Service-Learning Projects Involving Play:
Student Perceptions

ABSTRACT

This study examined student perceptions during a course on play that involved service-learning. Thirty-four students from two classes, one in the fall and one in the spring, participated in this service-learning study. A mixed method design was used to uncover students’ perceptions. Three main themes emerged from the data: positive experiences, impact of applied knowledge, and making a difference/social responsibility. The challenges and benefits of engaging in experiential education (service-learning project) to students and the instructor are also discussed.

In a university classroom setting, the goal typically is that students meet objectives set forth in the curriculum. In a service-learning classroom there are content objectives as well, but it does not end there. The objectives extend out into relevant, hands-on experience, integration of academic content with needed community service, effective reflection activities, and citizenship.

Service-learning for this study was defined according to the host university’s definition:

service-learning is a type of experiential education that combines and pursues both academic achievement and community service in a seamless weave, requiring the use of effective reflection exercises. The goal of service-learning, through linking academics to the community, is to develop the skills, sensitivities, and commitments necessary for effective citizenship in a democracy (Citizenship and Service-learning, n.d.).

While it’s been noted that there has been an increase in studies examining service-learning before 2000 (Pollack, 2000 & Stanton 2000) and more recently (as discussed below) there is a need for further research on the effectiveness of this pedagogy (Howard, 2003).

Experiential Education

Experiential education is a pedagogical tool to be used as appropriate according to the course and course objectives. Benefits such as encouraging students to transform abstract concepts into real experience (Mooney & Edwards, 2001) and developing problem solving skills using their own experiences applied to the larger context of “society” have been found (Stanley & Plaza, 2002). This pedagogical tool is not new. Looking back to Dewey (1916) and examining his thoughts on education, experience is at the heart. It is through the foundational efforts of experience that the community and classroom become interfaced and the remaining elements of service-learning can occur.

Integrates Academic Achievement with Community Service

Integration of course content and beneficial service to the community is essential to service-learning. Both the student and the community partner must benefit from the experience. If a student were to do volunteer hours associated with a course but it did not help them learn course material and create greater understanding, then service-learning as defined here has not taken place. The research on integration shows major academic benefits for students who engage in service-learning, including such areas as deeper understanding, better application of subject matter, problem-solving skills, critical thinking, and reflective thinking (Eyler, 2000, 2001; Roos, et al., 2005; Scales, et al., 2006; Simons & Cleary, 2006; Spiezio, Baker, & Boland, 2005; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2003; Xin, 2005).

Effective Reflection

Reflection helps to ensure the integration of experience and content while serving as a continual assessment and connection between the student and the professor. Meaningful learning requires reflection. Studies have shown reflection needs to be integrated into the course for community service to make sense, for it to be relevant, and hence be of value to the student (Brent & Felder, 1992; Citizenship and Service-Learning, n.d; Lockyer, Gondocz, & Thivierge, 2004). “[Education is] that reconstruction or reorganization of experience which adds to the meaning of experience, and which increases ability to direct the course of subsequent experience” (Dewey, 1916, p. 76). This is the model for reflection in a service-learning course. Students have ideas, they have experiences, they reflect on the experiences and their previous ideas, and then how that affects their thoughts and future actions. As Dewey (1916) stated:

…mere activity does not constitute experience…Experience…involves change, but change is meaningless transition unless it is consciously connected with the return wave of consequences which flow from it… [W]hen the change made by action is reflected back into a change made in us, the mere flex is load with significance. We learn something…(p. 139).

Citizenship As Its Goal

The goal of service-learning is to assist the students’ learning, benefit the community, and the continued understanding of the students’ place in their community. When citizenship is mentioned, often people think of their civic duty as just voting. But there are many facets to citizenship beyond voting. The goal is to frame course content in a way that facilitates students making connections between content and community and how their discipline fits into creating a healthy community. Service-learning is thus fulfilling Thomas Jefferson’s wish for higher education (Citizenship and Service-Learning, n.d.).

