Module 5: Group Activity 5

Service Learning in Life-Span Developmental Psychology: Higher Exam Scores and Increased Empathy

Brenda L. Lundy Indiana–Purdue University Fort Wayne

This article describes research conducted to evaluate the im- pact of service learning on exam scores and emotional empa- thy in a life-span development course. Service learning was 1 of 3 project options offered in the course; others included an interview project and a research paper. With the exception of the first exam, scores were significantly higher for the service- learning students compared to those who completed other projects. In addition, only the service-learning group demon- strated a significant increase in emotional empathy as mea- sured by the Emotional Empathetic Tendency Scale (EETS; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). I discuss the results in terms of the relations among practical experience, reflection, and emotional empathy.

A variety of innovative experiential learning tech- niques enhance the educational experience of under- graduates. One technique in particular, service learning, is becoming increasingly popular among American colleges and universities (Chapman & Ferrari, 1999; Howard, 2003). Bringle and Hatcher (1995) defined service learning as a

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

Researchers have addressed the impact of service learn- ing in several studies within the past decade (see Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2001). Positive outcomes asso- ciated with the use of service learning in undergraduate courses include the development of personal efficacy (Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999; Kendrick, 1996), personal

identity (Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, & Kerrigan, 1996), moral development (Boss, 1994; Gorman, 1994), interpersonal skills (Driscoll et al., 1996), re- duced stereotyping (Astin et al., 1999), and increased social responsibility (Eyler, Giles, & Braxton, 1997; Kendrick, 1996). However, the impact of service learn- ing on academic performance is less certain because of methodological problems, such as using course grades calculated differently for service learning students com- pared to students in comparison groups (Eyler, 2000; Steinke & Buresh, 2002).

In addition to these methodological issues, little in- formation exists regarding specific service learning strategies that would be beneficial in promoting aca- demic performance (Eyler, 2000). Some studies have suggested, however, that service learning programs with regular opportunities for reflection may have a more pronounced positive effect on both cognitive and personal outcomes (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Mabry, 1998). Reflecting on service activi- ties in light of course content may not only foster under- standing of course content but may also enhance understanding of others’ emotional experiences. Thus emotional empathy, or the ability to vicariously experi- ence other’s emotions, may be another positive out- come of programs that offer opportunities for reflection. Even so, emotional empathy has received little atten- tion in the service-learning literature.

The purpose of this research was to explore students’ academic performance and empathetic tendencies in relation to type of project completed in a life-span de- velopmental psychology course. I predicted students engaged in service-learning activities with opportuni- ties for reflection would demonstrate higher exam per-

Vol. 34, No. 1, 2007 23

formance and greater increases in pre- to postproject empathic tendencies, compared to students engaged in an interview or research paper project.

Method

Participants

Participants included 192 students enrolled in life- span developmental psychology, an upper level under- graduate, general education course, who completed all course requirements including four exams and a term project. In addition, a subsample of participants (n = 67), comprised of students enrolled in the most recently taught sections, also completed a pre- and postproject self-report measure on empathic tendencies.

Procedures and Measures

Students chose among three project options within the first two weeks of the semester. I assessed exam per- formance and pre- and postempathetic tendency levels in relation to type of project.

Service-learning project. The service learning op- tion required students to volunteer 2 hr a week for 12 weeks (during a 16-week semester) in an agency rele- vant to the course, such as a day care, preschool, retire- ment home, or assisted living facility. Students con- tacted and acquired written approval from the director of the agency of their choice. Directors monitored stu- dents’ participation and verified the number of hours volunteered each week. Students wrote a 10- to 12-page paper in which they integrated lecture and text material with their practical experience, focusing on aspects of development that corresponded to concepts and re- search covered in class. Near the completion of the se- mester, students submitted their papers and gave a 10- min oral presentation to the class. Papers consisted of (a) an introduction (including a discussion of their ex- pectations prior to beginning their service learning), (b) journal entries for each 2-hr session integrating course material with practical experience, (c) a discussion of their overall experience, and (d) time sheets signed each week by the director of the volunteer agency. I graded service-learning papers primarily on the integration of course material with practical experience. Because stu- dents volunteered in a variety of settings, I required

them to make oral presentations so they could learn from each other’s experiences as well.

