Sweat the small stuff: The effect of small incentive changes on participation in service-learning

International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Review of Economics Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iree

Sweat the small stuff: The effect of small incentive changes on participation in service-learning Timothy M. Diette a,*, Sara E. Helms b a

Williams School of Commerce, Williams School of Commerce, 315 Huntley Hall, Washington and Lee University, 204 W. Washington Street, Lexington, VA 24450, United States Department of Economics, Finance and Quantitative Analysis, Brock School of Business, Samford University, 800 Lakeshore Drive, Birmingham, AL 35209, United States

b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Available online 8 April 2013

We examine the effect of small changes in incentives on student participation in an optional service-learning component of an intermediate level economics course using a field experiment. Professors frequently encourage but do not require participation in a particular course component. Yet little rigorous analysis exists on how to best encourage students to participate. We vary the reward for completing service between two randomly assigned sections of a course with a service-learning component. Students in the higherincentive section are significantly more likely to participate. We highlight the implications for designing courses with optional components such as optional service-learning. ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

JEL classification: A22 D64 Keywords: Service-Learning Undergraduate Economics Participation Incentives

1. Introduction Professors realize that students must be engaged in a course if they are going to be an active participant in the learning process (Fink, 2003). Prior research on incentives in college classrooms focuses on the use of grades with required components of a course such as homework problems, research papers, exams, and even effort (for example see Krohn and O’Connor, 2005; Swinton, 2007). In contrast, studies devote little attention to understanding how students respond to incentives for participation in optional course components. A professor may prefer to encourage participation in cases where it may not be feasible to require students to participate, for example to attend a special lecture or participate in service-learning outside of scheduled class time. This paper examines the

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.M. Diette). 1477-3880/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2013.04.007

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

21

effect of a small change in the magnitude of an incentive on students’ decisions to participate in service-learning. The National Service-Learning Clearinghouse defines service-learning as ‘‘a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities’’ (National ServiceLearning Clearinghouse, n.d., n.p.). Service-learning provides opportunities to enhance learning by placing students into experiences where they observe, interact, and reflect on situations in the real world. Students then come to the classroom with their observations that motivate discussion and alter the traditional educational process (McGoldrick et al., 2000). For example, in the interest of boosting postsecondary students’ exposure to poverty and worlds outside their own, many schools adopt courses and certificates that incorporate service-learning into the curriculum. Little rigorous analysis exists on understanding how to best encourage students to participate. In some cases, the service is completely voluntary; in others, there are incentives to participate (i.e., extra credit); in others still service-learning is mandatory. The studies that explore the effect of different types of incentives are frequently confounded by non-random selection into incentive structures. For example, the students may have information about the structure of the incentive prior to the enrolment decision, or the studies focus on younger age groups (Kleiner and Chapman, 1999; Andersen and Murphy, 1999). We avoid some of the selection issues prevalent in studies of service-learning due to the method of course scheduling at University A, a highly selective liberal arts university. The catalogue description informs students that the course contains an optional service-learning component. Students register for the course and then are randomly assigned to one of two sections by the registrar’s office.1 We exploit the random assignment to sections by varying the reward for completing the service across sections. The unobservable characteristics, such as internal motivation to participate in servicelearning, are expected to be randomly distributed across sections. The only non-random difference between the two sections is the small difference in incentive for completing the service-learning. Therefore, the design of this study allows us to effectively address the important issue of incentives in courses using a method not previously applied in this literature. We find that students in the higher-incentive section are significantly more likely to participate in service-learning. Therefore, professors should consider the use of small incentives to encourage participation in optional course components. While service-learning is most common at selectiveliberal arts schools, professors at a more traditional state school or less-selective liberal arts school should interpret these results caution. The findings may not generalize to the different institutional setting and student characteristics. Consistent with previous work in this area, female students are significantly more likely to participate than male students in both the treatment and control groups, though both respond to the higher incentives with greater participation (Metz and Youniss, 2003; Nolin et al., 1997; Planty and Regnier, 2003). 2. Previous work Effective teaching requires active participation by students (Siegfried et al., 1991). The use of different pedagogies within a course also accommodates the needs of students with different learning styles (Kolb, 1981; McGoldrick et al., 2000). The economics education literature establishes the effectiveness of alternative teaching methods and instructs how to implement classroom discussions, games and simulations, community-based research, cooperative learning, and service-learning (for example see Hawtrey, 2007; Lawson, 2007; Brooks and Schramm, 2007; McGoldrick et al., 2000; McGoldrick, 1998). The American Economic Association sponsors programs such as the Teaching Innovations Program (TIP) in Economics to help professors adopt new pedagogies (Becker, 1997). Despite these efforts, economics professors have been slow to respond and move away from relying primarily on traditional lecture methods (Watts and Becker, 2008). This is partly due to the fact that service-learning imposes a unique set of demands on the professor and is challenging to implement 1 The registrar runs an algorithm to minimize conflicts with other courses and student activities such as athletics practice schedules.

