From Minnesota to Cairo: Student perceptions of community-based learning

Abstract

This study explored perceptions of community-based learning in a sample of 176 students at a liberal arts college in Cairo, Egypt, and a sample of 176 students at a liberal arts college in the Midwestern United States. Students responded to a 38-item rating scale that assessed gains in several domains as a result of engaging in community-based learning and provided ratings of their level of interest in and satisfaction with the community-based learning experience. The rating scale revealed differences in the extent of gains in several domains reported by each sample, as indicated by the results of independent samples t tests. Open-ended questions were used to solicit student opinions about their community-based learning experiences. These questions revealed differences in the benefits, challenges, and types of recommendations that were reported by the students in both samples. Suggestions are offered for culturally relevant administration of community-based learning pedagogy as well as for future research.

Keywords

community-based learning cross-cultural Egypt service learning United States

Community-based learning is an active-learning pedagogical strategy that intentionally integrates service to the local community with coursework. Service and learning are integrated through course assignments that involve specific topics for each student to address or overall written reflection journals by each individual student that tie service experiences to the course topics and theories. The purpose of this strategy is to have students use what they learn in class to better understand and to improve the community they live in, thus enhancing student learning while also benefiting local communities (National Service Learning Clearinghouse, n.d.).

Beneficial effects of college students’ engagement in community-based learning experiences have been identified across several domains (Eyler et al., 2001). This points to the importance of examining the multiple potential benefits of such experiences, rather than focusing on any single benefit. One domain of strong beneficial effects is academic development (Cuban and Anderson, 2007; Hart and King, 2007; Hirschinger-Blank and Markowitz, 2006; Jones and Hill, 2003; Lundy, 2007; Strage, 2004). Other domains of beneficial effects include personal development (Balsano, 2005; Barbee et al., 2003; Mueller, 2005; Ngai, 2006; Strain, 2005), intercultural competence (Lundy, 2007; Paoletti et al., 2007), and commitment to future civic engagement (Bentley and Ellison, 2005; Buch and Harden, 2011; Deeley, 2010; Miller and Gonzalez, 2009; Prentice, 2007; Sather et al., 2007).

Because of strong evidence of the potential positive impacts of community-based learning, many colleges around the globe now offer it to students (Kenworthy and Fornaciari, 2010; Moser and Rogers, 2005). However, there is a shortage of research on community-based learning in non-Western cultures. Berry and his colleagues have warned against assuming that any given construct would necessarily operate similarly in all cultures (Berry, 1969; Berry et al., 1992). An experience involving community-based learning might not be conceptually or functionally equivalent across cultures. Thus, it is important to examine the extent to which community-based learning’s benefits apply across cultures, and how, as a learning method, it might best be implemented within different cultural contexts.

Nishida’s (1999) cultural-schema theory explains that cultural experiences allow the individual to acquire cultural schemas, which are then used by the individual in order to interpret various experiences. In general, individuals are likely to be dissatisfied or uncomfortable with schema-incongruent experiences. It would thus be useful to understand community-based learning within different cultural contexts in order to ensure that what educators offer to students is culturally congruent and therefore most effective and beneficial for personal development.

Cultural differences between Egypt and the United States

Students’ perceptions of community-learning experiences might differ in Egypt and the United States because the two cultures are dissimilar on several of the dimensions of cultural variability described by Hofstede (1980). These dimensions include individualism (the extent to which people place emphasis on personal interest and individual rights), power distance (the extent to which the less powerful accept that power is not distributed equally in society), and uncertainty avoidance (the extent to which people are nervous about unstructured situations and attempt to minimize their unpredictability). For example, when Taras et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of studies completed between 1970 and 2010 that assessed cultural variability in 49 different countries and regions around the world, the results indicated that, compared to the United States, Arab countries score lower on individualism and higher on power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Additionally, a study by Buda and Elsayed-Elkhouly (1998) highlighted the fact that the United States was categorized as distinctly different from Arab countries with respect to levels of individualism and collectivism. In their study, the American participants’ responses reflected the notion that individuals value private life, are self-oriented, and are emotionally independent. They generally believed in personal initiative, the right to privacy, autonomy, and individual decisions. In contrast, responses from Arab participants were characterized by a dependency on their social system, institutions, organizations, and family systems. Because they more often value family interdependence and obedience to elders and societal norms, individuals in Arab collectivist cultures tend to place a greater focus on interpersonal responsibilities rather than on justice and individual rights (Dwairy et al., 2006). Differences in the cultural dimensions of individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance may come into play in the conception, selection, and structuring of the community-based learning experience and in the students’ perceptions of the experience in different cultures.

Purpose of study

This study explored undergraduate students’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of community-based learning in samples drawn from two colleges, one in Cairo, Egypt, and one in Minnesota, USA. The publications on community-based learning in both colleges were inspected. The definitions of community-based learning at both colleges are in line with the National Service Learning Clearinghouse’s definition, presented earlier in this article. Data from both colleges were collected to help explore the following three questions:

What are the similarities and differences in the community-based learning experiences offered in the Cairo college and the Minnesota college that we sampled from?

