High Impact Practices Through Experiential Student Philanthropy: A Case Study of the Mayerson Student Philanthropy Project and Academic Success at Northern Kentucky University

Abstract

High impact educational practices are active learning strategies that benefit learning outcomes, increase student engagement, and support student retention. This study examines the retention and persistence impact of student philanthropy, an active learning approach that engages students with the community by incorporating a philanthropy component into college courses. Results from this study demonstrate that students who participated in one or more student philanthropy courses had a substantially higher four-year graduation rate in comparison to students overall. Participants also exhibited a greater number of completed credit hours compared to the general university population and a higher semester-to-semester retention rate. This affirms the value of student philanthropy as a High Impact Teaching Practice (HITP) that actively engages students inside and outside of the classroom, around the university campus, and in the community.

Keywords

experiential philanthropy student philanthropy high impact teaching student success

For many years, there has been an ongoing national discussion of student retention in higher education with institutional graduation rates as a benchmark for success (Astin & Oseguera, 2005; DeAngelo et al., 2011; Ober et al., 2018; Shapiro et al., 2015; Tentsho et al., 2019; The Chronicle, 2012/2015). Over the past decade, higher education costs have increased (U.S. Department of Education, 2019) while enrollment and graduation rates steadily declined (DeAngelo et al., 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Furthermore, timeliness of graduation is often considered a national benchmark of institutional quality (DeAngelo et al., 2011). For these reasons, identifying and applying strategies that effectively engage and retain students to achieve their academic goals is vital.

Teachers and scholars alike have reflected on strategies for enhancing institutional performance, including graduation rates, by promoting student success through the examination of best teaching practices. In this process, several High Impact Practices (HIPs), defined as activities that produce the highest level of student engagement, have been identified as those with significant learning benefits (Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Kuh, 2008; Kuh et al., 2013). These HIPs may include first-year seminars, learning communities, collaborative learning, service learning, internships, undergraduate research, and capstone courses and projects (Kuh, 2008; National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE], 2007). Several HIPs also facilitate social interaction (Kuh, 2008; NSSE, 2007), thus linking social interaction and academic integration, a strategy that researchers have shown can positively impact students’ commitment to their institution (Bringle et al., 2010; Tinto, 1975). Tinto (1997) explains that the classroom plays a key role in this institutional “buy-in”, as the “crossroads between academic and social systems” (p. 40) and emphasizes that quality education and an inclusive social and educational community is essential to student retention (Tinto, 1993). This underscores the value of HIPs as strategies to enrich the classroom experience and contribute to student retention and persistence to degree completion.

At Northern Kentucky University (NKU), increased student engagement has been achieved through the Mayerson Student Philanthropy Project (MSPP), a campus-wide experiential philanthropy program that includes HIPs such as collaborative learning, research, and community-based service learning. Experiential philanthropy is also known as “student philanthropy” or as a “learn by giving” approach to teaching. By any of those names, it is defined as a “teaching and learning approach that integrates charitable giving with academic study, in order to enrich learning, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities” (Olberding, 2009, p. 465). MSPP was established at NKU in 2000 with the goal of teaching students about nonprofit organizations through hands-on experience and has been successful at both the graduate and undergraduate level (Ahmed & Olberding, 2007; McDonald et al., 2017; McDonald & Olberding, 2012; McDougle et al., 2017; Olberding, 2009; Olberding, 2012; Olberding et al., 2010).

Faculty design MSPP courses with an explicit link between course content and the philanthropic component, an essential element of High Impact Teaching Practices (HITPs), a set of teaching-specific practices parallel to HIPs (Fink, 2016). While experiential philanthropy is often found in disciplines readily associated with addressing community needs (Campbell, 2014; Millisor & Olberding, 2009), MSPP incorporates experiential philanthropy across disciplines. There are seven colleges at NKU (Arts and Sciences, Business, Education, Health Professions, Honors, Informatics, and Law); all have hosted experiential philanthropy classes. Each MSPP class is given $2,000 to invest in a local nonprofit. Now entering its 20^th year, MSPP has invested over $900,000 in nearly 400 nonprofit agencies (Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement [SHCCE], 2019). In addition to this significant community investment, data collected over the life of MSPP have shown a broad range of benefits to student participants in this active learning approach. Studies have demonstrated that students report deeper learning (Larson, 2015; Larson, 2017; Larson & Fieler, 2019), enhanced understanding of course material (Olberding, 2009), and increased awareness of social problems and nonprofit organizations in their region (Ahmed & Olberding, 2007; McDonald & Olberding, 2012; McDougle et al., 2017; Olberding, 2009; Olberding, 2012).

Despite the wealth of findings that support experiential philanthropy’s positive influence on students’ social awareness, learning about community needs, and benefits of stewardship, published scholarship has had less to say about experiential philanthropy’s academic benefits and no studies have explored its impact on institutional markers of academic success such as persistence to graduation, semester-to-semester retention, and course credit hour completion. Only recently has it been explored as a teaching strategy that can align with HIPs (Freeman, 2020; Green & Walkuski, 2020). The primary goal of this study is to explore MSPP in context with HIPs (Kuh, 2008), specifically classroom applicable HITPs (Fink, 2016), and compare the success of students who have completed an MSPP course to the overall general success of students at NKU according to these benchmarks.

Literature Review

Retention and Persistence

Graduation Rates

Research from the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) found that only “38.9% of students across the country complete a degree after four years. The degree completion figure increases by 17.5 percentage points to 56.4% after five years, and by only another 4.8% to 61.2% after six years.” (DeAngelo et al., 2011, p. 6). A 2019 report from the National Center for Education Statistics confirms that 60% of students completed a degree at the same institution where they first enrolled, but did so in a six-year period, and 43.7% completed their degrees after four years (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). These trends demonstrate the continued need to retain and support students toward degree completion in a timely manner.

