Paul sather Distinguished Director University of Nebraska Omaha University of Nebraska at Omaha Omaha, Nebraska, United States
Abstract: Higher education faculty members make decisions to use experiential learning techniques such as service-learning as a method of teaching and learning. Some choose to teach P-16 (preschool through higher education) service-learning courses, which include a higher education course, P-12 (preschool through grade 12) course, and a community partner. Teaching these types of courses require additional time and energy than other pedagogical options. However, faculty members do this for a variety of reasons.
This session will share the results of study that used a constructivist grounded theory approach to gather data from higher education faculty members who had collaborated with P-12 teachers to teach P-16 service learning courses to learn about their motivation and persistence factors. Data analysis resulted in identifying personal and professional values motivated these faculty members to teach this way. These values, coupled with access and environmental factors such as encouragement, were motivational for faculty members to collaborate with P-12 teachers to teach P-16 service-learning courses. These values were affirmed as a result of teaching these courses and as such influenced their persistence. The community partnerships and impact they saw as a result of teaching the P-16 service-learning course affected their persistence. This session will outline the theoretical framework, research process, data analysis, and results of collaborative, P-16 service learning courses.
Narrative: Higher education institutions include community engagement and service-learning in their institutional strategic planning documents to meet community engagement goals (Driscoll, 2014). While there are barriers for faculty members to utilize this method of experiential teaching and learning in higher education environments, faculty members choose to teach using service-learning nonetheless (O’Meara, 2013).
In some cases, higher education and P-12 schools have collaborated in “P-16 service-learning” (Dierberger, 2015; Dierberger et al., 2019). P-16 service-learning refers to the service-learning collaboration across the preschool through grade 12 and higher education spectrum. P-16 service-learning partnerships are complicated collaborations in which P-12 teachers and higher education faculty members co-create service-learning projects between a P-12 course, a higher education course, and community partner. In this type of collaboration, a P-12 teacher and higher education faculty member work together to identify the learning goals for their students, often in interdisciplinary contexts and always within the scope of the community-identified project, to co-create a “P-16” service-learning project (Dierberger, 2015; Dierberger et al., 2019). Although these are three-way partnerships, the thing that makes them different from other service-learning partnerships is the connection between the P-12 and higher education faculty member. These service-learning relationships are the focus of this research, which developed a theoretical understanding of why and how higher education faculty members approach these P-16 service-learning relationships.
The purpose of this study was to examine how and why higher education faculty members develop service-learning partnerships with P-12 teachers in the context of P-16 service-learning collaborations. Through grounded theory methodology, I developed a theory to understand why and how these relationships are created from the perspective of higher education faculty members who choose to prioritize using service-learning as a method of instruction, despite potential barriers.
There are gaps in understanding how and why service-learning partnerships between higher education and P-12 schools are developed and sustained. Service-learning has historically been successful at both P-12 and higher education levels, but there has been little examination of the why and how higher education faculty members choose to engage in service-learning partnerships with P-12 teachers, especially outside of teacher education programs.
Two research questions guided this study: 1. What influences higher education faculty members to collaborate with P-12 teachers in P-16 service-learning courses? 2. Why do faculty members decide to continue or not continue in P-16 service-learning partnerships?
Grounded theory methodology was chosen to explore the gap in understanding why higher education faculty members make the choice to collaborate with P-12 teachers in P-16 service learning courses. I received IRB approval to ensure the ethical considerations and safeguard protected audiences (IRB # 0284-20-EX) and gathered data from participants who had taught at least two P-16 service learning courses in the past three years. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were used as the primary data collection strategy. After data was analyzed, I met with each participant for another interview to clarify and confirm results. I also used member checking and an external reader to ensure data analysis was accurate and trustworthy.
Data analysis resulted in the conclusion that higher education faculty members who teach P-16 service-learning courses are motivated by their values and environment when they choose to collaborate with P-12 teachers and teach P-16 service-learning courses. The values motivating them are personal and professional, or a combination of the two. In addition to their values, the environment and infrastructure within the university is a motivating factor. Faculty members must have access and opportunity to teach P-16 service-learning courses and encouragement to do so.
Faculty members persist in teaching P-16 service-learning courses because of their values, partnerships, and perceived impact. The personal and professional values that motivated them to teach P-16 service-learning courses initially are affirmed through teaching the P-16 service-learning course and are the reasons they persist. The partnerships and relationships developed through the P-16 service-learning course encourage them to continue the work. Additionally, the P-16 service-learning collaboration has an impact on community outcomes, personal satisfaction, and student outcomes.
This research contributes to the field by expanding traditional service-learning research to include service-learning courses that have a P-12 partner, which are unique and their scope has not been explored. The results of this study add new insights and expand the traditional service-learning motivation research. Faculty members involved in this study revealed they chose to engage in service-learning experiences with P-12 teachers because they were motivated by their personal and professional values to teach a P-16 service-learning course. They understood the impacts service-learning courses can have on student learning and the community, leading to greater civic engagement.
The results of this study indicated personal and professional values were motivating factors for faculty members who chose to collaborate with P-12 teachers to teach P-16 service-learning courses. The personal values in the study were feelings of civil and social responsibility, access to higher education, and the development of these skills in students through P-16 service-learning courses. The environment and infrastructure components that motivated the faculty members involved in this study provided the access and encouragement to teach P-16 service-learning courses.
The results in this study have made a new contribution to the literature on service-learning teaching persistence. In this study, the personal and professional values that motivated the faculty member to collaborate with a P-12 teacher to teach a P-16 service-learning course were affirmed through the faculty members’ experiences teaching the P-16 service-learning course and contributed to their persistence to teach P-16 service-learning courses with P-12 teachers. This finding is critical because we know when the motivational factors are affirmed, the affect is sustained P-16 service-learning teaching despite the increased effort required to do so. Similarly, the existence of enthusiasm from community partners was felt through participants’ P-16 service-learning instruction and gave them incentive to persist.
The results of this study indicated institutional recognition was not a motivating or persistence factor, as affirmed by the literature review. Clearly, faculty members are not deterred from teaching service-learning courses because of institutional promotion and tenure policies.