22

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

properly (McGoldrick, 1998). Appropriately designed service-learning will both attract students who are interested in applying course material in the real world and help these students excel in the courses (McGoldrick, 1998). An appropriately designed service-learning component is one that is more than adding a service requirement as part of the course. The service-learning component should include reflection by students on their experience and bring their reflections back into the course to enhance the classroom discussions. This paper extends the understanding of how incentives can be used to motivate students to participate in service-learning within economics courses. Incorporating a service-learning component into an economics course can meet three goals: increase learning by students; attract more, and especially diverse, students to the major; and increase student awareness of the world outside their own experiences (McGoldrick, 1998). Service-learning helps students learn course material by connecting economic theory to first-hand experience in the world around them (McGoldrick, 1998; McGoldrick et al., 2000; Rhoads, 1998; Ziegert and McGoldrick, 2008). Students who participate in service-learning are more likely to be engaged in civic affairs later in life (Astin, 1993; Gray et al., 2000; Markus et al., 1993). White females, Latinos, and African-Americans are underrepresented within economics majors. Moreover, these students are more likely to have learning styles that are augmented by the inclusion of active learning exercises such as service-learning (Bartlett, 1996; Kolb, 1981). While service-learning has clear benefits of enhancing learning and providing a meaningful experience, it is a component of a course that is sometimes better to encourage rather than require (Lopez, 2009; Mungaray et al., 2008). First, service-learning involves direct contact with members of the community beyond the university. Students who are compelled to interact with the community may be more likely to act in a way that harms the individuals they are supposed to be serving. In our previous experiences offering service-learning courses, some students have failed to honour their weekly commitment or not had the appropriate level of sensitivity with some clients of the community organizations. We would rather have a student complete other assignments than harm the reputation of the college or individuals in the community. Second, similar to other activities outside the scheduled course time, service-learning requires additional time outside of class to which a student may not be able to commit due to other commitments or transportation issues. Professors may not want to prevent a student from enrolling in the course due to either the student’s other time commitments or personal feelings about interacting in the community. Finally, while mandates increase participation they may reduce the effectiveness of service-learning. For example, mandates may undermine the motivation of students or alter their focus from community service to fulfilling the course requirement (Jones and Hill, 2003; Andersen and Murphy, 1999). Even without a mandate some students participate due to internal motivations (Jones and Hill, 2003). Due to the educational benefits of service-learning the professor may want to induce additional participation by providing external motivation (incentives). School support for arranging volunteer opportunities increases participation (Kleiner and Chapman, 1999; Andersen and Murphy, 1999). Additional incentives must be carefully implemented as research on volunteering finds that improperly implemented incentives can reduce participation and have perverse (if any) effects on future volunteering (Mellstro¨m and Johannesson, 2008; Helms, 2012). 3. Background information The data are from four sections across two fall semesters of an Economics of Education course at University A that offers a service-learning option.2 Students sign up for courses at University A, but they do not sign up for individual sections. Students are randomly assigned to one of two sections by the registrar’s office after resolving any scheduling conflicts with other courses. The only prerequisite for the course is Principles of Microeconomics, a course that 75 percent of students at the university complete prior to graduation. The optional service-learning component is included in the course description in the university catalogue and therefore the results are applicable to a non-random sample of the university student population. Students enrolling in the course are likely to have a 2 The overall design of the service learning experience is based in part on the work by McGoldrick (1998) and McGoldrick et al. (2000).