Are there differences between the two colleges in the levels of student-reported community-based learning outcomes, student interest in, and student satisfaction with community-based learning experiences?

How do perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and recommended improvements in community-based learning differ in the samples of students from the two colleges?

Method

Participants

Data were collected from a sample of 176 students attending a small private liberal arts American university in Cairo, Egypt, and a sample of 176 students attending a small private liberal arts college in Minnesota, USA. Both colleges are North American-based institutions, with the University in Cairo having accreditation from the United States to grant degrees. Both institutions use US-accredited curriculums and teach in English. These similarities in academic curricula make it possible to assume that potential differences found in community-based learning across the two institutions may be at least partially attributed to external cultural factors. The sample recruited in Egypt comprises mostly Egyptian students, while the United States sample comprises mostly American students. The demographic characteristics of each sample are presented in Table 1. A higher proportion of community-based learning students in the Egypt sample were upper-division students due to the fact that community-based learning is typically incorporated into a course that is required for all first-year students in the college in the United States, while the college in Egypt does not have such a requirement.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the Egypt and US samples.

	Male (%)	Female (%)	Average age (years)	Freshman (%)	Sophomore (%)	Junior (%)	Senior (%)
Egypt	31	69	20.3	5	30	26	35
United States	35	65	19.3	58	15	11	16

Design

This study used a non-experimental, non-equivalent group design. Perceptions of students in the Egypt and the United States samples were compared, with the college being the predictor variable and student perceptions of community-based learning being the criterion variable. All students engaged in community-based learning in the Cairo college campus and the Minnesota college campus invited to participate.

Measures

A survey was used in this study in order to collect data. The survey included some rating-scale questions utilized to allow quantification of students’ perceived gains from community-based learning. At the time of data collection, the literature lacked an established measure that could singularly assess the various domains of perceived community-based learning’s impact. In order to optimize the number of questions asked and incorporate all potential domains of community-based-learning outcomes, a new scale, titled the Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits, was formed. The new scale was composed of selected, modified items from the following available surveys: the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (DiPerna and Elliott, 1999), the Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (Moely et al., 2002), the Scale of Service Learning Involvement (Olney and Grande, 1995), the Service Learning Benefit Scale (Toncar et al., 2006), and the Student Service-Learning Course Survey (Wang et al., 2005). Additional items were developed based on specific outcomes of community-based learning that were suggested in the literature (Astin and Sax, 1998; Hirschinger-Blank and Markowitz, 2006; Joseph et al., 2007; Moser and Rogers, 2005; Ngai, 2006; Reed et al., 2005; Simons and Cleary, 2005).

The resulting scale is composed of 38 items, shown in Table 2, that are each answered on a 10-point scale ranging from 1 (community-based learning did not accomplish this goal) to 10 (community-based learning accomplished this goal extremely well). The items were grouped into four different subscales, based on an assessment of the face validity of the items. Each subscale assessed a different domain of impact, and each was computed by averaging the scores on its items:

Academic Gains (A) subscale, which includes 10 items that assess academic gains in the course that the student is in;

Local/Global Citizenship (C) subscale, which includes 14 items that assess students’ sense of civic responsibility and their global perspectives;

Personal Skills (P) subscale, which includes seven items that assess critical thinking, communication, and interpersonal skills;

Intrapersonal Development (I) subscale, which includes seven items that assess development of goals, reflection on values, and cultural identification.

Table 2.

The Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits.

Subscale	Item
A	Increased my interest in the course topics
A	Motivated me to stay up to date with readings and coursework in this class
A	Enabled me to better learn fundamental principles and theories in this course
A	Helped me understand issues related to this course’s content
A	Enabled me to apply course material to real-life problem-solving and/or decision-making
A	Contributed to my participation in class discussion
A	Increased my overall enjoyment of this course
A	Stimulated me to discuss class topics with others outside of class
A	Increased my curiosity about topics related to this course’s disciplinary field
A	Motivated me to plan on taking more courses in this disciplinary field
C	Stimulated my interest in other cultures or groups in my community
C	Increased my appreciation of the variety of existing cultural values and practices
I	Stimulated me to reflect on my tendency to think that my group’s values and practices are superior to those of other groups
C	Stimulated me to examine some of my own stereotypes and biases
C	Helped me gain a deeper appreciation of cultural diversity as a societal strength
C	Helped me see people as individuals rather than members of stereotyped groups
C	Encouraged me to share experiences with others whose backgrounds or views differ from my own
C	Improved my ability to communicate with people different from myself
P	Enabled me to work more effectively with others
I	Increased my understanding of my own culture/group and its practices
I	Helped me develop a clearer understanding of my personal values and beliefs
I	Helped deepen my commitment to my values and beliefs
I	Inspired me to think about my future career
C	Helped me realize that my actions can make a difference in this world
P	Increased my effectiveness in expressing myself orally
P	Improved my writing skills
P	Increased my ability to analyze information
P	Developed my ability to think critically about the information presented to me
P	Helped me become a more thoughtful reflective person
I	Stimulated me to set more challenging goals for myself
I	Inspired me to think about my purpose in life
C	Strengthened my commitment to work toward a society that respects all people
C	Helped me examine my society more closely
C	Increased my awareness of the need to improve the lives of disadvantaged people in my community
C	Helped me see myself as part of the solution to the problems in my society
C	Stimulated me to think more deeply about my social responsibilities
P	Helped me develop the skills necessary for being an active member of the community
C	Increased my commitment to a life of active service to my community

