blending academic and life skills curricula, and provide opportunities for students with disabilities to generalize their skills to a variety of settings. A second may be the desire for faculty to give majors and nonmajors opportunities to engage in service alongside persons with disabilities to see firsthand the many contributions persons with disabilities make toward the community. Given the role many special education faculty play in local, state, and national advocacy groups, it is not surprising that SL would be a pedagogical fit. Last, special educators are required to work with a wide range of community members (e.g., parents, related service personnel); however, developing authentic experiences for preservice teachers to interact with these team members is difficult using traditional teaching methods in higher education courses (Mayhew & Welch, 2001).

How Do We Continue to Generate Interest in SL Research?

The number of faculty who reported having been involved in disseminating information related to SL across P-16 is promising. It is worth mentioning that approximately one third of the participants came from research institutions, a population that is often missing or underrepresented in other studies related to SL. Given the number of faculty involved in SL research activities, it is not surprising that there were no significant challenges associated with SL research that emerged from this investigation. The two highest rated barriers were related to funding and time, which are common challenges to conducting research.

Due to the overwhelming need for additional research outlined in the literature, coupled with the increased rate of implementation across P-16 settings, it is important to continue to increase our research base on SL. Some faculty have suggested and successfully incorporated SL into personnel and leadership grants in an effort to recruit and train future faculty members and special educators with a greater understanding of the pedagogy and the necessary tools to research its use and increase collaboration across disciplines (Pugach, 2001). There is also an increased likelihood, given the number of faculty members that focused their research efforts on P-12 SL, that incoming students will have exposure to SL making them excellent candidates for collaborative research efforts. Many institutions do not consider the act of implementing SL in decisions related to tenure and promotion; however, faculty can align their SL efforts with activities that contribute toward attaining these professional goals such as writing articles about their experiences, conducting conference presentations, and assisting others in the adoption of SL techniques.

Limitations

There are several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, multiple steps were taken to identify special education faculty who are engaged in SL. Because 74% of the participants reported that they work with one or more colleagues who engage in SL activities, it is possible that their perceptions may be different from their colleagues who were not identified through our search methods. Second, although minimal sample sizes required to conduct statistical analyses were met, having larger sample sizes would have allowed greater confidence in the interpretations that could be made from the data. Third, participants were not given a definition of SL or asked to report a definition of SL; therefore, it is possible that some participants were thinking about a broad range of community engagement activities (e.g., community service, volunteerism, SL) when completing the survey. Fourth, the majority of the survey questions were fixed responses, which may have prevented participants from accurately reporting their experiences. Finally, the survey results rely on self-report with no supporting data from additional sources (e.g., observations, interviews, course syllabi) to confirm the implementation of SL.

Implications for Future Research

This study provides a foundation for further investigation related to the use of SL among special education faculty. There is a strong need for this study to be replicated across a greater number of special education faculty with SL experience so that more complex analysis can be conducted to determine the extent to which faculty variables (e.g., size of institution, type of institution, SL experience) influence the incorporation of SL in teaching and research. Further investigation using a range of methods (e.g., qualitative, mixed methods) would provide more in-depth information related to the use of, attitudes toward, and beliefs about SL across special education departments and faculty. Moreover, comparisons between special education faculty and general education faculty with SL experience would provide greater knowledge related to how SL is viewed as an instructional strategy as well as possible motivators and barriers to implementation among faculty with differing program demands. These comparisons may aid in the development of SL courses that increase collaboration between special and general education preservice teachers and faculty.

Several areas of research need to be further explored to better understand the current use and spread of SL in the field of special education. First, research is needed to determine how special education faculty with and without SL experience define and view SL as a form of pedagogy. Second, further investigation is needed to document how various institutional and departmental supports can be developed to aid those interested in implementing or sustaining SL programs. These studies should focus on the supports that result in the development and sustainability of quality SL programs that meet the needs of faculty, students, and community partners. Third, additional research should be conducted to determine the types of community partners that align with special education course objectives, strategies for developing community partnerships, and methods for ensuring that all stakeholders are benefiting from SL. Practices that aid in the facilitation of community and interdepartmental collaborations should be further explored. Fourth, there is a need to determine the types of special education courses that lend themselves to SL implementation and the benefits/drawbacks to including SL in higher education courses. One component of this investigation should be to determine how best to train preservice teachers to use SL as an instructional strategy in their future classrooms. Finally, investigations that provide insight into the process of developing quality SL courses and faculty recommendations of effective practices are needed to move the pedagogy forward within the field of special education.