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

23

higher internal motivation to participate in service-learning; however, the random assignment between sections will still provide an unbiased estimate of the effect of changing the size of the incentive on student participation for the affected population.3 Students enrolled in the course come from disciplines across the university such as economics, business, politics, and sociology. Students are an equal distribution of sophomores, juniors, and seniors. On the first day of class, the professor distributes the syllabus to students and explains all components of the course and requires a binding commitment on whether they will participate in service-learning throughout the semester or not. The majority of class meetings involve a required reading and writing three brief points of reaction to the reading in six to nine total sentences titled ‘‘Daily Contributions.’’ Ten percent of the course grade is based on Daily Contributions and the section of the syllabus that discusses Daily Contributions is shown in Appendix 1. The professor assigns a total of 25 daily contributions during the semester. Students are then given an option on the first day of class to participate in service-learning, an experience which is described to them by the professor and shown in the second half of Appendix 1 and in the handout included as Appendix 2. Placement options for their service include day care centres, preschools, a juvenile detention centre, an alternative program for young adults to earn a degree, and public elementary, middle or high schools. We provide in Appendix 3 an additional course handout with instructions and details about the service-learning opportunity. Each placement offers the student an opportunity to interact directly with the clients of the organizations. The service-learning opportunity requires students to complete 20 h of service over the semester. This allows the students to have weeks in the term where they do not perform service due to illness, conflicts with their schedule or conflicts with the schedule of the organization. In addition, they must send a weekly email to the professor in which they document how they spent their time, reflect on their experience, and connect their experience to the course. For example, students placed in elementary schools often discuss how state testing requirements have altered the dynamic of classrooms. They compare the experience to when they were in elementary school and are surprised at the amount of time devoted to practice tests. In addition, they observe the wide variation in ability and learn about the struggles children face at school or at home. Their experience enriches the discussion of the determinants of education outcomes in the economics of education course. Finally, students are told that completing the service-learning requirement will exempt them from either three or six Daily Contributions, depending on whether it is a low-incentive or high-incentive section, respectively. The professor went through the entire syllabus on the first day, including each course component’s percentage of their overall grade. The professor did not attempt to frame the incentive as particularly small or large. The Daily Contributions are based on a check-plus/check/checkminus/zero scale. The incentive allows students to skip completing the reflection on the assigned reading. Students are still responsible for the assigned reading on exams and for participating in class. The students may view the exemption as a large incentive if they focus on it representing 12–24 percent of the Daily Contributions in the low and high incentive sections respectively. Alternatively, students may realize that the incentive only represents 1.2–2.4 percent of their final grade. Students likely view an email reaction to their service as easier than raising issues addressed in a class reading. They are explicitly told that the incentive is meant to compensate for time spent on writing their reactions to their service and not for the 20 h of serving in the community. Students do not receive an advantage in the final grade and are explicitly advised that the incentive of excused writing assignments is smaller than the required cost of 20 service hours plus the 10 weekly emails reflecting on their service. One concern in analyzing the results of the experiment is the potential for a ‘‘Hawthorne effect’’ where the students become aware that they are part of an experiment and modify behaviour if they are aware that there are differential rewards for participation. We minimize the risk by the design of the experiment and believe it was successfully avoided due to informal student interviews after the experiment. The two sections of the course were taught in the same two back-to-back time slots during both semesters. In one semester, the high-incentive section was the earlier time slot and in the 3 A similar experiment in a random course would be expected to yield lower participation in both sections given an expected lower mean value of internal motivation. However, the results still inform the marginal effect of a change in the incentive on a change in student behaviour.

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

24

latter semester the high-incentive section was in the later time slot. The students must declare their intentions after the first day of class and therefore have a small window to compare incentives. In addition, students were informed midway through the semesters about the experiment and no student in any of the four sections reported being aware that the sections had different rewards. This suggests that the participation decision was not influenced by information on the incentive relative to the other course section. 4. Motivation We expect students to participate in service-learning only if they perceive a positive net benefit as represented in Eq. (1). NBt ¼ MBt  MC t

(1)

The net benefit for student i, NBi, is equal to the marginal benefit of student i minus the marginal cost of student i. The marginal benefit to student i, MBi, will depend on several factors including: internal motivation; information from other students who have completed service-learning in this course or other courses at the university; expectations of how the service-learning will enhance their performance in the rest of the course; and any perceptions that students who complete servicelearning will be viewed favourably by the professor. The course description includes the optional service-learning and therefore students in the course are expected to have a larger internal motivation than the university average. The marginal cost to student i, MCi, will include the opportunity cost of the additional time and energy required to complete the service-learning. MCi will be higher for students working, participating in athletics, participating in university clubs or other associations, and for students enrolled in additional credit hours or courses viewed as more demanding. The incentive of excused Daily Contributions reduces the additional amount of time by reducing the time spent on other components of the course. The incentive does not fully compensate for 20 h of service and the 10 service-learning journals. With a positive marginal cost, all students who participate in the service-learning opportunity must have a positive marginal benefit in order to have a positive net benefit. This design intentionally reduces participation by students who are most likely to harm the clients of the service placements. Therefore, we can be confident in sending these students into the community. An incentive system that provides a benefit such as extra credit would likely increase participation more than the current incentive system, but would risk putting students in the community with no perceived internal benefit and therefore most likely to cause harm to clients. Students in the high incentive sections will have a lower marginal cost to participate. The experiment examines whether a small reduction in the marginal cost can significantly increase participation 5. Data and analysis Over two fall semesters and four course sections of observation, we collected data for 57 students. As seen in Table 1, 30 students (53%) were randomly assigned to the section with the treatment condition or high incentive, with the remainder in the control condition or low incentive section. Males were equally split between the low incentive and the high incentive with 17 individuals in each Table 1 Descriptives.