A: Academic Gains; C: Local/Global Citizenship; P: Personal Skills; I: Intrapersonal Development.

To test the reliability and validity of the Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits, a separate pilot sample of 110 students enrolled in a private college in the Midwestern United States was utilized. Participants had engaged in community-based learning in at least one of their courses. The sample was 80.9% female and 19.1% male, with an average age of 19.6 years. The sample was composed of 40.9% freshmen, 19.1% sophomores, 12.7% juniors, and 27.3% seniors.

The internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) of the measure and its subscales in the pilot sample were computed (see Table 3). The coefficients ranged from .86 to .98, indicating that the measure is reliable. The corrected item-total correlations in the pilot sample were higher than .3 for the whole measure (.46–.87), the Academic Gains subscale (.61–.82), the Local/Global Citizenship subscale (.52–.84), the Personal Skills subscale (.58–.75), and the Intrapersonal Development subscale (.32–.76). The internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits and its four subscales were examined in each of the Egypt and the US samples. As Table 3 shows, the overall scale and its subscales were reliable in both samples.

Table 3.

Alpha coefficients for the Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits.

	Pilot sample (N = 110)	Egypt sample (N = 176)	US sample (N = 176)
A	.94	.92	.95
C	.95	.94	.96
P	.87	.87	.90
I	.86	.84	.91
Overall benefits	.98	.96	.98

A: Academic Gains; C: Local/Global Citizenship; P: Personal Skills; I: Intrapersonal Development.

The convergent validity of the Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits was tested by administering it to the same pilot sample of 110 students from the United States simultaneously with the Service Learning Benefits Scale, developed by Toncar et al. (2006), which has been established as a valid scale for assessing the outcomes of community-based learning. The Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits measures perceived academic gains in addition to all the domains that the Service Learning Benefits Scale measures. The two scales were strongly correlated, r(108) = .70, p < .001, which indicates that the Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits can be considered a valid measure of student perceptions of community-based learning outcomes.

In addition to the Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits questions, the survey that students filled out contained three questions that asked students to rate on a 5-point scale (1 = very low to 5 = very high): (a) their level of interest in participating in the community-based learning experience when they first heard about it in class earlier in the semester, (b) their level of satisfaction at the end of the semester for having participated in the experience, and (c) the likelihood that, in the future, they would seek more opportunities to engage in the experience. Students also responded to open-ended questions that asked them to describe the types of community-based learning activities they engaged in, what they found to be most rewarding and most challenging about the experience, and their suggestions for what could be done to improve it. Students’ responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed by the researchers in order to determine the concepts/themes contained in each response. The frequency of occurrence of each concept/theme was then computed.

Procedure

After securing approval to proceed with the study from the Institutional Review Boards at both colleges, a list of instructors who utilize community-based learning pedagogy was obtained from the campus service learning offices. These instructors were contacted for permission to recruit participants from their classrooms. All the instructors contacted agreed to let the researchers recruit participants from their classrooms. Students engaged in community-based learning in both the Egypt and the US samples were enrolled in various courses including psychology, sociology, composition, communication, business, and economics. Students who consented to the study filled out the questionnaire in the classroom.

Results

The qualitative and quantitative data collected in this study provided some answers to the study questions as follows.

Question 1. What are the similarities and differences in the community-based learning experiences offered in the Cairo college and the Minnesota college that we sampled from?

Qualitative survey responses were used to answer this question. While students in both samples reported participating in meaningful experiences that contributed in tangible ways to the communities they served, students in the Cairo college sample were typically engaged in experiences that involved creating programs, while students in the Minnesota college sample were typically engaged in experiences that entailed supportive service delivery within already-operating programs. Examples of the community-based learning experiences that students in the Cairo college sample were engaged in included working on de-stigmatizing disability through a media campaign, raising awareness about the child labor problem in Egypt, developing grant proposals or needs assessments to facilitate new program development for slum areas, and writing lesson plans for a non-profit organization that targets children who are illiterate. Examples of the community-based learning experiences in the Minnesota college sample included boxing food at the food bank, visiting with adolescents at an addiction hospital, visiting with someone who had a disability, working at a childcare center that served low-income families, visiting with the elderly at a nursing home, tutoring children after school, and tutoring recent immigrants.