Ethridge (2006) points out that a semester long course may not be enough to find resolutions to issues in the community but a semester is long enough to “have a meaningful impact on a student’s ability to develop…skills and dispositions to become…effective…” (p. 62). Students lessened their fears of community involvement and increased community service commitments in a study conducted by Payne (2000). Several studies show students increasing their civic engagement through participation in service-learning courses (Moely, Mercer, Illustre, Miron, & McFarland, 2002; Prentice, 2007; Reinke, 2003; Simons & Cleary, 2006; Spiezio, Baker, & Boland, 2005). A review of the research literature by Billig (2000) showed that service-learning helped students develop a sense of civic and social responsibility, and have a relationship with their teachers that included greater respect for each other. Interpersonal development and their ability to relate to culturally diverse groups increased in a positive way.

In part because of the positive outcomes previously identified, a course on “Play as Development” was transformed into a service-learning course. The following describes the projects students in that course completed.

Service-Learning Play Projects

Student choice was an essential component to these projects. The first semester students worked in groups designing a service-learning project and were assigned a community partner. Based on first semester experiences, the second semester of this course with service-learning had students working in groups and assigned to a project that could be carried out at one of two community partner locations, with four possible options.

Students worked with a child care center during the first semester to integrate their learning with the community and serve the partner. After students had a basic understanding of some of the main tenets of the course they met as a class with the director of the child care center to discuss ideas and to ask her what needs she had related to play. Students then came up with service-learning proposals, met with the community director again, and decided on projects they would create. Students worked together to create these projects that included a parent workshop on play, redesigning a playground, redesigning the motor play area of the center, and creating play packs for children and parents to check out from the school, including student-made pamphlets on the importance of play and how to facilitate it.

During the second semester all students worked on redesigning playgrounds, as that was a need of two child care centers in the community. Each center had two spaces that needed designing and/or redesigning so students had four choices of spaces. In this semester the students met with both directors to ask questions about what each director needed regarding the playground spaces, ages served, and budget requirements. Students then spent time at the centers to observe the spaces in use, assess the space and materials that were then available, and to ask teachers who used the spaces about what they considered important. Students then worked with their groups over the rest of the semester to create playground space proposals that met the needs of the centers and incorporated the information they were learning about play to create spaces that best served children.

METHOD

Participants

Students in a “Play as Development” course were the participants (n=34). These participants were drawn from two semesters of the same course. All students in the classes participated in the service-learning project. It was their choice whether or not their participation was analyzed for the study. Students in this course included five of the university’s six colleges, with half of the participants coming from the Child and Family Development Program within the College of Education. Eighty percent indicated an affiliation with a particular faith, ninety-one percent were 19-23 years of age, ninety-one percent were female, and ninety-seven percent of those who responded to this question identified themselves as white/Caucasian. Student class status ranged from first-year students to fifth-year students with forty-three percent of the students identified as third-year students. Grade point average varied as well with students reporting 2.0-2.5 up to 3.5+. Forty-three percent of those students reported grade point averages of 3.0-3.49.

Measures and Procedures

Adapted versions of the Virginia Tech Service-Learning Participant Profile and Service-Learning Evaluation (James-Deramo, 1998) were given as pre- and post-test measures. Prior to beginning the service-learning project students completed the Participant Profile and the Evaluation was completed during the last class meeting of the semester. These provided quantitative and qualitative information on the students and their perceptions.

Virginia Tech Service-Learning Participant Profile

The Participant Profile provides pre-project information on the students’ perceptions of civic responsibilities, prior service-learning experiences, and expectations of service-learning with this project. The questionnaire consisted of both categorical and Likert-type responses. For example, “before this course, how many previous semesters have you participated in service-learning (S-L)?” (never participated, 1-2 semesters of S-L, 3-5 semesters of S-L, 6+ semesters of S-L) and “indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following: influencing social values, helping others who are in difficulty, developing a personal value system, volunteering my time helping people, finding a career that provides me the opportunity to be helpful to others or useful to society” (not important, somewhat important, very important, essential).