High incentive Male Female

Overall

Low incentive

High incentive

(N = 57)

(N = 27)

(N = 30)

N

Percent

N

Row percent

N

Row percent

30 34 23

53% 60% 40%

0 17 10

0% 50% 43%

57 17 13

100% 50% 57%

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

25

Table 2 Service-learning participation by incentive.

Overall Low incentive High incentive t-Test (low  high) Males only Low incentive High incentive t-Test (low  high) Females only Low incentive High incentive t-Test (low  high)

N

Mean

57 27 30

0.491 0.370 0.600 p = 0.0431

17 17

0.235 0.412 p = 0.1427

10 13

0.600 0.846 p = 0.0996

condition, 10 females were assigned to the low incentive condition and 13 to the high incentive condition. We confirm with two-sample t-tests that other student characteristics, particularly those used in our regression analysis, are comparably distributed across treatment conditions. Our first step in the analysis is to compare the proportion of students in the low and high incentive sections who participate in service-learning. As seen in Table 2, approximately one-half of enrolled students participated in service-learning (28 of 57 students). The percent of students participating in service-learning differs between the low and high incentive sections. In the low incentive section, 37% of students (10 of 27) participated, while in the high incentive section, 60% of students (18 of 30) participated in service-learning. This difference is statistically significant, with a p-value of 0.04. We believe that males and females likely have different unobserved internal motivation and expectations regarding the benefits of service as well as unobserved differences in the costs of participation and therefore we stratify our sample by gender. There appear to be important differences across conditions, though small sample sizes limit statistical significance. Among males, 23.5 percent of those in the low incentive condition participated in service-learning, while 41.2 percent of those in the high incentive condition did (p = 0.1427). Among females, the percentages participating were 60.0 and 84.6 percent for low and high incentive conditions, respectively. With a p-value of 0.100, the difference among females is significant at the 90% level of confidence. We follow our simple test of means with a series of regressions. We begin with a linear probability model to determine the nature and direction of the treatment on the outcome of interest: participation in service learning. Since the amount of time spent in the service learning should be consistent across students, we focus on the extensive margin—that is, did the student participate or not. We present these results in Table 3. Compared to students in the low incentive section, students in the high incentive section are 22.96 percentage points more likely to participate in service learning (p = 0.086). Controlling for gender changes the coefficient on the higher incentive section to a 20.43 percentage point increase in the probability of participating (p = 0.098), while males are 40.23 percentage points less likely to participate in service learning than females (p = 0.002). When interaction terms between gender and high incentive were introduced, the point estimates on the incentive and male were similar to those without the interaction term, and the interaction term (high incentive and male) was not statistically significant. Finally, we consider the full sample model with additional control variables. We include indicators for participation in a fraternity or sorority which may influence both the cost of participation as well as reflect different preferences. We also include varsity athletics to control for higher cost of participation. Finally, we include volunteering in the previous year as a proxy for someone with revealed greater net benefits from participation in the community that may be the result of larger benefits or lower opportunity costs.4 The coefficient on 4 Other specifications using various measures of volunteering behaviours were also tested including: volunteering in the previous year, volunteering while at University A, and volunteering while in high school. We found no statistically significant difference between these alternative specifications and our variable of interest. Thus, we used volunteering in the previous year as our measure of altruistic tendencies.

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

26

Table 3 Regression results ordinary least squares dependent variable: binary indicator for participation in optional service-learning. Full sample (N = 57)