Question 2. Are there differences between the two colleges in the levels of student-reported community-based learning outcomes, student interest in, and student satisfaction with community-based learning experiences?

Quantitative responses to the rating scale were used to answer this question. Descriptive statistics indicated that students in both samples reported that community-based learning accomplished each of the 38 outcomes listed on the Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits. The mean scores for the Cairo college sample on all the items were above 6, on a scale of 1–10. The Minnesota college students scored 5 or higher on all the items. In both samples, students endorsed items that assessed benefits from community-based learning not only in the domain of academics but also in the domains of self-examination, reflection on one’s values, and finding meaning in life.

Independent samples t tests on the community-based learning outcomes indicated that the means for students in the Cairo college sample were significantly higher (p < .01) than those for the Minnesota college sample. This difference was observed in all domains of outcomes, except the Intrapersonal Development domain, as shown in Table 4. As can be seen in Figure 1, within both samples there was a clear trend toward upper-class students reporting more overall gains from community-based learning than first-year students.

Table 4.

Community-based learning benefits in Egypt and US samples.

Domain	Country	N	M (SD)	SEM	t	p
A	Egypt	170	7.48 (1.79)	.14	5.61	<.001
A	United States	173	6.35 (1.92)	.15
C	Egypt	162	8.05 (1.58)	.12	3.11	.002
C	United States	170	7.49 (1.70)	.13
P	Egypt	171	7.35 (1.78)	.14	4.15	<.001
P	United States	175	6.55 (1.77)	.13
I	Egypt	169	7.22 (1.83)	.14	1.90	.058
I	United States	172	6.83 (1.91)	.15
Overall	Egypt	153	7.65 (1.49)	.12	4.02	<.001
Benefits	United States	164	6.93 (1.66)	.13

SD: standard deviation; SEM: standard error of mean; A: Academic Gains; C: Local/Global Citizenship; P: Personal Skills; I: Intrapersonal Development.

Figure 1.

Mean community-based learning (CBL) overall benefits scores by academic year in Egypt and the United States.

Chi-square tests of the quantitative responses to the two survey questions about levels of initial interest and levels of satisfaction revealed some cultural differences as well. As can be seen in Figures 2 and 3, students in the Cairo college sample tended to report higher initial interest in community-based learning, χ² (4, N = 351) = 27.16, p < .001, and higher satisfaction with the experience, χ² (4, N = 350) = 16.34, p < .01, than students in the Minnesota college sample.

Figure 2.

Percent of students, ±1 SE, indicating levels of initial interest in community-based learning.

Figure 3.

Percent of students, ±1 SE, indicating levels of satisfaction with community-based learning.

Question 3. How do perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and recommended improvements in community-based learning differ in the samples of students from the two colleges?

Both groups of students provided qualitative responses to an open-ended question on the benefits of the experience. The responses of the Cairo college sample typically focused on the connections with the class community and on networking benefits. For example, students commented, ‘… we worked together as a class, communicated with and dealt with community members to come up with this comprehensive report that maybe will help others’ and ‘It helped me to network with others’. In contrast, the Minnesota college sample mentioned benefits related to the development of intercultural competencies and the formation of friendships. Thematically representative examples include ‘I learned about other cultures, and broke the communication barrier’ and ‘I made a new friend I never would have met before’.

A second open-ended question asked students to provide qualitative information about the most challenging aspects of the community-based learning experience they participated in during the academic semester. The most common theme in the Cairo college sample, mentioned by 30 of the 176 students (17.0%), was the inconvenient time (rush hour, weekends, early in the day) and commute constraints. Among the students in the Minnesota college sample, the most common theme, mentioned by 55 of the 176 students (31.3%), was finding time to fit the experience into their busy schedules.

In response to a third open-ended question, students provided suggestions for improvements in the community-based learning experience they were involved in. Students in both samples recommended more faculty involvement such as matching students with organizations and helping with the logistics of finding transportation and training for the tasks needed. Students in the Minnesota college sample most commonly suggested making community-based learning optional rather than required and offering more choices of sites, mentioned by 28 students (15.9%). Approximately 60 students (34.1%) in the Cairo college sample expressed a desire for a longer community-based learning experience, such as two semesters rather than one. The main reason they gave was to increase the chances that the problems they are working on would be resolved. In contrast, when students from the Minnesota college sample recommended extending the experience for a longer time, they often explained that they would like to give newly formed friendships with those they served a chance to be cemented. Another common recommendation for improvement, mentioned by 34 students (19.3%) in the Cairo college sample, was to make community-based learning more organized and structured.

Discussion

By examining community-based learning in a sample from a college in Cairo and a sample from a college in Minnesota, this study helps shed some light on how this learning method might best be effectively implemented within different cultural contexts.

Question 1. What are the similarities and differences in the community-based learning experiences offered in the Cairo college and the Minnesota college that we sampled from?

