Upload
hoangkien
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
First-Year Students’ Plans to Volunteer:
An Examination of the Predictors of Community Service Participation
Ty M. Cruce
John V. Moore, III
Indiana University
Scholarly Paper Session
Track 4: Institutional Management and Planning
2006 Annual Forum for the Association for Institutional Research
May 18, 2006
An electronic copy of this paper is located at: http://nsse.iub.edu/conferences/index.cfm
2
Abstract
The impacts of community service participation on college student development are extensive
and well-documented. The characteristics of students that predict volunteerism, however, are not
well understood. The purpose of this study is thus to estimate the differences in first-year
students’ plans to volunteer while in college (i.e., ‘Done,’ ‘Plan to do,’ ‘Do not plan to do,’ or
‘Have not decided’) by their background characteristics and by the characteristics of the
institutions that they attend. Study results suggest changes to several campus policies and
programs that may remove barriers to successful community service participation among first-
year students.
3
Educating people for responsible citizenship has been a part of the missions of colleges
since their inception in the United States. The founding of the first institutions of higher
education in this country was for the purpose of educating a new generation of civic and
religious leaders for the communities of the new world. It was within this spirit that colleges
came of age, and it is a tradition that has stayed with them up to the present, as evident in their
current mission of teaching, research, and service (Rudolph, 1977; Terenzini, 1994).
Modern ideas about the integration of service and learning in higher education were
shaped by the work of John Dewey, who proposed ideas about hands-on learning and practical
education (Curti, 1965). Dewey asserted that better learning occurs when students have the
opportunity to put into practice the ideas that they are learning in the classroom. As further
research has been done on this concept of service-learning, scholars (e.g., Astin & Sax, 1998;
Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Eyler, Giles, & Braxton, 1997; Gray,
Ondaatje, Fricker, Geshwind, Goldman, Kaganoff, Robyn, Sundt, Vogelgesang, & Klein, 1998;
Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000) have found that not only does student volunteerism promote the
civic engagement that universities have historically tried to foster in their students, but
community service also offers a host of educational and extracurricular benefits to the students.
The impacts of volunteerism on college student development are extensive and well-
documented. These benefits can be distilled into thee broad categories – educational/scholastic,
career/vocational, and personal/social – and each of these categories represent areas of student
development that are highly valued by universities and educators. Educationally, students who
participate in community service receive better grades (e.g., Tartter, 1996), demonstrate greater
educational gains (e.g., Eyler & Giles, 1999), and increase their critical thinking skills (e.g.,
Eyler, Root, & Giles, 1998). Vocationally, community service by college students is associated
with a stronger likelihood to participate in both future community service (e.g., Astin,
4
Vogelsang, Ikeda & Yee, 2000) and service-oriented professions (e.g., Astin, Sax, & Avalos,
1999), and to have career aspirations that require a more advanced degree (e.g., Astin and Sax,
1998), thus fostering an interest in further education. Socially, service learning is associated with
stronger leadership skills (e.g., Vogelsang & Astin, 2000), a greater interest in and commitment
to diversity (e.g., Boyle-Baise & Kilbane, 2000), a stronger sense of self (e.g., Wang, 2000),
increased self confidence (e.g., Astin & Sax), and a more developed commitment to social issues
(e.g., Giles & Eyler, 1994).
Although the benefits of community service to the student volunteer are well-
documented, information from a recent survey of college students illustrates that 36% of
graduating seniors at baccalaureate degree-granting institutions never participate in community
service during their college years (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2005). This
percentage of seniors who were uninvolved in community service is as low as 25% for seniors
attending Baccalaureate – Liberal Arts institutions and as high as 40% for seniors attending
Doctoral –Intensive institutions. Only 6% of first-year students at these same institutions
indicated that they did not plan to volunteer during college, and another 13% responded that they
were undecided about volunteering during college. Although these data are not longitudinal, if
this pattern holds true over time, many students’ plans to volunteer during college are not being
realized by the time that they graduate.