Service-Learning Evaluation

The Evaluation provides post-project information on the students’ perceptions of civic responsibilities, this service-learning experience, and the perceptions of the service-learning course involving this project. This questionnaire also consists of categorical and Likert-type questions plus open essay-type of questions such as “how would you describe your service experience to a friend?”

Analysis

Quantitative

To analyze the pre-post test questions that were identical we utilized t-tests for dependent groups because of the within-group variation. There were additional questions that were asked only during the post-test (Evaluation). Those questions were looked at independently as to the meaning of responses.

Qualitative

In the post-test questionnaire (Evaluation) student responses to the open essay-type questions were analyzed, one researcher reading through the responses to find groups of meanings within each answer. These groups were then checked by the other researcher, and then groupings were combined to find themes throughout all qualitative responses.

RESULTS

Pre- and Post-test

The identical questions comparison from the pre- and post-test did not show significant differences. This may be due to the small sample size and the sample being very similar and above average in items assessed on those particular questions.

Post-test

In the post-test students were given an opportunity to provide open-ended essay responses to what they found to be the positive and challenging aspects of their service learning projects. A total of 34 students offered feedback, with 20 discussing challenges and 29 identifying the positive aspects.

In terms of the challenges, there were a total of 5 themes identified, with three of those only having one or two participants discussing that particular issue. There appeared to be two general themes that emerged. The issue most frequently identified was time 13/20 (65%) with 8/20 (40%) discussing how time consuming the project was and that there was not enough time to do what they wanted. Another 4/20 (20%) struggled with finding time to meet as a group and one student talked about the difficulty of scheduling time to meet with community people. Staying on budget was the other major challenge for 7/20 (35%) of the students. Other challenges mentioned were not directly working with people, the large number of decisions that had to be made, and one student mentioned how hard that was within a group situation, and dealing with the rules and regulations that governed their projects.

With regard to the positive aspects discussed three major themes clearly emerged. Both quantitative and qualitative items that relate to the three themes are discussed below. These include that students had a positive experience, the project impacted their learning by having to apply their knowledge, and they felt they were making a difference and that their awareness of social responsibilities was increased.

Positive Experience

The majority of students who responded, 22/29 (75.9%) found the experience positive, using phrases ranging from great, fun and enjoyable. The following two comments reflect the general sentiment of students. One student wrote, “I extremely loved the service learning part of this course” and another stated, “I would describe it as an amazing opportunity to learn a lot of interesting things.”

Impact of Applied Knowledge

The second positive theme for 22/29 (75.9%) of the students was related to the impact it had on their learning: 12 of the 22 students stated in various ways that they learned a lot, with 5 students specifically stating that they felt they gained more from the development of the projects than simply writing a paper. Another 10 of the 22 students discussed the benefit of being able to apply their knowledge of the course material in a real hands-on manner.

It teaches you things you couldn’t learn in a classroom.

I really liked taking what we learned and applying it to our service learning.

I totally got a better understanding of what is developmentally appropriate for children.

Students reported the feeling that the service-learning project impacted their learning in a positive way. Full data on thirty-one students show this connection. (see Table 1.)

Table 1. Impact on learning

Making a Difference/Social Responsibility

For the third theme, 17/29 (58.6%) centered on the feeling of making a difference and that what they did mattered. Of those 17, five talked about feeling a sense of accomplishment and appreciation.

It felt really nice to be able to help.

…good feeling to know we accomplished something.

It gave me an opportunity to help our community and directly impact the children, parents, and staff.

I found that I studied harder and focused more on class assignments because I knew I was going to have to apply the information on a project that was going to directly affect someone else.

To varying degrees, the majority of students reported an increased sense of social responsibility. Full data on thirty-one students shows this increase. (see Table 2.)