Interview project. This project required students to interview three individuals, each from a different stage of the life span (matched on ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic class) regarding a relevant and specific topic of the students’ choice. Students conducted a lit- erature review of the topic, generated hypotheses, and formulated relevant interview questions. I instructed students to audio record their interviews, informing them that each should be approximately 1 hr in dura- tion. Students wrote a 10- to 12-page paper that in- cluded a literature review, hypotheses, method, results (with brief excerpts from interviews), and discussion section. Students also gave a 10-min presentation to the class near the end of the semester. In general, I graded these projects based on the literature review, rationale for their hypotheses, quality and relevance of the inter- view questions, the effectiveness with which they inte- grated material from the literature review, their exami- nation of the similarities and differences among the responses, and a discussion of developmental processes and limitations of their project.

Research paper. This project was a focused review of recent research regarding a specific and relevant topic of their choice. Students synthesized knowledge from 8 to 10 empirical articles from professional, peer- reviewed journals, engaged in critical evaluation, and wrote a 10- to 12-page (not including the title page, abstract, or references) paper. Students began by clar- ifying the topic’s importance and significance to hu- man development. I instructed students to incorpo- rate the articles in a logical fashion and to clearly state the purpose, method, findings, and implications of each study. They also discussed important questions that remained unanswered regarding the topic, indi- cated why the questions need to be addressed, and concluded by setting up a specific idea for additional research based on the literature review. I graded re- search papers based on the relevance of the topic, content, understanding of subject matter, ability to evaluate scholarship cited, integration and synthesis of research, ability to communicate ideas, ability to use American Psychological Association style, appro- priateness of the conclusion, and implications for fu-

24 Teaching of Psychology

ture research. Students also gave a 10-min presenta- tion to the class near the end of the semester.

Exams. I evaluated students’ understanding of course material based on four multiple choice exams. The presentation of course material was topically orga- nized. The first exam covered introductory material, de- velopmental theories, and research methods, whereas the coverage of subsequent exams included perceptual and cognitive development (Exam 2); self-concept, per- sonality, and social relationships (Exam 3); and gender, moral development, and family relations (Exam 4). In part, the course was topically organized because of the service-learning component. That is, regardless of type of facility in which the students volunteered (e.g., day care, preschool, retirement home), all service-learning students’ observations focused on issues related to the same general topics (e.g., perceptual development) within a limited time period. Because I administered the first exam before students had begun their projects, the focus of this study was primarily in group differences on subsequent exams (i.e., the average of Exams 2 to 4).

EETS. The Emotional Empathic Tendency Scale (EETS; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) is a 33-item self- report scale designed to measure a person’s predisposi- tion to vicariously experiencing the emotions of others. Examples of items include “It makes me sad to see a lonely stranger in a group” and “It is hard for me to see how some things upset people so much.” Respondents rate each of 33 items on a 9-point scale ranging from –4 (very strong disagreement) to +4 (very strong agreement). Reliability and validity have been acceptable across a variety of studies assessing emotional tendencies (Mehrabian, Young, & Sato, 1988).

Students completed the EETS during the second week and again during the final week of class. Two re- search assistants, blind to the hypotheses, entered the empathy data.

Results

Project Type and Performance on Exams

An ANOVA conducted on performance on Exams 2, 3, and 4 in relation to Project Type (service learning, interview, or research paper) revealed a significant ef- fect, F(2, 189) = 3.81, p < .05, η2 = .04. Post hoc t tests revealed that scores were significantly higher for stu- dents engaged in service learning compared to those in- volved in either the interview project, t(117) = 2.67, p < .01, or the research paper, t(146) = 1.98, p < .05 (see Table 1). I found no significant difference between scores for students choosing the interview and research paper projects. Because students took the first exam prior to students their projects, I analyzed performance on the first exam separately. As expected, the results of this second ANOVA (conducted with the first exam scores as the dependent variable) revealed no signifi- cant effects of Project Type.

Empathic Tendency Scores

To determine the amount of change that occurred in the preproject to postproject empathy scores, I calcu- lated difference scores and entered them into an ANOVA with Project Type as the independent vari- able. This analysis revealed a significant effect, F(2, 62) = 3.37, p < .05, η2 = .10. Post hoc analyses revealed a significantly greater change in pre- to postproject empa- thy scores for students engaged in service learning com- pared to both the interview project, t(34) = 3.43, p <

Vol. 34, No. 1, 2007 25

Table 1. Exam Performance and Empathic Tendency Scores As a Function of Project Type

Service Learning Interview Research Paper

Variable M SD M SD M SD

Performance on exams First exam 84.72 9.68a 82.61 12.25b 85.47 9.42c

Exams 2 to 4 86.93 7.97a 82.52 9.82b 84.15 9.13c

Empathy scores Beginning of semester 39.35 22.30d 40.16 13.37e 40.32 30.05f

End of semester 52.12 16.58d 34.79 12.59e 30.50 35.58f

Difference scores 12.76 16.27d –5.3 15.45e –9.82 35.26f

an = 75. bn = 44. cn = 73. dn = 17. en = 19. fn = 31.