Retention and Persistence Influence Factors

The analysis of retention and persistence to degree completion can be traced back to Tinto’s (1975) meta-analysis of education research on dropout factors in higher education. He identified three components that contributed to student retention and persistence in his research, including individual characteristics (family background, personality, past educational experiences, level of commitment toward a goal), institutional characteristics (size and type), and the student’s interaction within the university environment (social interactions, academic integration). While more recent studies recognize additional factors such as self-efficacy (Tentsho et al., 2019; Tinto, 2017), financial difficulties (Glogowska et al., 2007) and challenges navigating institutional resources (Glogowska et al., 2007; Thomas, 2014), academics and social integration continue to have a significant impact (Bringle et al., 2010; Glogowska et al., 2007; Thomas, 2014). Students who are more integrated in university life at the institutional, academic, and social levels have a greater commitment to staying in college at their chosen institution (Bringle et al., 2010). Tinto (1997) identified other predictors of persistence, including participation, hours studied per week, perceptions of faculty, and involvement with other students; he also emphasized the importance of modifying routinized academic endeavors to more effectively engage students through enriched learning experiences. All of these factors shape student motivation, which depends on individual experiences and what students want to get out of their college experience.

Teaching strategies impact the student experience at a variety of levels and can influence factors associated with retention and persistence. Many studies noted that HIPs and service learning hit the benchmarks, aims, and objectives associated with persistence and retention (Astin & Sax, 1998; Bringle et al., 2010; Currie-Mueller & Littlefield, 2018; Fink, 2016; Lockeman & Pelco, 2013; Mungo, 2017; Osborne et al., 1998; Reed et al., 2015; Yue & Fu, 2017; Yue & Hart, 2017).

Retention, Persistence, and High Impact Practices

Kuh, a leading scholar and HIPs researcher, recommends in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2007) annual report that students participate in at least two HIPs during their undergraduate education to increase student engagement and support student success, preferably one in their first year and one later that is specifically related to their major. While NSSE (2007) findings as well as others’ (e.g., Brownell & Swaner, 2010) demonstrate improved student outcomes including retention, grades, and graduation rates among students who participated in one or more high impact practices, Fink (2016) noted that many of the HIPs originally identified by Kuh (2008) are “primarily institutional or curricular” (p. 3). Fink (2016) indicated that while first-year seminars, learning communities, service learning, undergraduate research, and capstone courses are good ideas as successful High Impact Practices, they are “primarily institutional or curricular practices” and not concepts that individual instructors can easily integrate into courses (p. 3).

Fink (2016) also emphasized that classroom instructors can “create high levels of student engagement and student learning” at the classroom level by applying “a parallel set of high-impact teaching practices (HITPs)” in the specific course(s) they teach (p. 3). He suggested the following as HITPs: “(1) helping students become meta-learners; (2) learning-centered course design; (3) using small groups in a powerful way; (4) service-learning/community engagement with reflection; and (5) being a leader with your students” (p. 3). Although it may not be practical to include all five HITPs in a single course, Fink (2016) emphasized the synergy inherent to combining these teaching practices. When students are guided to learn about learning (i.e., become meta-learners) and the student experience is designed and delivered in a learning-centered environment with small groups for collaborative learning and interactive dialog, opportunities for students to have leadership roles, and for all participants to reflect on the learning process, the potential for student learning and engagement increases (Fink, 2016).

Experiential Philanthropy and High Impact Teaching Practices

As learner-centered courses that integrate collaborative learning, research, community-based service learning, and reflection, MSPP courses embody the concept of HITPs. In 2000, the MSPP began with four courses at NKU. In the 20 years since, it has grown to now include more than 30 courses per year. MSPP courses have been taught in 47 disciplines. Thus far, more than 6,000 students have participated in an MSPP course. All MSPP classes have three core requirements that align with Fink’s (2016) HITPs. First, $2,000 in grant money must be given to a local 501c3 nonprofit, a government agency, or a public school. Second, professors create learning activities that require students to connect the course content and learning objectives with the philanthropy project and reflect upon the experience. Third, students must also have direct contact with the community through their work. In-classroom activities could include course readings about community engagement, oral discussion, written reflections, and both individual and group work. MSPP is student-centered with the students in charge of the grant-giving outcome. Table 1 provides a sample of MSPP courses and HITPs-related course activities (HITP 5, “being a leader with your students” (Fink, 2016, p. 3), is not included in the table since for each MSPP course, by default, faculty are subject matter experts who design the MSPP learning experiences with high levels of instructor-student interaction and continued guidance throughout the project).

Table 1.

Example HITP Course Activities.