Table 2. Increased sense of social responsibility

DISCUSSION

Limitations/Strengths

This study failed to yield statistical support for a change in the pre- and post-test questionnaires. This can be attributed to the small sample. In addition, a contributing factor could be that about half of the participants are already in a major that deals with careers that help people, and so they may have more civic-minded attitudes than the average student. Actual learning was not quantified, but their perceptions of their own learning were the focus. Also, there can be some self-selection in choosing to take this service-learning course.

Strengths of this study are that the researcher attained what is called “prolonged engagement” and utilized peer review along with rich thick description. All three of these are recommended by Creswell (1998) as important in establishing trustworthiness and authenticity of qualitative research. The researcher was able to get to know the students well. The researcher was involved in the process of assessment, planning, and implementation of the projects, including class discussions, small group work, individual journaling, and process feedback. Peer reviewing is similar to interrater reliability for the qualitative researcher (Creswell) and provides an external check of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A colleague of similar rank engaged in analysis checks of meaning. The rich thick description is evident in the description of the participants (students and community partners) and their projects so that readers can decide if the information is transferable to them (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993).

Students

What did students gain from this experience?

Evident from the analysis, as seen in young children as well, hands-on experiences is how students learn best. This is reminiscent of the Chinese proverb “tell me and I’ll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I’ll understand.” It is not a surprise that the application of course material made the course more relevant. Students were able to reflect on their service-learning experience and connect that with course concepts in a more meaningful way than in a more traditional content delivery classroom. Considering the format of the class it was gratifying to know that in this time-consuming process of engagement with the community, the students enjoyed the learning process.

One of the large gains was the impact of the project on their sense of civic responsibility. It is evident that students’ awareness of the responsibility they have to the greater society and the role they can play in making positive change was increased. It was gratifying to hear students reflect on the sense of satisfaction they received from realizing they can and did make a difference in ways that really mattered in children’s lives.

What were the challenges?

It’s not at all surprising that the students’ major challenges centered on time and money. Doing such a project, especially in a group setting, is time consuming; but added to the regular requirements of the course, it becomes extremely demanding. It takes both time and mental energy to meet with community partners, assess needs, create a design/project, and then follow through on implementation. Finding time to meet with different group members with varying schedules is difficult. Then additionally working toward mutual agreement on project decisions can be equally difficult.

It’s also hard to work within a budget, as some did. Acknowledging what they would like to do doesn’t necessarily fit the constraints of the projects’ limited financial resources.

However, these challenges create another practical experience of life. And that is, working in a social setting there is often not enough time or financial resources to do what we want or what we really need to do. This experience provided students the opportunity to struggle with the challenge of developing a quality product within finite resources.

The Instructor’s Perspective

For the instructor, service-learning is a commitment. It took more time to plan and implement than a typical course. Integrating the projects takes time in the classroom as well as out in the community for the student. If the class is one that originally did not have service-learning, as this one did, it will require delicate reconfiguring by the instructor of how to both meet objectives of content and the service-learning objectives without adding time to the class sessions. This extra time also includes a continual reassessment by the instructor of what student needs should to be addressed and how to address them in the next class. This is true of any class, but it is necessary to fully implement high quality service-learning.

In this study, students expressed more motivation to engage and learn information than simply having the goals of passing the class or getting a certain grade. Students had ownership of their projects because they got to make choices of what to do and how to do it. Students generally took this class because they were interested in the topic. All of these factors contributed to making this class enjoyable and effective.

In choosing to use service-learning as a pedagogical tool I wanted students to be civicly-minded. I wanted them to be engaged experientially with the course material. I wanted students to be motivated to learn the content and apply it in a meaningful way within the community. The results of this study make all the extra time and work worthwhile. As the data shows, students found the project implementation to be time-consuming, but worth it. So, it is the same for the professor as the student.

As one person, I can only have so much of an impact, but by empowering students and setting up community opportunities that impact becomes immeasurable. I am thrilled to see many former students who tell me not only how much they loved the class and that they are still connected to their community partner months and/or years after the class has ended. To me that is success.