The experiences that students in the Minnesota college sample reported being engaged in are consistent with findings from the Current Population Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau, which indicated that the most popular forms of service for college student volunteerism in the United States are tutoring and mentoring (Dote et al., 2006). The different types of community-based learning experiences in which students in our two samples were involved may be attributed to the different socio-cultural contexts within which such experiences occur. Students in the Cairo college sample may have had more opportunities to engage in creating programs rather than work within already-established programs because in Egypt, a developing country, social service infrastructures and programs are still taking shape. Additionally, about one-third of the population in Egypt are illiterate compared to only 1% of the population in the United States (Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 2011), and thus those with even some college education would be considered to have valuable skills and enough preparation to justify utilizing them in significant administrative and supervisory roles.

Question 2. Are there differences between the two colleges in the levels of student-reported community-based learning outcomes, student interest in, and student satisfaction with community-based learning experiences?

Consistent with the current literature (cited at the beginning of this article), students in both our samples described numerous beneficial effects of this experience across multiple domains. However, it is possible that the gains reported by the students in our study are a function of the academic environment and the growth that students experience within any given semester, rather than the result of engaging in community-based learning in particular. Experimental research that includes a community-based learning condition as well as a control condition would be needed in order to determine whether the gains reported by students are due to community-based learning experiences in particular or not.

Several factors may have contributed to the differences in the extent to which students in the two samples reported various community-based learning outcomes. The literature reports that community-based learning may be particularly effective when the learning opportunities involve affluent students interacting with less advantaged members of the community (Paoletti et al., 2007) on a genuine, sustained basis (Cuban and Anderson, 2007). Being affluent in Egypt is more atypical than being affluent in the United States where a smaller percentage of the population lives under the poverty line (CIA, 2011). Moreover, the tuition and fees of the college in Egypt amount to 2.57 times the per capita yearly income in Egypt, while the tuition of the college in the United States amounts to .62 times the per capita yearly income in the United States (CIA, 2013). The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) data suggest that it may be the case that the students in the Cairo college had more to gain from the community-based learning experience because they came from mostly privileged and affluent backgrounds that are in stark contrast with the majority of their surrounding contexts.

The higher level of interest and subsequent satisfaction with community-based learning experiences in the Cairo college sample could also mean that participating in service is an integral component of the cultural schema of many of the students in the Cairo college due to the strong cultural messages emphasizing collectivism and prioritizing community wellness over personal achievement (Buda and Elsayed-Elkhouly, 1998). Another possible explanation is that community-based learning experiences were largely elective in the Cairo college, whereas in the college in Minnesota, it was a requirement in a course that all freshmen students enroll in. Jones and Hill (2003) found that while required service increases the number of participants, it tends to be automatically perceived as undesirable by students. Similarly, Stukas et al. (1999) report that when community-based learning programs are instituted as a requirement, there is tendency for a reduced interest in them.

In our data, we saw a general trend toward upper-class students reporting more overall gains from community-based learning than first-year students. As such, the differences found in our two samples might reflect differences in the ability of more upper-class students, who comprised the largest group of students within the Cairo college sample, to gain more from engagement in community-based learning experiences compared to freshmen students, who comprised the largest group of students within the Minnesota college sample.

Question 3. How do perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and recommended improvements in community-based learning differ in the samples of students from the two colleges?

With respect to differences between our samples in their open-ended responses to the question about the benefits of community-based learning, previous research indicates that individuals in collectivist cultures tend to have an interdependent self-concept with strong ties to and need for harmony within one’s in-group. In contrast, people in individualistic cultures tend to have more independent self-concepts, which results in less commitment to and investment in the in-groups that one belongs to (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Therefore, students in the Minnesota college sample may not have perceived an increase in class cohesiveness as a notable gain of community-based learning. Additionally, community-based learning experiences that allow students to network with the staff of non-governmental organizations and expose students to potential career paths may be particularly valuable in the Egyptian collectivist culture where person-to-person contact and endorsements, known as ‘wasta’, are crucial for launching and advancing one’s career (Cunningham and Sarayrah, 1993; Whitaker, 2009). The fact that Egypt is higher on uncertainty avoidance than the United States (Buda and Elsayed-Elkhouly, 1998) may also be one of the reasons why making oneself known to potential employers, who are unlikely to take risks on complete strangers, is a particularly important benefit of community-based learning for students in Egypt.

Cultural traditions and conceptions may explain why students in the Minnesota college, but not in the Cairo college, frequently mentioned the development of friendships as a benefit. Students in a collectivist culture like Egypt typically live with their immediate families until marriage and maintain ties with their community and support group over many years or decades, and thus they may not feel a need to search for additional relationships (Buda and Elsayed-Elkhouly, 1998). Dwairy et al. (2006) also highlighted this family connectedness in collectivist cultures in their research. In contrast, many college students in the United States live away from home and thus they may be seeking new friendships. In addition, individuals with an interdependent self-concept tend to have a lower tendency to form close relationships with members of out-groups. In contrast, people with more independent self-concepts tend to form friendships with out-group members more easily (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Therefore, community-based learning experiences that allow for much one-on-one time and facilitate the development of friendships with those served would be important for US college students, whereas more action-oriented, product-focused community-based learning experiences might be more important for college students in Egypt.