In closing, there are several ways that faculty with SL experience can contribute to our overall understanding of SL pedagogy. A growing number of successful program descriptions have emerged in the special education literature. While these descriptions are essential to the continued development and adoption of quality SL courses, there should be greater emphasis placed on describing the key components of these programs. For example, describing in detail the course, service requirements, student populations, community partners, definitions, and components of SL will provide faculty members with a greater understanding of how to develop their own SL courses. In addition, faculty with limited SL experience should carefully document their process for developing and implementing courses to provide more in-depth understanding related to the challenges and supports associated with course development over time. The continued adoption of quality SL is dependent on quality research; therefore, faculty members who have established successful SL programs should collaborate to conduct investigations across programs using rigorous methods to add to the literature base.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by Preparing Leaders in Access by Design (PLAD), a grant funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (H325D050066).

Bios

Lance S. Neeper is an assistant professor of special education at the University of Maine at Farmington. His research interests revolve around student engagement in authentic learning experiences, as well as school and community collaboration.

Stacy K. Dymond, PhD, is an associate professor of special education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on curriculum and instruction for students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive school and community settings.

References

Abes

E. S.

Jackson

Jones

S. R.

(2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9, 5-17.

Al Otaiba

(2005). How effective is code-based reading tutoring in English for English learners and preservice teacher-tutors? Remedial and Special Education, 26, 245-254.

Alvarez-McHatton

Thomas

Lehman

(2006). Lessons learned in service-learning: Personnel preparation through community action. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning. Special Issue: Service-Learning and Advocacy, 14, 67-79.

Anderson

J. B.

(1998). Service-learning and teacher education: ERIC Digest 97-1. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.

Anderson

J. B.

Callahan

(2005). The institutionalization of service-learning in preservice teacher education. In Root

Callahan

Billig

S. H.

(Eds.), Improving service-learning practice: Research on models to enhance impacts (pp. 17-36). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Anderson

J. B.

Erickson

J. A.

(2003). Service-learning in preservice teacher education. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7, 111-115.

Anderson

J. B.

Pickeral

(2000). Challenges and strategies for success with service-learning in preservice teacher education. National Society for Experiential Education Quarterly, 25, 7-22.

Bringle

Hatcher

(1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 112-122.

Bringle

Hatcher

(1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 221-239.

10.

Campus Compact. (2007). 2006 Service statistics: Highlights and trends of campus compact’s annual membership survey. Providence, RI: Author.

11.

Carnegie Foundation. (2009). Classification description. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/size_setting.php

12.

Cepello

M. R.

Davis

T. M.

Hill-Ward

(2003). Beginning teachers and service-learning: Lessons learned. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7, 91-96.

13.

Cook

Heath

Thompson

R. L.

(2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.

14.

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/serveamerica/index.asp

15.

Curran

J. M.

(1999, August). Changing attitudes toward people with mental retardation: Effects of extended contact within changing social context. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, New Mexico. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED443314)

16.

Czaja

Blair

(1996). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

17.

Davis

M. T.

Emery

M. J.

Lane

(1998). Serve to learn: Making connections in rural communities. Paper presented at American Council on Rural Special Education, Making Connections in rural communities. In Montgomery

(Ed.), Coming together: Preparing for rural special education in the 21st century. Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education (pp. 75-83). Charleston, SC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED417890)

18.

Driscoll

(2000). Studying faculty and service-learning: Directions for inquiry and development [Special issue]. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning: Strategic Directions for Service-Learning Research, (Special Issue) 35-41.

19.

Driscoll

(2009). Carnegie’s new community engagement classification: Affirming higher education’s role in community. New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 5-12.

20.

Furco

Ammon

M. S.

(2000). Service-learning in California’s teacher education programs: A white paper. Berkeley, CA: Service-Learning Research and Development Center.

21.

Gent

P. J.

Gurecka

L. E.

(2001). Service-learning: A disservice to people with disabilities? Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 8, 36-43.