Given the important benefits of community service to students’ academic and personal
development, their future career development and civic engagement, the impending question is,
which students are not participating in community service during college? If measured during the
early stages of the college experience, information on the characteristics of students who are not
likely to volunteer may assist campus policy-makers in realigning programs and resources
toward removing the barriers to community service participation and maximizing the number of
5
students who volunteer while in college. Using data from over 125,000 first-year students
attending over 620 four-year colleges and universities in the U.S., the purpose of the current
study is to examine the differences in students’ plans to volunteer during college by their
background characteristics and college experiences, and by the characteristics of the institutions
that they attend.
Literature Review
The characteristics of students who volunteer during college are not well understood.
Only a limited number of studies have examined the predictors of volunteerism during college,
and the evidence from this small body of research suggests that students are more likely to
volunteer during college if they are female (Astin & Sax, 1998; Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, &
Yee, 2000; Fitch, 1991; Marks & Jones, 2004; Pierson, 2002; Serow & Dreyden, 1990); have a
higher socioeconomic status (Marks & Jones); are more religious (Astin & Sax; Astin, et al.;
Fitch; Marks & Jones; Serow & Dreyden); are less materialistic (Astin & Sax; Astin, et al.;
Marks & Jones; Serow & Dreyden); have expressed an earlier commitment to community
service (Astin & Sax; Astin, et al.); have higher college grades (Serow & Dreyden) and graduate
level degree aspirations (Marks & Jones); live on campus (Fitch) and participate in college
organizations (e.g., Greek societies, student government, and religious groups) that encourage or
require community service (Marks & Jones; Serow & Dreyden); are not employed (Fitch) or
work fewer hours per week (Marks & Jones); and attend religiously-affiliated as opposed to
public institutions (Serow & Dreyden). Students are also more likely to volunteer during college
if they volunteered prior to entering college (Astin & Sax, 1998; Astin, et al., 2000; Pierson,
2002), although some evidence suggests that the direction of the effect or prior community
service may depend on whether the students were either required (i.e., negative effect) or simply
6
encouraged (i.e., positive effect) to volunteer while in high school (Marks & Jones). Finally,
some evidence suggests that propensity to volunteer does not differ by race or ethnicity (Mark &
Jones; Pierson).
Although there is a considerable degree of consistency in the above findings, there are
several limitations to this small body of research that render this evidence suspect. The first
limitation, evident in two of the studies cited above, is the lack of generalizability of the findings.
These studies are based on convenience samples at either a single institution (i.e., Fitch, 1991) or
a limited set of institutions in a single state (i.e., Serow & Dreyden, 1990), and, accordingly, the
student samples in these studies are not necessarily representative of the college student
population. Although there are studies (Astin & Sax, 1998; Astin, et al., 2000; Marks & Jones,
2004; Pierson, 2002) that are based on more representative samples of college students across
multiple institutions, these studies do not take into consideration (or either report) the unique
differences in the student propensities to volunteer by the characteristics of the institution
attended (e.g., control, size, and location).
The second limitation of the extant literature is the type of analysis employed to estimate
student differences in the propensity to volunteer. Two of the studies cited above (Fitch, 1991;
Serow & Dreyden, 1990) rely on a series of Chi Square tests to examine differences between
students. This approach is not as powerful as regression analysis, which would allow the
researchers to statistically control for other characteristics of the students and to isolate the effect
of a single variable. Although providing an improvement over the Chi Square test, Pierson
(2002) estimates a model of volunteering – represented by a dichotomous dependent variable –
using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. It has been demonstrated (Dey & Astin, 1993)
that logit, probit, and OLS regression analyses produce similar results when estimating a model
with a dichotomous dependent variable, yet the assumptions of OLS regression are violated
7
when the dependent variable is not continuous, and coefficients produced by OLS regression are
often uninterpretable because they may produce predicted probabilities that extend beyond the
logical boundaries of 0 and 1 (Cabrera, 1992). Although they presumably use logistic regression,
Astin and Sax (1998) and Astin, et al. (2000) do not report the statistical models that produced
their findings. In these two studies, the researchers refer to their statistically significant results in
passing, but they neither report the effect sizes for these variables nor mention the statistical
controls in their models. The absence of this critical information makes it difficult to ascertain
the soundness of their findings.