Course	Activities
Leadership around the world (100 level course)	HITP1: Helping Students Become Meta-Learners• Instructed in study, note-taking, critical thinking, and effective teamwork strategies, implicit bias, and empathyHITP2: Learning-Centered Course Design• Explored cultural dimensions and identified cultural considerations for profit work in a global contextHITP3: Small Groups in a Powerful Way• Researched and selected profits in groups; prepared and delivered persuasive presentations and executive summary of findingsHITP4: Service Learning/Community Engagement with Reflection• Team, class-wide, and personal reflection and class-wide online discussion in context with course content, profit interaction, MSPP, and learning outcomes

Costume Construction I (200 level course)	HITP1: Helping Students Become Meta-Learners • Conceptualized, drafted, and refined costume design, and perfected garment productionHITP2: Learning-Centered Course Design • Designed and sewed five doll outfits (per student) • Produced and delivered 10-minute video invitation to theater productionHITP3: Small Groups in a Powerful Way • Researched nonprofits in groups; prepared and conducted 10-minute presentations about nonprofit clients and community needHITP4: Service Learning/Community Engagement with Reflection • Donated 50 dolls, outfits, and monetary funds to selected nonprofits • Invited profit patrons to campus theater production and provided behind-the-scenes tour • Personal reflection (connected to course content and MSPP)

Spanish & German Repression Resistance & Reflection (400 level courses)	HITP1: Helping Students Become Meta-Learners • Read primary and theoretical texts about the Holocaust and its legacy todayHITP2: Learning-Centered Course Design • Merged German and Spanish classes to discuss readings and carry out community engagement projectHITP3: Small Groups in a Powerful Way • Researched nonprofits that represented course themes and prepared persuasive presentations for nonprofit selectionHITP4: Service Learning/Community Engagement with Reflection • Site visits to profit finalists • Personal reflection connected to course content and community engagement

Environmental Science (400 level course)	HITP1: Helping Students Become Meta-Learners • Applied assessment skills for on-site evaluation of profit needsHITP2: Learning -Centered Course Design • Individually researched local profits aligned with urban sustainability • Volunteered for three days on-site with selected profitsHITP3: Small Groups in a Powerful Way • Worked in teams on semester-long projects with the organization • Prepared and delivered persuasive class presentationsHITP4: Service Learning/Community Engagement with Reflection • Personal reflection of profit volunteer and service experience in context with course content and MSPP experience.

Table 2.

Cohort Sample Sizes for Analysis.

Cohort number	Retention analysis cohort size	Graduation analysis subset with 4+ years of data
1	58	8
2	117	41
3	86	39
4	83	38
5	97	64
6	129	95
TOTAL	570	285

Note. Cohort Number = Semester of first MSPP Course.

Experiential Philanthropy Outcomes

The benefits of MSPP as a teaching model have been well-documented through research, largely using data from an anonymous pre-project and post-project survey that all MSPP students are invited to complete to measure their attitudes and outlooks about a variety of statements related to academic success, service learning and philanthropy, and civic engagement (Ahmed & Olberding, 2007; McDonald & Olberding, 2012; McDougle et al., 2017; Olberding, 2009). Student feedback from the post-survey from smaller case studies also suggests that the incorporation of a philanthropy component helped students more deeply learn the course content (Larson, 2015; Larson, 2017; Larson & Fieler, 2019).

Research has also been conducted around MSPP’s long-term benefits to community stewardship: Do graduates remain engaged in addressing needs in their community? In a follow-up study of MSPP alumni who had completed their MSPP course from one to ten years prior to the follow-up survey (Olberding, 2012), respondents indicated that participation in MSPP had a positive effect on their donating money to a charitable organization (63.7%), volunteering for one or more nonprofit organizations (62.7%), and working with someone or some group to solve problems in the community (62.7%). The alumni survey also indicated that 85.6% had made a financial contribution to at least one nonprofit organization during the past year; and 71.1% had volunteered through or for an organization during the past year. Lastly, 14.6% of the respondents had served on the board of at least one nonprofit organization during the past year.

While data and analyses from these studies offer concrete insight into the value of MSPP on student perceptions of their learning experiences and immediate as well as long-term impact on philanthropic giving, volunteerism, and service, they do not provide a clear assessment of academic outcomes. This study helps to complete that picture by exploring the impact MSPP participation may have on semester-to-semester retention and persistence toward degree completion as well as student perceptions of factors that influence retention and persistence toward degree.

Data

This study analyzed both MSPP collected survey data as well as student progress data obtained from the university’s Office of Institutional Research (IR). Prior to analyses, all personal identifiers were removed. Procedures used in this process were approved by NKU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to the start of this research.

MSPP Cohort

The MSPP cohort consists of the 570 students enrolled in their first MSPP course between 2014 and 2017. Of these students, 96% began their college education at NKU as first-time-full-time (FTFT) freshman with the remaining 4% being transfer students. Students who completed their first MSSP course in their 7th semester or later were excluded since an MSPP course completed at that point in their academic career, while possibly beneficial in other ways, would be unlikely to play a substantial role in the timeliness of their progress toward 4-year degree completion. A total of 55 different MSPP course sections were represented in the MSPP sample, including at least one from each of the following course designators: Anthropology, Communication Studies, Education, Special Education, English, Environmental Science, German, History, Honors, Human Services and Addictions, Criminal Justice, Organizational Leadership, Library Informatics, Marketing, Nursing, Psychology, Spanish, Social Work, and Theater and Dance. Students of 76 different majors were likewise represented within the sample, including 136 students (24%) who were categorized as STEM+H (science, technology, engineering, math, and health). Additionally, 284 students (50%) were flagged as first-generation, 193 students (34%) were flagged as low-income, 108 students (19%) were flagged as under-represented minorities, and 421 (74%) of the students in the sample were female.

Enrollment in MSPP sections of courses is blind (students do not know, when they enroll, about the philanthropic component of the course), yielding some level of pseudo-randomization that is unusual in an education-related study of this nature. However, it is a limitation that faculty do self-select to turn their section into an MSPP section. Some aspects of this issue are addressed in a later section of this paper, while other aspects may remain unknown.

University Comparator Group

The comparison group for the study was taken to be all students enrolled at the university during the timeframe under study (annual enrollment hovers around 15,000). Comparison values were provided directly from IR for the years 2014–2017. It is a minor limitation that the comparison group includes the sample; however, the primary reason for selecting all students as the comparison group was ease of access to population statistics to which the study cohort might be easily compared. The resulting limitation is that when differences are found with the MSPP cohort, the size of those differences are slightly underestimated.