The findings related to student perceptions of community-based learning challenges are in line with the literature, which suggests that time and setting priorities are often cited by students as deterrents (Jones and Hill, 2003). It is interesting that while students in the Minnesota college sample mentioned time in the context of busy schedules with no room for more commitments, students in the Cairo college sample most often mentioned time in the context of long commutes or inconvenient times of the day. These differences may be explained by the fact that Cairo is a large, crowded city where traffic problems can be significant, whereas the city within which the college in Minnesota is located is small with unproblematic traffic. The differences may also be due to cultural differences in time perception. The United States is considered to be a culture where time is commonly perceived as monochromic, linear, and limited, with a tight and specific schedule governing how time is spent (Hall and Hall, 1990; Kretchmar, 2001). The emphasis in individualistic cultures like the United States tends to be on the clock (Levine, 1997; Levine and Norenzayan, 1999). Students in Egypt, on the other hand, may tend to perceive time as polychromic, cyclical, and of unlimited continuity, with events and activities of the moment governing how time is spent. The emphasis in collectivist cultures like Egypt tends to be on people.

One recommendation offered by students in both samples was for more faculty involvement in community-based learning. This recommendation is in line with the literature’s suggestion that students can gain a greater understanding of their experiences from more extensive interaction with faculty (Somera et al., 2002).

The different types of recommendations for improvement mentioned by students in our two samples may be explained by the fact that Egypt is a culture that is characterized by a relatively high level of uncertainty avoidance. Students in the Cairo college may therefore feel more discomfort with lack of clarity and may need more structure for all aspects of the experience than students in the Minnesota college. Additionally, given the value placed on freedom and choice by individuals in Western cultures (Schwartz, 2000), it is not surprising that students in the Minnesota college sample, but not students in the Cairo college sample, pointed out mandated engagement in the experience as a concern that they had. A recent study by Savani et al. (2008) supports this potential explanation. They report that North Americans tend to follow a disjoint, rather than a conjoint, model of agency which prescribes that actions should be determined by one’s preferences and which defines good actions as ones that fulfill one’s own goals. In line with this model, it would be expected that US students would be more motivated to engage in actions that they freely chose than in actions that were pre-determined for them.

Limitations

Additional research is needed in order to more systematically examine possible cross-cultural differences that should be taken into account when designing community-based learning courses. Because convenience sampling methods were utilized in this study, the resulting samples differed in several ways, not directly related to culture, that may have influenced some of the findings. The students in the Minnesota college sample were younger in age and more junior in college class level than the students in the Cairo college sample. In addition, students in the Cairo college sample were probably more relatively affluent compared to the students in the Minnesota college sample. Moreover, Cairo is a large city, while the city in which the Minnesota college is located is a small city.

Yet, some sample differences reflect differences in cultural and institutional norms and may be hard to eliminate. For example, the norm within the college in Minnesota, but not within the college in Cairo, is to require most first-year students to engage in community-based learning. Seeking to assess all students engaged in the experience in both colleges resulted in more freshmen in the Minnesota college sample compared to the Cairo college. To try to match these samples on age would have necessitated selecting a sub-group of community-based learning students from each college, rather than assessing all identified community-based learning students in each campus. This would mean providing a less realistic picture of community-based learning as it is conducted and experienced in the two colleges assessed.

Moreover, because of differences in affluence and poverty levels between Egypt and the United States, the students enrolled in the Cairo college are likely less representative of the general college population of Egypt, as compared to the likely representativeness of the students at the college in Minnesota. Cross-cultural research often involves a tradeoff between matching samples on basic characteristics and assuring that the different samples are as equivalently representative of the cultures they are drawn from as possible. Keeping these two elements in balance is often a particularly difficult task when the cultures under investigation differ greatly on overall literacy and poverty rates.

The factor structure of the Multidimensional Measure of Community-Based Learning Benefits that was used in this study needs to be assessed, and a cross-validation of the factor structure across cultures needs to be performed. The subscales in our measure were only conceptually developed. It was not possible to perform principal components factor analysis on the measure in our study because our sample size fell short of the recommended minimum subject-to-item ratio of at least 5:1 (Hatcher, 1994), if not 10:1 (Nunnally, 1978). Using a pre–post longitudinal design would also make it possible to control for pre-existing self-reported differences between the groups and to therefore obtain a clearer picture of the benefits that students perceive gaining as a result of community-based learning experiences.