22.

Griffith

A. S.

(2005). Service learning: Packing parachutes for the jump into education. Teacher Education and Practice, 18, 282-296.

23.

Hammond

(1994). Integrating service and academic study: Faculty motivation and satisfaction in Michigan higher education. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1, 21-28.

24.

Harwood

A. M.

Fliss

Gaulding

(2006). Impacts of a service-learning seminar and practicum on preservice teachers’ understanding of pedagogy, community, and themselves. In Casey

Davidson

Billig

S. H.

Spring

(Eds.), Advancing knowledge in service-learning: Research to transform the field 6 (pp. 137-158). Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing.

25.

Harwood

A. M.

Ochs

Currier

Duke

Hammond

Moulds

. . . Werder

(2005). Communities for growth: Cultivating and sustaining service-learning teaching and scholarship in a faculty fellows program. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12, 41-51.

26.

Jenkins

Sheehey

(2009). Implementing service learning in special education coursework: What we learned. Education, 129, 668-682.

27.

Karayan

Gathercoal

(2003). Empowering students with special needs through service-learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7, 151-157.

28.

Kennedy

(2005). Service learning and the induction of teachers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9, 292-296.

29.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(1998). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

30.

Mayhew

Welch

(2001). A call to service: Service learning as a pedagogy in special education programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 208-219.

31.

Muscott

H. S.

(2001). Using service-learning to enhance the preparation of pre-service special education teachers at Rivier college. In Anderson

J. A.

Swick

K. J.

Yff

(Eds.), Service-learning in teacher education: Enhancing the growth of new teachers, their students, and communities (pp. 188-198). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.

32.

Muscott

H. S.

O’Brien

S. T.

(1999). Teaching character education to students with behavioral and learning disabilities through mentoring relationships. Education & Treatment of Children, 22, 373-390.

33.

Muwana

F. C.

Gaffney

J. S.

(2011). Service-learning experiences of college freshmen, community partners, and consumers with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 21-36.

34.

Novak

(2010). Learning through service: A course designed to influence positively students’ disability-related attitudes. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 36, 121-123.

35.

Novak

Murray

Scheuermann

Curran

(2009). Enhancing the preparation of special educators through service learning: Evidence from two courses. International Journal of Special Education, 24, 32-44.

36.

Parker

(2009). The RAP: A recreational activities project, academic service-learning course and qualitative research study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 404-412.

37.

Potthoff

D. E.

Dinsmore

J. E.

Stirtz

Walsh

Ziebarth

Eifler

(2000). The effects of field experience on preservice teachers’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 79-92.

38.

Pribbenow

D. A.

(2005). The impact of service-learning pedagogy on faculty teaching and learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11, 25-38.

39.

Pugach

M. C.

(2001). Associate editor’s exchange: A dean’s grant initiative for the twenty-first century? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 256-261.

40.

Rooney

(2009). Town-gown: A new meaning for a new economy. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/resources/future-of-campus-engagement/town-gown-a-new-meaning-for-a-new-economy/4261/

41.

Root

(1994). Service-learning in teacher education: A third rationale. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1, 94-97.

42.

Root

Callahan

Sepanski

(2002). Service-learning in teacher education: A consideration of qualitative and quantitative outcomes. In Furco

Billig

S. H.

(Eds.), Advances in service-learning research: Vol. 1. Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy (pp. 223-243). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

43.

Schnaubelt

Statham

(2007). Faculty perceptions of service as a mode of scholarship. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14, 18-31.

44.

Smith

V. M.

(2003). You have to learn who comes with the disability: Students’ reflections on service learning experiences with peers labeled with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 28, 79-90.

45.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossary.html#urbanandrural

46.

Wade

R. C.

(1995). Developing active citizens: Community service learning in social studies teacher education. Social Studies, 86, 122-128.

47.

Wade

R. C.

(1997). Empowerment in student teaching through community service learning. Theory Into Practice, 36, 184-191.

48.

Wasserman

K. B.

(2009). The role of service-learning in transforming teacher candidates’ teaching of reading. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1043-1050.

49.

Welch

James

R. C.

(2007). An investigation on the impact of a guided reflection technique in service-learning courses to prepare special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 276-285.