Measures

Primary outcomes for this study included three measures of student success: 4-year graduation, semester-to-semester retention or persistence, and credit hour completion. Student level data was obtained directly from IR for the MSPP cohort, while aggregate publicly available summary statistics were used for the comparator group. In addition, pre/post data from a survey administered to MSPP students are also incorporated. The anonymized survey is administered to MSPP students by a representative of NKU’s Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement (SHCCE), which oversees MSPP. Questions on this survey address students’ perceptions of learning and development as well as attitudes toward and impacts from participating in the program’s philanthropic endeavors. Quantitative data from those survey questions relevant to HIPs are summarized using appropriate descriptive statistics.

Statistical Methods

Statistical analyses were performed with the assistance of NKU’s Burkhardt Consulting Center. Student survey data from the MSPP cohort is summarized descriptively. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were used to obtain estimates related to the academic success of MSPP students; these were then compared to population statistics for the comparator group across three indicators of student success:

Graduation: Four-year graduation rates were estimated for MSPP cohorts using confidence intervals for proportions. These were then compared to similar cohorts (i.e. conditioned on students entering the corresponding cohort semester) for the entire university. Note that the analysis for graduation employed only the subset of the sample having at least four years of available data. Cohort sizes are shown in Table 2.

Retention: Using confidence intervals for proportions, conditional retention rates were estimated for each cohort and compared to corresponding university-wide cohorts. All rates are conditioned on the semester in which the MSPP course is taken.

Course Credit Hour Completion: The percentage of completed credit hours by MSPP students is examined and compared to university overall rates.

Results

Student Perceptions of MSPP

Given the relevance of students’ sense of connection to university life as a factor in retention (Bringle et al., 2010; Tinto, 1993) it is also important to note that students reported their “interest of belonging to or participating in a group or association” remained high as indicated in a pre- and post-survey comparison for students who participated in an MSPP course from 2014–2017 (refer to Table 3). Overall, data from the pre- and post-surveys demonstrate the positive impact of MSPP including a greater awareness of social needs, interest in the course, and interest in service learning. Student responses to additional post-survey questions from academic year 2014–2017 indicated that the MSPP had a positive effect on development of life skills, learning course material, and desire to complete degree (refer to Table 4).

Table 3.

2014–2017 MSPP Pre- and Post-Survey Comparison. Student Responses to Statements Regarding Attitudes, Beliefs, Values, and Intentions.

		Strongly agree or agree	Neutral	Strongly disagree or disagree
I am aware of the needs and problems of people living in Northern Kentucky and Greater Cincinnati.	Pre	65.4%	20.7%	4.0%
	Post	87.0%	8.4%	4.6%
I am interested in this course.	Pre	86.4%	11.1%	2.5%
I am interested in this course.	Post	83.5%	11.2%	5.3%
I am interested in student philanthropy or service learning.	Pre	74.0%	20.5%	5.5%
	Post	78.9%	15.8%	5.3%
I am interested in belonging to & participating actively in a group or association.	Pre	73.8%	20.7%	5.5%
	Post	76.8%	17.9%	5.4%

Table 4.

2014–2017 Post-Survey Additional Question Responses. Student Responses Regarding the Effect of the MSPP Course Experience.

	Very positive or positive	Neutral	Very negative or negative
Your awareness of the needs and problems addressed in this class.	92.3%	6.2%	1.5%
Your interest in this course.	84.3%	11.3%	4.4%
Your interest in taking another course with student philanthropy or service learning.	73.4%	20.0%	6.6%
Your learning of the material in this course.	83.3%	12.2%	4.5%
Your application of information and ideas from this course.	85.4%	11.2%	3.4%
Your academic skills or knowledge.	87.6%	10.5%	1.8%
Development of your functional life skills, like communications, assertiveness & decision making.	86.2%	12.0%	1.8%
Your desire to stay in college and complete a degree.	84.9%	13.8%	1.3%

Tinto (1993, 2017) explained that classrooms can facilitate persistence by unifying students around a common interest, an effective practice underscored in HIPs “common intellectual experiences” (Kuh, 2008, p. 9). In the MSPP classroom, students are joined together in a common philanthropic interest as they research profits that serve community needs and make grant award decisions, inspiring students with the real-life impact of their efforts. Tinto (2017) stressed that students must believe the material is worth learning, another factor inherent to HIPs (Kuh et al., 2013) and infused in the MSPP classroom. Qualitative observations from the MSPP post-survey indicate that students find the MSPP learning experience meets these expectations as noted in the following sample of post-survey open responses:

Students unified around a common interest

Survey Question: What did you most like or appreciate about the Mayerson project experience?

There's always help needed around the community. If we all come together, we can really make a difference!

I learned there were people in my class sitting next to me who were personally affected by the nonprofits! When someone you know is affected then it becomes your passion and your [sic] more willing to help or fight for the cause! I loved this whole experience!

Everyone was actually involved and interested in the course.

Just coming together as a class and making an overall difference in our community and learning more about the profit [sic] organizations.

Students’ perceived worthwhile learning

Survey Question: Please discuss the most significant things you learned this semester about social problems or needs, nonprofit organizations, or the philanthropy process:

I learned about new social problems like the schools not having enough supplies, and the teachers being the ones who try to use their own money to help in any way they can. I had never thought of this and want to find a way to help this myself. I really enjoyed the process of looking at all the nonprofits, there are so many, and so many people need help. You always know there is need, but this project made me feel like i [sic] was helping in some way, even if it was indirectly, and I liked the feeling, I want to do more of it in the future.