College students in different countries may be more culturally similar than the general populations of these countries are. It would have been ideal to assess one or more of the dimensions of cultural variability identified by Hofstede (1980, 1986) in order to empirically ascertain whether or not the students in the Cairo college sample indeed represented a different cultural worldview than the students in the Minnesota college sample. Establishing differences on some of these dimensions would also aid in interpreting the results of the study with more certainty.

Implications

Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, its findings tentatively suggest several best practices in community-based learning. First, educators should be encouraged to integrate community-based learning into all courses, as it appears that this experience is beneficial to students regardless of discipline or culture. Second, community-based learning experiences offered to students need to be culturally congruent and meaningful, with cultural characteristics that could impact students’ experiences, such as uncertainty avoidance and individualism/collectivism, taken into consideration. Third, more intentional effort may be needed to elicit motivation for and commitment to community-based learning among students in communities where marginalized and underrepresented populations are less visible. Fourth, community-based learning experiences that extend over the course of the entire academic year should be considered as they would potentially be more satisfactory for students than shorter-term experiences. Perhaps departments should take year-long community-based learning into consideration when designing the curriculum for their majors. Instructors should also be flexible in allowing students to continue to work at the same community-based learning organization they worked at in previous semesters and allow them to earn academic credit for doing so. Fifth, more faculty involvement in organizing and structuring community-based learning experiences would be welcomed by students, particularly in cultures that are characterized by high uncertainty avoidance. Finally, colleges in individualistic cultures such as the United States would be advised to ensure that some community-based learning experiences are elective and available as one of the various options for course components, in order to give students a sense of free choice and to maximize interest in and benefits from these experiences.

In conclusion, it is important to design community-based learning experiences with specific cultural needs and worldviews in mind. As demonstrated in this study, many cross-cultural similarities as well as differences between the Cairo college and Minnesota college samples may be present. Taking cultural similarities and differences into account would help optimize the benefits of community-based learning experiences for all students involved.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the Campus Service Commission at Concordia College for its assistance with identifying the classes to collect data from.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest 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: We wish to thank the John D. Gerhart Center for Philanthropy and Civic Engagement at the American University in Cairo for its guidance and financial support of this research.

References

Astin

Sax

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

Balsano

(2005) Youth civic engagement in the United States: understanding and addressing the impact of social impediments on positive youth and community development. Applied Developmental Science 9(4): 188–201. DOI: 10.1207/s1532480xads0904_2.

Barbee

Scherer

Combs

(2003) Prepracticum service-learning: examining the relationship with counselor self-efficacy and anxiety. Counselor Education and Supervision 43(2): 108–119. DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01835.x.

Bentley

Ellison

(2005) Impact of a service-learning project on nursing students. Nursing Education Perspectives 26(5): 287–290. DOI: 10.1043/1536-5026(2005)026[0287:IOASPO]2.0.CO;2.

Berry

(1969) On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology 4: 119–128. DOI: 10.1080/00207596908247261.

Berry

Poortinga

Segall

. (1992) Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buch

Harden

(2011) The impact of a service-learning project on student awareness of homelessness, civic attitudes, and stereotypes toward the homeless. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 15(3): 45–61.

Buda

Elsayed-Elkhouly

(1998) Cultural differences between Arabs and Americans: individualism-collectivism revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29(3): 487–492. DOI: 10.1177/0022022198293006.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2011) The world factbook. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

10.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2013) The world factbook. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

11.

Cuban

Anderson

(2007) Where’s the justice in service-learning? Institutionalizing service-learning from a social justice perspective at a Jesuit university. Equity & Excellence in Education 40(2): 144–155. DOI: 10.1080/10665680701246609.

12.

Cunningham

Sarayrah

(1993) Wasta: The Hidden Force in Middle Eastern Society. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

13.

Deeley

(2010) Service-learning: thinking outside the box. Active Learning in Higher Education 11(43): 43–53. DOI: 10.1177/1469787409355870.

14.

DiPerna

Elliott

(1999) Development and validation of the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 17(3): 207–225. DOI: 10.1177/073428299901700302.

15.

Dote

Cramer

Dietz

. (2006) College Students Helping America. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service. Available at: http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_1016_RPD_college_full.pdf

16.

Dwairy

Achoui

M, Abouserie R, et al.

(2006) Adolescent-family connectedness among Arabs: a second cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37(3): 248–261. DOI: 10.1177/0022022106286923.

17.

Eyler

Giles (2001) At a Glance: What We Know about the Effects of Service-Learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions, and Communities, 1993–2000, 3rd edn. Higher Education. Paper 139. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/139

18.

Hall

(1990) Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.

19.

Hart

King

(2007) Service learning and literacy tutoring: academic impact on pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 23(4): 323–338. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.004.

20.

Hatcher

(1994) A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS® System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.

21.

Hirschinger-Blank

Markowitz

(2006) An evaluation of a pilot service-learning course for criminal justice undergraduate students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 17(1): 69–86. DOI: 10.1080/10511250500336138.

22.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

23.