.005, and the research paper, t(44) = 2.20, p < .05. In- terestingly, postproject empathy scores actually de- creased (although not significantly) for two latter groups. Empathy scores for the service learning group increased 76% and 42% compared to the research pa- per and interview project, respectively (see Table 1). The significant beneficial effect of the service learning option was confirmed in a subsequent ANCOVA that controlled as a covariate students’ preproject empathy scores, F(2, 62) = 4.25, p < .05, η2 = .12.

Discussion

I explored service learning in relation to exam perfor- mance and empathy in a life-span psychology course. Performance on exams was similar across the three groups before beginning the projects. However, service- learning students performed significantly better on sub- sequent exams compared to the other two groups of stu- dents. Although previous reports have been inconsistent with regard to the cognitive benefits of ser- vice learning (see Eyler, 2000; Steinke & Buresh, 2002), the relation between practical experience and academic performance found in this research provides clear support for the use of service learning.

Reflection that integrates service with course content is a strong predictor of positive cognitive and personal outcomes (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995; Eyler, 2000; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Mabry, 1998). In this research, service- learning students had regular opportunities to engage in reflection, which may have increased their understand- ing of course content and their understanding of others’ emotional experiences. Service-learning students dem- onstrated higher postproject empathy scores compared to the other students. There were no differences between the groups’ preproject empathy scores, so the benefits of service learning were not due to any preexisting differ- ences between the groups. Furthermore, only the ser- vice-learning students demonstrated a significant increase in empathy scores between the beginning and end of the semester; scores actually went down (although not significantly) for the two other groups. Thus, the in- crease in empathy appears to be a positive outcome of students’ service-learning experiences.

As with any self-report measure, it is difficult to rule out the influence of social desirability. However, be- cause I used the same self-report measure for all groups, any effects of social desirability would be similar across the groups. Investigators may want to consider the use of non-self-report measures (e.g., reports from room-

mates or best friends) in future research on empathy. In conclusion, these findings add to the growing body of research related to the impact of service learning on cognitive and personal outcomes. In addition, the ben- efits that service learning appears to have on emotional empathy is particularly important because this finding is novel within the service-learning literature.

References

Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term ef- fects of volunteerism during the undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22, 187–202.

Boss, J. A. (1994). The effect of community service work on the moral development of college ethics students. Journal of Moral Education, 23, 183–198.

Bringle R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Ser- vice Learning, 2, 112–122.

Chapman, J. G., & Ferrari, J. R. (1999). An introduction to community-based service learning (CBSL). In J. R. Ferrari & J. G. Chapman (Eds.), Educating students to make a differ- ence: Community-based service learning (pp. 1–3). New York: Haworth.

Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, and institutions. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 66–71.

Eyler, J. S. (2000, Fall). What do we most need to know about the impact of service-learning on student learning? [Special issue on “Strategic directions for service-learning re- search”]. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11–17.

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

Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E., & Braxton, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning on college students. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 5–15.

Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., Jr., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities (3rd ed.). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.

Gorman, M. (1994). Service experience and the moral devel- opment of college students. Religious Education, 89, 422– 431.

Howard, J. (2003). Service-learning research: Foundational is- sues. In S. H. Billig & A. S. Waterman (Eds.), Studying ser- vice-learning: Innovations in education research methodology (pp. 1–12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kendrick, J. R. (1996). Outcomes of service-learning in an in- troduction to sociology course. Michigan Journal of Commu- nity Service Learning, 3, 72–81.

26 Teaching of Psychology

Mabry, J. B. (1998). Pedagogical variations in service- learning and student outcomes: How time, contact, and re- flection matter. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 32–47.

Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emo- tional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525–543.

Mehrabian, A., Young, A. L., & Sato, S. (1988). Emotional empathy and associated individual differences. Current Psy- chology: Research & Reviews, 7, 221–240.

Steinke, P., & Buresh, S. (2002). Cognitive outcomes of ser- vice-learning: Reviewing the past and glimpsing the future. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8, 5–14.

Note

Send correspondence to Brenda L. Lundy, Department of Psychol- ogy, 380C Neff Hall, Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN 46805; e-mail: [email protected]

Vol. 34, No. 1, 2007 27