I have always been interested in helping the community, but I was never connected enough to know what is out there. This provided a real eye opener, I now understand more about my community and have plans to be involved.

It was a motivating project we did. It was my favorite project because what I wrote actually had an affect [sic] on people in my community. I liked being able to write for a positive change not just a grade. Made the whole process more authentic.

I learned that within my community there are many organizations that help a wide variety of causes. I love that there are many organizations that are focused on helping children as they are the future. Working on this project helped me comprehend the course concepts and it felt really good being able to raise money to donate to a needing organization. I learned how to be more persuadable working in my group, trying to persuade them and the other members of my class.

Graduation Rate

Analysis of graduation rates is available using only students who entered in Fall 2014 or prior as a minimum of four years of data is required to analyze. Comparators are conditioned to the semester in which the MSPP course was taken; as one can see from the comparators this is necessary for fair comparison since students who have been retained longer will already be somewhat more likely to graduate within four years. Because there were fewer MSPP courses available in earlier years of the program, only eight students from Cohort 1 have four years of data; due to low sample size this cohort is excluded from the graduation analysis.

For Cohorts 2–6, Table 5 displays the estimated four-year graduation rates and the corresponding university comparators. Based on the confidence intervals, all of which exclude the corresponding university comparator, there is very strong statistical evidence that FTFT students who have been enrolled in MSPP classes during their 2nd to 6th semesters are both more likely to graduate within four years as compared to all students. Data suggest the sophomore year as an ideal time for the experience as the amount of improvement in four-year graduation rates for cohorts in that year is at least 15 percentage points (as indicated by the jump from 22.8% to at least 38%).

Table 5.

4-Year Graduation Rates.

Cohort	N	Four year graduation rate estimate (95% CI)	UC
2	41	34% (20–49%)	17.7%
3	39	53% (38–69%)	22.8%
4	38	63% (48–78%)	25.2%
5	64	63% (51–74%)	29.3%
6	95	46% (36–56%)	31.0%

Note. CI = Confidence Interval; UC = University Comparator; Cohort Number = Semester of first MSPP Course.

Retention Rate

For the purposes of this study, retention is relative to the first semester of enrollment. Students are retained to their fourth semester if they take classes in their fourth semester after first enrolling at the university. However, as was the case for graduation rates, since it is already known that MSPP students were retained up to the semester that they took the related course, we must make conditional assessments. This is similar to the idea of persistence from one semester to the next, and we know that persistence is more likely later in a student’s educational career (Tinto, 1987, 1993).

In examining retention we first condition on the MSPP semester (1 through 6) and then compare to university comparators that are similarly conditioned. For the first cohort, this essentially applies the usual definition of retention. For cohorts 2–6, however, it is retention or persistence to future semesters given that the student was already retained to the semester of their cohort. One-sample proportions 95% confidence intervals are used to estimate conditional retention. The retention summary for each cohort is shown in Table 6 and the semester-by-semester retention by cohort is shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

Semester-to-Semester Retention by Cohort.

Retained to semester	N	Retention estimate (95% CI)	UC
Cohort 1
2	58	84% (72–93%)	87%
3	58	72% (59–83%)	69%
4	29	69% (49–84%)	64%
5	29	59% (39–76%)	58%
6	15	47% (21–73%)	55%
7	15	47% (21–73%)	52%
8	8	Insufficient data for estimation
Cohort 2
3	117	85% (78–91%)	79%
4	96	79% (71–87%)	74%
5	96	74% (65–83%)	66%
6	66	68% (57–79%)	63%
7	66	67% (55–78%)	60%
8	41	56% (41–71%)	55%
Cohort 3
4	86	93% (88–98%)	93%
5	86	84% (76–92%)	84%
6	54	81% (71–92%)	80%
7	54	76% (65–87%)	76%
8	39	72% (58–86%)	69%
Cohort 4
5	83	98%^a (94–100%)	91%
6	49	96%^a (90–100%)	86%
7	49	92%^a (84–100%)	82%
8	38	74% (60–88%)	74%
Cohort 5
6	97	99%^a (97–100%)	95%
7	97	91% (85–96%)	90%
8	64	83% (74–92%)	82%
Cohort 6
7	129	94% (90–98%)	95%
8	95	86% (79–93%)	86%

Note. CI=Confidence Interval; UC = University Comparator; Cohort Number = Semester of first MSPP Course.

^aExceeds university comparator.

As one can see in reviewing these estimates, most confidence intervals for the MSPP group contain the university comparator. This means that our sample sizes do not currently provide sufficient statistical power to know whether or not the MSPP students differ, and in fact for some cohorts they may not be substantially different. However, in cohorts 4 and 5, we did find evidence that these two cohorts are more likely to be retained from one semester to the next as compared to all students. That is to say that we currently have evidence that the MSPP is associated to greater semester-to-semester retention when taken near the midpoint of students’ careers.

Credit Hour Completion Analysis

Completion rates for MSPP cohorts were obtained by taking available students (those who were retained) and estimating the completion rate by dividing the total number of completed credit hours by the total number of attempted credit hours. This was considered for each of the two semesters (+1 and +2) following the MSPP semester. These percentages are compared descriptively to corresponding estimates for the university as a whole, as no formulaic calculation of a standard error is available. Results are shown in Table 7. Sample size naturally decreases for future semesters, but this is true for the university comparator group as well. Findings suggest that there is little, if any, difference in credit hour completion rates.

Table 7.

MSPP Course Credit Hour Completion Rates With University Comparator.