Hofstede

(1986) Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10: 301–320. DOI: 10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5.

24.

Jones

Hill

(2003) Understanding patterns of commitment: student motivation for community service involvement. The Journal of Higher Education 74(5): 516–539. DOI: 10.1353/jhe.2003.0036.

25.

Joseph

Stone (2007) An exploratory study on the value of service learning projects and their impact on community service involvement and critical thinking. Quality Assurance in Education 15(3): 318–333. DOI: 10.1108/09684880710773192.

26.

Kenworthy

Fornaciari

(2010) No more reinventing the service-learning wheel: presenting a diverse compilation of best practice ‘how to’ articles. Journal of Management Education 34(1): 3–8. DOI: 10.1177/1052562909346000.

27.

Kretchmar

(2001) Service learning in a general psychology class: description, preliminary evaluation, and recommendations. Teaching of Psychology 28(1): 5–10. DOI: 10.1207/s15328023top2801_02.

28.

Levine

(1997) A Geography of Time: The Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist. New York: Basic Books.

29.

Levine

Norenzayan

(1999) The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30(2): 178–205. DOI: 10.1177/0022022199030002003.

30.

Lundy

(2007) Service learning in life-span developmental psychology: higher exam scores and increased empathy. Teaching of Psychology 34(1): 23–27. DOI: 10.1177/009862830703400104.

31.

Markus

Kitayama

(1991) Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98(2): 224–253. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224.

32.

Miller

Gonzalez

(2009) Service learning in domestic and international settings. College Student Journal 43(2): 527–536.

33.

Moely

Mercer

SH, Ilustre V, et al.

(2002) Psychometric properties and correlates of the civic attitudes and skills questionnaire (CASQ): a measure of students’ attitudes related to service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 8: 15–26.

34.

Moser

Rogers

(2005) The power of linking service to learning. Tech Directions 64(7): 18–21.

35.

Mueller

(2005) Antidote to learned helplessness: empowering youth through service. Reclaiming Children and Youth: The Journal of Strength-Based Interventions 14(1): 16–19.

36.

National Service Learning Clearinghouse (n.d.) What is service learning? Available at: http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/teaching-through-community-engagement/

37.

Ngai

(2006) Service-learning, personal development, and social commitment: a case study of university students in Hong Kong. Adolescence 41(161): 165–176.

38.

Nishida

(1999) Cultural schema theory. In: Gudykunst

(ed.) Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 401–418.

39.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

40.

Olney

Grande

(1995) Validation of a scale to measure development of social responsibility. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 2: 43–53.

41.

Paoletti

Segal

Totino

(2007) Acts of diversity: assessing the impact of service-learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 111: 47–54. DOI: 10.1002/tl.285.

42.

Prentice

(2007) Service learning and civic engagement. Academic Questions 20(2): 135–145. DOI: 10.1007/s12129-007-9005-y.

43.

Reed

Jernstedt (2005) Effects of a small-scale, very short-term service-learning experience on college students. Journal of Adolescence 28(3): 359–368. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.08.003.

44.

Sather

Weitz

Carlson

(2007) Engaging students in macro issues through community-based learning: the policy, practice, and research sequence. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 27(3–4): 61–79. DOI: 10.1300/j067v27n03_05.

45.

Savani

Markus

Conner

(2008) Let your preference be your guide? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95(4): 861–876. DOI: 10.1037/a0011618.

46.

Schwartz

(2000) Self-determination: the tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist 55(1): 79–88. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.79.

47.

Simons

Cleary

(2005) Student and community perceptions of the ‘value added’ for service-learners. Journal of Experiential Education 28(2): 164–188. DOI: 10.1177/105382590502800208.

48.

Somera

Mason

Bouchard-Miller

(2002) The ‘Ayuda’ way: service-learning at Guam Community College. In: Larson-Keagy

(ed.) Through Whose Eyes—Service-Learning and Civic Engagement from Culturally Diverse Perspectives. Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges, 137–143.

49.

Strage

(2004) Long-term academic benefits of service learning: when and where do they manifest themselves? College Student Journal 38(2): 257–261.

50.

Strain

(2005) Pedagogy and practice: service-learning and students’ moral development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 103: 61–72. DOI: 10.1002/tl.204.

51.

Stukas

Snyder

Clary

(1999) The effects of ‘mandatory volunteerism’ on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science 10(1): 59–64. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00107.

52.

Taras

Steel

Kirkman

(2011) Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business 47(3): 329–341. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.001.

53.

Toncar

Reid (2006) Uniform assessment of the benefits of service learning: the development, evaluation, and implementation of the SELEB scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 14(3): 223–238. DOI: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679140304.

54.

Wang

Jackson

. (2005) Development of student service-learning course survey (SSLCS) to measure service-learning course outcomes. IR applications, no. 3, 21 January. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504367.pdf

55.

Whitaker

(2009) What’s Really Wrong with the Middle East. London: Saqi Books.