Coefficient

p

Coefficient

Std. Error High incentive

0.2296 0.1314

p

Coefficient

Std. Error 0.09

Male

0.2043 0.1215 0.4023 0.1237

p

Std. Error 0.10 0.00

0.2462 0.1940 0.3647 0.1838

0.21 0.05

Athlete Volunteered in previous year

Constant

0.3704 0.0953 0.0354

2

Adj. R

0.00

0.6237 0.1175 0.1785

0.00

p

Std. Error

Fraternity/sorority

High incentive  male

Coefficient

0.2025 0.1238 0.4327 0.1270 0.2184 0.1712 0.1581 0.1303 0.1113 0.1429

0.11

0.0115 0.3811 0.1805

0.98

0.00 0.21 0.23 0.44

0.78

0.0697 0.2503 0.6000 0.1458 0.1642

0.00

high incentive remains steady, with enrolment in the high incentive section increasing service learning participation by 20.25 percentage points, relative to the low incentive section, though the estimate lies just outside the 90% confidence interval. Again, males are significantly less likely to participate in service learning, a drop of 43.27 percentage points. None of the three added covariates are statistically significant. We estimated models that included class standing and major, both with and without interactions with the incentive indicator, and did not find statistically significant differences in students’ responses to the incentive across these characteristics. We find no evidence that different classes or majors are differently inclined to participate in service learning, nor are they dissimilar in their responses to the varied incentives at the margin. The lack of variation in the descriptive measures of the importance of religion to the student, the frequency of service attendance, whether the student works, and parent education levels led to sample sizes too small to make meaningful inferences. As a check on stability of our results, we verified that inclusion of these measures did not have a meaningful influence on our results. After analyzing for the full sample, we consider males and females separately. When we separate by gender, no coefficients are statistically significant. In addition, controls for race of the student and major are also statistically insignificant. Table 4 Regression results: logistic model, marginal effects reported dependent variable: binary indicator for participation in optional service-learning. Full sample (N = 57) dy/dx

p-Value

Std. Error High incentive

0.2296 0.1290

Male

dy/dx

p-Value

Std. Error 0.075

0.2445 0.1415 0.4233 0.1250

dy/dx

p-Value

Std. Error 0.084 0.001

0.3138 0.2263 0.3746 0.1832

0.166 0.041

Athlete Vol. in previous year

Log likelihood Pseudo R2

37.99 0.0383

33.10 0.1619

0.1185 0.3079 33.18 0.1601

p-Value

Std. Error

Fraternity/sorority

High incent.  male

dy/dx

0.2563 0.1491 0.4752 0.1291 0.2787 0.2152 0.2160 0.1717 0.1367 0.1806

0.7 31.52 0.2019

0.086 0 0.195 0.209 0.449

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

27

We continue our analysis using the logistic method of estimation to determine if the model specification alters our results due to the binary dependent variable. In Table 4, we report the marginal effects from the logistic estimation for the full sample. Controlling only for section type, we find that students in the high incentive section were 22.96 percentage points more likely to take part in the service learning activity than those in the low incentive section. Adding in a control for gender raises the marginal effect for placement in the high incentive section to 24.45 percentage points. Again, we find that males are 42.33 percentage points less likely to participate in the service learning than females, regardless of section assignment. Adding the covariates that are potentially related to larger marginal costs, involvement in a fraternity or sorority and athletics, or larger marginal benefits, prior volunteering, leads to very little change in the marginal effects for incentive and gender, and the effects for these additional controls are statistically indistinguishable from zero. We repeat the analysis, separating the sample by gender. As found using the linear regression models, we do not have the power needed to make meaningful predictions for males and females separately. 6. Conclusion and discussion There is a debate among researchers in education as to how to encourage participation in optional course activities. While there are numerous studies that attempt to estimate the impact of incentives on students’ decisions on service participation, many of those studies are hindered by selection bias and non-random assignment to incentive structures. This study contributes to the existing literature in two ways. This study provides evidence from a field experimental setup on the impact of incentives for optional course components in the university classroom, and the impact of incentives on altruistic behaviour. We are able to exploit the random assignment of students into course sections at University A in order to estimate the impact of a small change in the magnitude of an incentive on a college student’s decision to participate in a service-learning project. We find that incentives that reduce the cost of participation, in the form of more excused assignments, are associated with higher levels of participation in service-learning experiences. Remarkably, even small variations in incentives lead to sizeable changes in participation. The students may have been responding to the incentive as a signal that the faculty views the service-learning as important and therefore may be attempting to make a positive impression with the professor. Service-learning is most common at liberal arts colleges, but the finding may not generalize to large public universities with significantly different student demographics. Typical of most liberal arts colleges, the experiment is run at a school with students who tend to be wealthier and have experience in different communities than the average public university students. Therefore the findings may not generalize to students in more traditional state schools or less selective liberal arts colleges may respond differently. The findings suggest that more students will participate as incentives increase. If professors are concerned that some students may participate who would not be good representatives of the college in the community, then careful consideration is needed in determining the size of the incentive. While McGoldrick (1998) did not conduct a formal experiment, when offered three options for earning 15 percent of their grade, seventeen of nineteen students selected a service project (p. 369). The willingness to participate in service-learning suggests that students view these time consuming course components as either low-cost or beneficial to them as direct utility or human capital investment. Given student willingness, colleges interested in increasing opportunities for service-learning should focus their attention on either increasing rewards to professors for offering service-learning courses or lowering the costs of offering such a component by providing additional support. The results raise several interesting questions for further research. Additional work is needed to understand if a similar response would be found in a less selective school, a school with a higher proportion of non-traditional students who have work commitments, a school with a significant population of commuter students, and schools in Division I athletics where there may be greater demands on students’ time. Future research could also apply similar incentives to other types of activities scheduled outside normal course meeting times and to courses where there is no expectation of a service-learning option. The strong reaction to a small incentive change suggests that the perceptions formed by students influence participation.