Cohort	N	Completion rate in +1 semester (UC)	Completion rate in +2 semester (UC)
1	49, 39	83% (82%)	83% (88%)
2	79, 75	92% (88%)	91% (90%)
3	80, 44	93% (90%)	93% (91%)
4	49, 47	96% (91%)	93% (92%)
5	96, 56	94% (92%)	94% (93%)
6	91, 82	96% (93%)	97% (NA)

Note. UC = University Comparator; Cohort Number = Semester of first MSPP Course.

Limitations and Potential Biases

It is noted that there are several potential sources for bias in the results that we have presented. For many of these, we were able to estimate the size of the potential bias:

The MSPP sample is a subset of the university comparator group. This results in underestimating the size of the true difference between MSPP and MSPP students. As the size of the comparison group is generally 50 to 100 times the size of the MSPP sample, the comparator group numbers will be generally within less than half a percentage point of the subgroup consisting of MSPP students.

Students are treated as the experimental units in this study and it is assumed they are independent. That assumption is at least slightly flawed, as groups of students take the same MSPP class with the same instructor. There is no available avenue by which to account for this potentially confounding variable.

While students are not self-selecting into MSPP courses, faculty do self-select to teach MSPP courses and are provided with program guidelines, resources, and a faculty handbook in addition to a MSPP faculty orientation, mid-semester check-in, and faculty peer mentoring. Naturally, teaching strategies as well as quality may vary by instructor, course, and/or discipline. Further, disciplines for MSPP courses are likely connected to that self-selection. We suspect that this may have led to demographic differences between the students in the MSPP cohort and the entire university (see next bullet point). There may also be other impacts on results, perhaps related to instructor quality, that are unknown.

Demographics of the sample exhibited differences from the university as a whole. The greatest difference was that the MSPP sample consisted of 74% women, while the university as a whole is around 58% women. For the cohorts in this study, the female 4-year graduation rate is 30.3% while the corresponding rate for males is 22.1% (Northern Kentucky University – Office of Institutional Research, 2020). This likely leads to overestimation of graduation rates (and probably also retention). However, based on these known percentages, we are able to estimate that the size of any overestimation will be no greater than 1.5 percentage points. Overall, because other demographics for the MSPP sample were more similar to the university population, we assess that demographics as a whole would not create a bias larger than 2 percentage points for any of the variables under study.

It is possible that students may change sections after learning that the class is an MSPP course during the first week of classes, a time period when students have the option to adjust their course schedule. However, IR provided data that showed students in the MSPP sample had lower turnover both during the first week and throughout the semester as compared to the university as a whole (Shawn Rainey, personal communication, July 23, 2020).

Based on the potential limitations identified, we estimate the size of any potential bias in regard to graduation rates will be small (at most two percentage points). As much larger differences in rates have been identified, the evidence suggests that the connection to MSPP to graduation rate is very likely real.

Discussion and Implications

Experiential philanthropy has grown in recent years as an effective pedagogical strategy to strengthen student academic learning and facilitate civic-minded engagement (McDougle et al., 2017; Olberding, 2012). When teaching practices combine multiple HITPs, the “synergistic impact” can elevate student engagement and learning (Fink, 2016, p. 14). Given the clear alignment of experiential philanthropy with HITPs (Refer to Table 1) one should expect to see improved student success results when it is incorporated into the curriculum. This study is among the first to substantiate experiential philanthropy’s impact on markers of student success including retention and graduation rates, most importantly finding a large gain in 4-year graduation rates for students involved in MSPP courses, as compared to the university as a whole. It is also the only one to our knowledge with randomization of students to courses, which gives greater strength to the statistical comparison with the general university population since students did not select the course based on a preexisting interest in experiential philanthropy.

Timeliness of graduation has long been viewed as a national benchmark of institutional quality (DeAngelo et al., 2011). With enrollment and graduation rates in a steady decline in recent years (DeAngelo et al., 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2018) and current concerns about retention in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic (Jaschik, 2020) these findings are particularly important. Such marked increase in the 4-year graduation rate underscores the value of embedding experiential philanthropy in the curriculum and encouraging students to complete one or more courses with an experiential philanthropy component during their academic careers.

Results indicate MSPP students may also have a greater percentage of completed hours compared to the general university population and some cohorts demonstrated higher persistence/retention rate from semester-to-semester, particularly in the mid-point of their academic careers. While findings from McDougle et al. (2017) indicated that upperclassmen were more likely to perceive value from MSPP participation, data from this study demonstrated that students who complete MSPP near the midpoint of their academic careers may have the most to gain as they are even more likely to be retained from semester-to-semester as compared to students earlier or later in their academic careers. In the MSPP post-survey, nearly 85% of respondents also indicated that the MSPP course experience had a positive effect on their desire to stay in college and complete a degree. This makes sense given the presence of HIPs/HITPs and strategies that foster persistence. As noted in students’ post-survey qualitative responses, MSPP’s practice to unify students around a common interest fosters a sense of classroom community and inspires a belief that the work they are doing has meaning, two factors that Tinto (2017) emphasized can facilitate persistence.

Conclusion

Higher education has an array of goals including personal development, subject matter education, and preparation to enter and excel in students’ careers of choice (Chan, 2016). Some benefits of experiential philanthropy to these goals is clearly indicated by previously published research as well as by the MSPP pre- and post-test surveys as indicated in Tables 3 and 4. But a modern college education comes packaged, too, with a commitment to preparing students to be engaged citizens as part of a more general strategy for universities, especially regional comprehensive universities, to be stewards of place (Kezar, 2004; Lambert, 2014; Saltmarsh et al., 2014; The National Task Force, 2012). Again, experiential philanthropy has a track record of contributing to this category of higher education’s goal (Ahmed & Olberding, 2007; McDonald & Olberding, 2012; Olberding, 2012). As noted, students gain an understanding of community needs and how to address them. They gain a greater sense of personal responsibility to do so and, according to one seminal study, remain committed after graduation (Olberding, 2012). For a program that has involved 6,000 students across its 20 years in operation, the MSPP’s $900,000 investment in the community averages approximately $150 per student, a worthy endeavor where results serve not only the community, but also students’ learning and graduation outcomes.