Dr. Joanna J. Cemore is currently Assistant Professor of Childhood Education and Family Studies at Missouri State University where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in early childhood education and child and family development. Dr. Cemore has over 16 years of experience in the early childhood field as a teacher in private and public schools from Pre-K through college. Her main research interests are play, service-learning and perceptions. JoannaCemore@MissouriState.edu

REFERENCES

Billig, S. H. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service-learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 658-664.

Brent, R., & Felder, R. M. (1992). Writing assignments: Pathways to connections, clarity, creativity. College Teaching, 40, 43-48.

Citizenship and Service-Learning (n.d.). Definition of service-learning. Retrieved January 5, 2007, http://www.missouristate.edu/casl/

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ethridge, E. A. (2006). Teacher modeling of active citizenship via service-learning in teacher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 14(1), 49-65.

Eyler, J. S. (2000). What do we most need to know about the impact of service learning on student learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Special Issue, 11-17.

Eyler, J. S., & Giles, D. E. Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Howard, J. (2003). Service-learning research: Foundational issues. In S. H. Billig & A. S. Waterman (Eds.), Studying service-learning: Innovations in education research methodology (pp. 1-12). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

James-Deramo, M. (1998). Pre- and Post-Course Questionnaire. Blacksburg, VA: Service-learning Center at Virginia Tech.

Lemieux, C. M., & Allen, P. D. (2007). Service learning in social work education: the state of knowledge, pedagogical practicalities, and practice conundrums. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(2), 307-319.

Lockyer, J., Gondocz, S. T., & Thivierge, R. L. (2004). Knowledge translation: the role and place of practice reflection. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 24, 50-57.

Moely, B. E., Mercer, S. H., Illustre, D., Miron, D., & McFarland, M. (2002). Psychometric properties and correlates of the civic attitudes and skills questionnaire (CASQ): A measure of student’s attitudes related to service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Special Issue, 124-128.

Mooney, L. A. , & Edwards, B. (2001). Experiential learning on Sociology: Service-learning and other community-based initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 25, 15-18.

Payne, C. A. (2000). Changes in involvement preferences as measured by the community service involvement preference inventory. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 7, 41-53.

Pollack, S. (2000). The role of research and policy in constituting the service-learning field. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Special Issue, 105-112.

Prentice, M. (2007). Service learning and civic engagement. Academic Questions, 20(2), 135-145.

Reinke, S. J. (2003). Making a difference: Does service-learning promote civic engagement in MPA students? Journal of Public Affairs Education 9(2), 129-137.

Roos, V., Temane, Q. M., Davis, L., Prinsloo, C. E., Kritzinger, A., Naude, E., & Wessels, J. C. (2005). Service learning in a community context: Learners’ perceptions of a challenging training paradigm. South African Journal of Psychology, 35(4), 703-716.

Scales, P. C., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Neal, M., Kielsmeier, J. C., & Benson, P. L. (2006). Reducing academic achievement gaps: The role of community service and service-learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(1), 38-60.

Simons, L., & Cleary. B. (2006). The influence of service learning on students’ personal and social development. College Teaching, 54(4), 307-319.

Spiezio, K. E., Baker, K. Q., Boland, K. (2005). General Education and civic engagement: An empirical analysis of pedagogical possibilities. The Journal of General Education, 54(4), 273-292.

Stanley, K., & Plaza, D. (2002). “No passport required: An action learning approach to teaching about globalization. Teaching Sociology, 30, 89-99.

Stanton, T. K. (2000). Bringing reciprocity to service-learning research and practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Special Issue, 119-123.

Vogelgesang, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (2000). Comparing the effects of community service and service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 7, 25-34.

Xin, L., & Lal, S. (2005). Critical reflective thinking through service-learning in multicultural teacher education. Intercultural Education, 16(3), 217-234.