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

28

Acknowledgements Diette would like to thank The Research Network on Racial and Ethnic Inequality, an affiliate of the Social Science Research Institute at Duke University and the Washington and Lee University Summer Lenfest Grant for financial support. Helms would like to thank the University of Alabama at Birmingham ADVANCE grant, funded by the National Science Foundation (SBE-0245090). We are grateful for helpful comments from Brent Boning, Brian Peterson, KimMarie McGoldrick, and participants at the Southern Economic Association Annual Conference and the Allied Social Science Associations Annual Conference. Appendix 1 Excerpt from the course syllabus Daily Written Contributions/Service-Learning (10%): Daily Written Contributions: For each assigned reading, you are expected to prepare three brief contributions. The contributions may be an insight into the reading, a question raised by the reading, a question of clarification, a connection of the reading to prior work in this class or in prior classes or life experiences, or any other comment that would benefit your peers. The purpose of the assignment is to both encourage you to read and think about the reading and to assist the class discussion of the readings. These contributions may be typed or hand-written. The contributions generally should be two or three sentences each and should be easy to complete as you do the reading. The contributions are your ticket to class and will only be accepted if hand them in yourself (unless you have an approved excuse). If you have not done the reading then you should not come to class. You will hand in the contributions at the start of class. I will not accept late assignments (late is defined as after class has started) without an approved excuse. Service-Learning (OPTIONAL) On the first day of class you will decide whether to commit to the Service-Learning option. ServiceLearning will provide you with an experience outside the classroom where you are able to interact with the target population of various education reforms. The goal is to help you better understand the issues discussed in class and also enrich class discussion. Once you are assigned a placement you must complete the following requirements:  Serve a total of 20 hours with 2 hours per week (Use the first week to contact the placement and determine your schedule for the following 10 weeks)  Each week after you volunteer you must email me a brief journal entry that includes: 1. A short description of how you spent your time 2. Any reactions to the experience that relate to class (or otherwise). I am particularly interested in your analysis of the agency where you work. For example, are the services provided valuable or is this an efficient way to provide these services? 3. The hours you volunteered.  You are exempt from turning in 6 daily written contribution assignments of your choice. If you write your term paper on a topic directly relating to your placement, you may reduce the number of required references by two (to 6–8 minimum). In their place, you will include reflections from your placement where relevant.5 Appendix 2 List of Service Placements Described on your syllabus as service-learning, you will have the option of completing 20 hours (an average of 2 hrs. per week) of direct service in an educational setting in lieu of the assignments indicated on the syllabus. 5

It was 3 daily written contributions in the other section of the course each year.