In a recent themed issue of the Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, Kuh (2020) recommended empirical studies to document the long-term results and efficacy of experiential philanthropy. Kuh et al. (2017) report that “demonstrating the fiscal benefit of increased graduation rates” is among the challenges to “institutionalizing HIPs” (p. 9). This study not only affirms the value of MSPP as a HIP/HITP that fosters student persistence and academic success through active student engagement inside and outside of the classroom, it is the only study that demonstrates that the impact of MSPP (and likely other similar HIP/HITP practices) extends beyond student perception to benchmark academic outcomes (in particular 4-year graduation rates) in a substantial way.

Recommendations for Future Research

We recognize that our current cohorts are not large enough to provide strong precision. It will be beneficial to repeat this study again when a larger group of MSPP students can be measured for graduation, retention, and course credit hour completion. Because the data suggest that completing an MSPP course in students’ sophomore year is a particularly beneficial influence on those students’ graduation rates, comparisons of the early, middle, and late portions of the undergraduate career warrant further study. Other metrics of student success, such as GPA, might also be worth studying in context with MSPP courses. It could further be worthwhile to explore for relationships between student perceptions and measures of student success.

Because we were unable to account for classroom quality (e.g. instructor, discipline, difficulty, etc.), future research might also attempt to negate any potential confounding related to these issues. For example, it would be worthwhile to explore differences in quality (if any) of MSPP instructors as compared to all instructors in general. This could be accomplished by pairing regular sections within courses. Another useful study would pair MSPP sections with non-MSPP sections for the same course and instructor.

Another avenue of research would be to explore retention and persistence by discipline to assess differences in the impact MSPP courses may have on these same factors within individual disciplines. The results of such a study could identify disciplines in which increased MSPP offerings would be particularly advantageous for retention and persistence. An exploration of where MSPP courses provide the benefit to general education programs would also be quite useful.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

Burkardt Consulting Center and the Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kajsa C. Larson

Megan S. Downing

Joseph Nolan

Author Biographies

Kajsa C. Larson is an associate professor of Spanish in the Department of World Languages & Literatures and the faculty coordinator of the Mayerson Student Philanthropy Project at Northern Kentucky University. Her research specialties include twentieth and twenty-first century literature and culture of Spain, and particularly works related to women, memory, and the Spanish Civil War. She also has strong teaching and research interests in the areas of service learning, community engagement, and study abroad.

Megan S. Downing is an assistant professor for the Bachelor of Arts in Organizational Leadership program at Northern Kentucky University where she also teaches for the NKU Honors College and serves as the faculty advisor for the NKU chapter of the National Society for Leadership and Success. Her research interests focus on leadership development and explore the following in that context: leadership education, the impostor phenomenon, teamwork, experiential student philanthropy, and online learning.

Joseph Nolan is a professor of Statistics at Northern Kentucky University. He also serves as director of NKU’s Burkardt Consulting Center which provides statistical support to the university and surrounding community. As a lifetime member of the American Statistical Association, his research interests involve application of statistical methods to a variety of disciplines including education, healthcare, and sports.

Mark Neikirk is the executive director of the Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement at Northern Kentucky University. The center works to connect the campus and community by supporting service learning classes and other project-based learning. The center is the home of NKU’s Mayerson Student Philanthropy Project. Mr. Neikirk is a graduate of the University of Kentucky with a bachelor’s degree in history. After 28 years as a reporter, columnist and editor at The Kentucky Post and The Cincinnati Post, he came to NKU to direct the Center for Civic Engagement.

References

Ahmed

Olberding

J. C.

(2007). Can student philanthropy help to address the current nonprofit identity crisis? A case study of a multiyear, multidisciplinary project at Northern Kentucky University. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(3–4), 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2007.12001500

Astin

A. W.

Oseguera

(2005). Degree attainment rates at American colleges and universities. Revised Edition. Higher Education Research Institution, UCLA.

Astin

A. W.

Sax

L. J.

(1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251–263.

Bringle

R. G.

Hatcher

J. A.

Muthiah

R. N.

(2010). The role of service-learning on the retention of first-year students to second year. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 38–49. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0016.203

Brownell

J. E.

Swaner

L. E.

(2010). Five high impact practices: Research on learning outcomes, completion, and quality. Association of American Colleges & Universities.

Campbell

D. A.

(2014). Practicing philanthropy in American higher education: Cultivating engaged citizens and nonprofit sector professionals. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2014.12001783

Chan

R. Y.

(2016). Understanding the purpose of higher education: An analysis of the economic and social benefits for competing a college degree. Journal of Education, Policy, Planning, and Administration, 6(5), 1–41.

Currie-Mueller

J. L.

Littlefield

R. S.

(2018). Embracing service-learning opportunities: Student perceptions of service-learning as an aid to effectively learn course material. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i1.21356

DeAngelo

Franke

Hurtado

Pryor

J. H.

Tran

(2011). Completing college: Assessing graduation rates at four-year institutions. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

10.

Fink

L. D.

(2016). Five high impact teaching practices. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 9, 3–17.

11.