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

29

The placements listed below will enhance your knowledge of and experience with the daily operations of schools, the socioeconomic and academic differentiation of learners, and the real challenges and rewards of providing a modern education. Please review the placements that are listed and email your first three preferences to the professor. Some of these placements will require a carconsider that when you make your choices, and include in your e-mail to the professor whether or not you have your own transportation. The placement director will notify you of your assigned placement via email. You are expected to then initiate contact to develop a weekly schedule at your service site without the placement director’s assistance (unless of course, you have difficulty reaching the site supervisor). You must start your service no later than the second week of the term (week of September 8th) in order to meet the 20 hour requirement. You are required to take the following documents to your designated site supervisor on the first day of your service: (1) Note to Site Supervisor (2) Hour Log; and (3) Supervisor Suggestions. Delivery of these documents alerts the site supervisor to the nature and expectation of your service, which provides for you, a better service experience. These forms will be provided to you by e-mail when you find out your specific placement. If you choose the Service Learning Option you must attend a Service Learning Orientation. Attendance is mandatory for all service learning placements. Direct Service Placements EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Montessori Day care and Preschool Recognizing that all children are born with a yearning for self-development and learning, Montessori programs aim to facilitate the development of the ‘‘whole child.’’ From infants up to three to four year-olds, children are encouraged to explore and experience a stimulating and supportive classroom environment, develop self-esteem, and work toward realizing their full potential in all areas of life. Volunteer as a classroom aide. Day care/Preschool Facility B Agency Mission: Serves children from birth to age 5 in a day care setting. Day care/Preschool B serves both disadvantaged and secure families. Volunteers assist in classroom and during outside play. Within walking distance. Preschool Classroom at Elementary C Agency Mission: Elementary School C provides pre-school education for children identified as developmentally at-risk and other children that socio-economically qualify for Head Start services. Joelyn is an excellent mentor and very well-versed in the politics and economics of education. Car required. County A Head Start (Students must serve at different centers) Agency Mission: Head Start provides pre-school services to 3 and 4 year old children with developmental or financial needs in preparation for school attendance. There are Head Start classrooms at Elementary E (within walking distance), Elementary F (10 minutes), Elementary G (15 minutes), and Elementary H (25 minutes). The classrooms further from campus have a much greater need for volunteers. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Elementary A Elementary A serves County A students grades K-5. It has a general need for during and after school tutors, homework help and one-on-one interaction with their students. Within walking distance. Elementary B Elementary B is located in Town B and serves County A children grades K-5. General need for student interaction and after school homework help in all subjects from 2:45–4:45. Car required. Elementary C Elementary C serves County A children from preschool to 5th grade. General need for tutoring during and after school as well as help in the classrooms. Car required. Elementary D Elementary D serves County A students grades K-5. It has a general need for during and after school tutors, homework help, one-on-one interaction with their students. Possible opportunities also exist for students with special needs as well as gifted students. Car required.

30

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

MIDDLE SCHOOL Middle School A Middle School A serves grades 6–8 in Town B. It has a specific need for tutoring and after school help from 3–4 daily. Middle school students drop by on an as needed basis, and these are generally students that are not receiving this kind of help/attention at home. Opportunities also exist throughout the school day from 8–3, M-F. Car required. Middle School B Middle School B serves grades 6–8 in Town A. General need for tutors in all subjects during the school day and after school. Middle School C Agency Mission: Middle School C serves 6–8th graders who live in Town A. Assist with in school tutoring, homework, and after-school enrichment. Walking distance. HIGH SCHOOL High School A High School A serves grades 9–12 in Town B. Volunteer help is needed both in the classroom as well as tutoring on a one-on-one and group basis. After school help can also be arranged. Car required. High School B High School B serves 9–12 graders residing in County A. Car required. ALTERNATIVE ANDAFTER SCHOOLEDUCATIONALPROGRAMS Juvenile Correction Center A Agency Mission: A correctional center for juvenile offenders encouraging scholastic, athletic, artistic and personal development. The unique open campus of the correctional center provides juvenile offenders the opportunity to thrive in a transitional, independent living community. Opportunities exist to mentor or tutor cadets in the classroom or as a tutor for the GED. Car required. Project A Agency Mission: Project A serves former high school students that did not succeed in a traditional high school setting for a variety of reasons. Assist these students as they work towards a diploma in a non-traditional setting. Car required. The Campus Kitchen at University A Agency Mission: The Campus Kitchen at University A is an organization focused on hunger relief and leadership development. Students, faculty, and staff of University A, and residents of County A use surplus food collected from campus dining services and catering operations to cook and deliver meals to the hungry, homeless, youth, and elderly in Town A and the surrounding areas. In addition to serving healthy and delicious meals, the Campus Kitchen at University A also aims to provide companionship, mentoring, and educational nutrition lessons to its clients. Appropriate shifts for this service-learning placement would be delivery shifts to the Town A Office on Youth combined with educational programming for the kids in an after school setting, offered Monday and Wednesday from 3–5. Walking distance.

Appendix 3 Service-Learning Instructions If you have not completed service learning in the past, please attend the orientation at one of the following dates: Wednesday, September 10 at 4:30 pm Thursday, September 11 at 4:30 pm    

Send an e-mail with your top 3 choices to Professor A on Monday, September 8th. The placement director will e-mail you with your placement site ASAP. Once you know your site, you are responsible for contacting your site supervisor as soon as possible. If you are having trouble contacting your supervisor, please contact the placement director as soon as possible.

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

31

 Remember that people are very busy and need you to follow up with them, even if they have not returned your initial request. Please be proactive!!  On your first visit, please bring the following items, which will be sent to you by The placement director once your placement is arranged:  Note to Site Supervisors  Suggestions for the Agency Supervisor  Hour log  The placement director will send you the hour log and documents for the site supervisors once your placement site has been identified.  Sit down with your supervisor on your first visit and go over what the placement will involve and how that relates to the objectives of the course.  You are responsible for filling out the hour log and getting the appropriate signatures. You must turn in the hour log in order to receive full credit for the requirement. Your signed hour log is documentation that the service learning component has been completed.  If you are having any problems, please let the placement director know as soon as possible.

References Andersen, S.M., Murphy, N., 1999. Mandatory Community Service: Citizenship Education or Involuntary Servitude? Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO. Astin, A.W., 1993. What Matters in College? Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Bartlett, R.L., 1996. Discovering diversity in introductory economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 10 (Spring (2)) 141–153. Becker, W.E., 1997. Teaching economics to undergraduates. Journal of Economic Literature 35 (September (3)) 1347–1373. Brooks, N., Schramm, R., 2007. Integrating economics research, education, and service. Journal of Economic Education 38 (Winter (1)) 36–43. Fink, L.D., 2003. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Gray, M.J., Ondaatje, E.H., Fricker Jr., R.D., Geschwind, S.A., 2000. Assessing service-learning: Results from a survey of learn and serve America, higher education. Change (March/April) 30–39. Jones, S., Hill, K., 2003. Understanding patterns of commitment: student motivation for community service involvement. The Journal of Higher Education 74 (September–October (5)) 516–539. Hawtrey, K., 2007. Using experiential learning techniques. The Journal of Economic Education 38 (Spring (2)) 143–152. Helms, S.E., 2012 Mandated Volunteering: The Impact of Mandated Service in Public Schools. Samford University Manuscript. Kleiner, B., Chapman, C., 1999. Statistics in Brief: Service-Learning and Community Service Among 6th Through 12th Grade Students in the United States: 1996 and 1999. NCES 2000-028rev. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC. Kolb, D.A., 1981. Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In: Chickering, A.W., Associates, (Eds.), The Modern American College. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp. 232–255. Krohn, G.A., O’Connor, C.M., 2005. Student effort and performance over the semester. Journal of Economic Education 36 (Winter (1)) 3–28. Lawson, L.L., 2007. The economics of experience-based higher education. Atlantic Economic Journal 35, 23–31. Lopez, M., 2009. Incorporating service-learning into the economics curriculum. Review of Black Political Economy 36, 137–149. Markus, G.B., Howard, J.P.F., King, D.C., 1993. Integrating community service and classroom instruction enhances learning: results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15 (Winter (4)) 410–419. McGoldrick, K., 1998. Service-learning in economics: a detailed application. The Journal of Economic Education 29 (Fall (4)) 365–376. McGoldrick, K., Battle, A., Gallagher, S., 2000. Service-learning and the economics course: theory and practice. American Economist 44 (Spring (1)) 43–52. Mellstro¨m, C., Johannesson, M., 2008. Crowding out in blood donation: Was titmuss right? Journal of the European Economic Association 6 (June (4)) 845–863. Metz, E., Youniss, J., 2003. A demonstration that school-based required service does not deter—but heightens—volunteerism. Political Science and Politics 36, 281–286. Mungaray, A., Ramirez-Urquidy, M., Texis, M., Ledezma, D., Ramirez, N., 2008. Learning economics by servicing: a Mexican experience of service-learning in microenterprises. International Review of Economics Education 7 (2) 19–38. National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, n.d. What is service-learning? http://www.servicelearning.org/ (last accessed 10.06.11). Nolin, M.J., Chaney, B., Chapman, C., Chandler, K., 1997. Student Participation in Community Service Activity. National Center for Educational Statistics, Washington, DC. Planty, M., Regnier, M., 2003. Statistics in Brief: Volunteer Service by Young People from High School through Early Adulthood. NCES 2004-:365. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC. Rhoads, R.A., 1998. In the service of citizenship: a study of student involvement in community service. The Journal of Higher Education 69 (May–June (3)) 277–297.

32

T.M. Diette, S.E. Helms / International Review of Economics Education 12 (2013) 20–32

Siegfried, J.J., Bartlett, R.L., Hansen, W.L., Kelley, A.C., McCloskey, D.N., Tietenberg, T.H., 1991. The status and prospects of the economics major. The Journal of Economic Education 22 (Summer (3)) 197–224. Swinton, O.H., 2007. Grading for effort: the success equals effort policy at Benedict College. Review of Black Political Economy 34 (Fall) 149–164. Watts, M., Becker, W.E., 2008. A little more than chalk and talk: results from a third national survey of teaching methods in undergraduate economics courses. The Journal of Economic Education 39 (Summer (3)) 273–286. Ziegert, A.L., McGoldrick, K., 2008. When service is good for economics: linking the classroom and community through servicelearning. International Review of Economics Education 7 (2) 39–56.