Freeman

T. M.

(2020). Connecting undergraduate philanthropic and nonprofit studies to the high-impact practice community. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 10(2), 121–122.

12.

Glogowska

Young

Lockyer

(2007). Should I go or should I stay? A study of factors influencing students’ decisions on early leaving. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787407074115

13.

Green

L. B.

Walkuski

C. B.

(2020). Does teaching philanthropy change behavior after graduation? Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 10(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.18666/JNEL-2020-V10-I2-10086

14.

Jaschik

(2020, March 23). Coronavirus has colleges fearful about yield, searching for the right strategy. Admissions, Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/03/23/admissions-state-uncertainty

15.

Kezar

(2004). Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and examining the charter between higher education and society. The Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 429–459. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0013

16.

Kuh

(2020). Bundling effective educational practices may make experiential philanthropic studies matter more. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 10(2), 201–203.

17.

Kuh

O’Donnell

Schneider

C. G.

(2017). HIPs at ten. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(5), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1366805

18.

Kuh

G. D.

(2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. AAC&U.

19.

Kuh

G. D.

O’Donnell

Reed

(2013). Ensuring quality & taking high-impact practices to scale. AAC&U.

20.

Lambert

M. T.

(2014). Privatization and the public good. Harvard University Education Press.

21.

Larson

K. C.

(2015). Uniting Hispanic film studies with civic engagement: A chance for personal transformation. Hispania, 98(3), 533–548.

22.

Larson

K. C.

(2017). Film as engaged learning: A study on teaching civics through Spanish culture. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 9(1), 61–72.

23.

Larson

K. C.

Fieler

(2019). Spain, Germany, and the holocaust: Uniting global learning and student philanthropy through transdisciplinarity. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1002.01

24.

Lockeman

K. S.

Pelco

L. E.

(2013). The relationship between service-learning and degree completion. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 20(1), 18–30.

25.

McDonald

Miller

W. M.

McDougle

(2017). Connecting through giving: Understanding the effect of the Mayerson student philanthropy project. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 7(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.18666/jnel-2017-v7-i2-8177

26.

McDonald

Olberding

J. C.

(2012). Learning by giving: A quasi-experimental study of student philanthropy in criminal justice education. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(3), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2011.604339

27.

McDougle

McDonald

Huafang

McIntyre Miller

Chengxin

(2017). Can philanthropy be taught? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(2), 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764016662355

28.

Millisor

Olberding

J. C.

(2009). Student philanthropy in colleges and universities. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 13(4), 11–16.

29.

Mungo

M. H.

(2017). Closing the gap: Can service-learning enhance retention, graduation, and GPAs of students of color? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(2), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.203

30.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success. National Survey of Student Engagement. Center for Postsecondary Research. School of Education, Indiana University Bloomington. http://nsse.indiana.edu/

31.

Northern Kentucky University—Office of Institutional Research. (2020, April 15). Enrollment, degrees, certifications, and graduation. https://public.tableau.com/profile/ir6132#!/vizhome/shared/PT4K2KWBN

32.

Ober

D. R.

Beekman

J. A.

Pierce

R. L.

(2018). Analyzing four year public university and two year college graduation rates. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(4), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i4.3129

33.

Olberding

J. C.

(2009). “ Indirect giving” to nonprofit organizations: An emerging model of student philanthropy. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(4), 463–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2009.12001572

34.

Olberding

J. C.

(2012). Does student philanthropy work? A study of long-term effects of the “learning by giving” approach. Innovative Higher Education, 37(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9189-5

35.

Olberding

J. C.

Neikirk

(2010). Student philanthropy: A handbook for college and university faculty. Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement at Northern Kentucky University.

36.

Osborne

R. E.

Hammerich

Hensley

(1998). Student effects of service-learning: Tracking change across a semester. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5(1), 5–13.

37.

Reed

S. C.

Rosenberg

Statham

Rosing

(2015). The effect of community service learning on undergraduate persistence in three institutional contexts. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(2), 22–36.

38.

Saltmarsh

O’Meara

Sandman

Giles

Cowdery

Liang

Buglione

(2014). Becoming a steward of place: Lessons from AASCU Carnegie community engagement applications. American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

39.

Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement [SHCCE] (2019). The Mayerson student philanthropy project: An investment in learning, annual report. https://inside.nku.edu/content/dam/nkuhome/images/scripps/docs/MC190490_MayersonAnnuualReport2019.pdf

40.

Shapiro

Dundar

Wakhungu

P. K.

Yuan

Nathan

Hwang

(2015). Completing college: A national view of student attainment rates – fall 2009 cohort (signature report no. 10). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

41.

Tentsho

McNeil

Tongkumchum

(2019). Examining timely graduation rates of undergraduate students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-10-2017-0124

42.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2012/2015). College completion: Who graduates from college, who doesn’t, and why it matters. http://collegecompletion.chronicle.com/

43.

The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

44.

Thomas

(2014). Factors that influence college completion intention of undergraduate students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(2), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0099-4

45.

Tinto

(1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089

46.

Tinto

(1987). Leaving college. University of Chicago Press.

47.

Tinto

(1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

48.

Tinto

(1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599–623. https://doi.org/10.2307/2959965

49.

Tinto

(2017). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(3), 254–269.

50.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Digest of Education Statistics, 2017 (NCES 2018-070), Table 330.10. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76

51.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The Condition of Education, 2019 (NCES 2019-144), Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

52.

Yue

(2017). Rethinking graduation and time to degree: A fresh perspective. Research in Higher Education, 58(2), 184–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9420-4

53.

Yue

Hart

S. M.

(2017). Service-Learning and graduation: Evidence from event history analysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(2), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.202