Although they provide one of the more unique approaches to the prediction of
community service during college, Marks and Jones (2004) misspecify their models by creating
three overlapping binary contrasts for an outcome with four independent response options (i.e.,
did not volunteer in high school or college; began volunteering in college; dropped volunteering
after high school; and sustained volunteering through high school and college). Specifically, the
researchers set as contrasts ‘dropped volunteering after high school’ with the other three
categories, ‘began volunteering in college’ with the other three categories, and ‘sustained
volunteering during high school and college’ with the other three categories. The lack of
independence between these three models, and the inadequate combination of divergent response
options to form reference groups – e.g., both students who did not volunteer in high school or
college and students who had sustained volunteering through high school and college were a part
of the reference group in two of the three models – made the estimates difficult to interpret and
made the implications of their findings less meaningful. A more appropriate approach to their
study would have been either to estimate two binomial models that provide a better set of
contrasts (i.e., did not volunteer in high school or college versus began volunteering in college;
and dropped volunteering after high school versus sustained volunteering through high school
8
and college) or to estimate a multinomial model with the parameter estimates for one of the four
response options (e.g., did not volunteer in high school or college) constrained to be zero.
A final limitation of the extant literature is in the operationalization of volunteerism as a
dichotomous variable indicating whether a student did or did not participate in college. By
operationalizing volunteerism in this manner, we limit our understanding of how the extent to
which students volunteer differs by their background characteristics. Perhaps more importantly,
by dichotomizing volunteerism we fail to illuminate the different intentions of students who have
not yet participated in community service. These intentions could be classified along a
continuum of planning to participate, being undecided about participating, and not planning to
participate in community service. If measured during the early stages of the college experience,
information on the characteristics of students who fall within each classification along this
continuum would assist campus policy-makers in realigning programs and resources toward
maximizing the number of students who volunteer while in college.
The purpose of this study is thus to estimate the differences in first-year students’
intentions to volunteer while in college (i.e., ‘Done,’ ‘Plan to do,’ ‘Do not plan to do,’ or ‘Have
not decided’) by their background characteristics and by the characteristics of the institutions that
they attend. Two research questions guide the study:
1. How do students’ plans to volunteer differ by their background characteristics and
college experiences?
2. Controlling for the background characteristics and college experiences of students,
how do their plans to volunteer differ by the characteristics of the institution that they
attend?
This study adds to the extant literature on the characteristics of students who volunteer by
improving upon a number of the limitations of the current research. Specifically, this study is the
9
largest study to date on the predictors of volunteerism in college, relying on data from over
125,000 first-year students at over 620 colleges and universities in the U.S. The findings from
this study are based on an analytic technique that 1) allows for the estimation of the unique
effects of student and institutional characteristics on students’ plans to volunteer, 2) is
recommended for categorical dependent variables with multiple response options, and 3) is
designed for nested sampling schemes (i.e., students randomly sampled within institutions). This
study also contributes to the previous literature by examining in greater detail the differences in
the intentions of students who have not volunteered during their first year of college. Given the
representativeness of the sample and the analytic technique, the findings from this study are
generalizable to a larger segment of the college student population than the findings of previous
research.
Methods
Data Source and Samples
Data for this study originate from the 2004 and 2005 administrations of the National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). NSSE assesses for a random sample of first-year
students and college seniors at participating institutions the extent to which the students engage
in empirically-vetted good educational practices, perceive that their college or university
emphasizes these practices, and perceive that they have developed educationally and personally
as a result of these experiences. NSSE is administered annually in the spring, and the 2004 and
2005 administrations included a total of 761 participating baccalaureate degree-granting
institutions in the U.S. and Canada.
The institution sample for this study was limited to 623 institutions in the U.S. that had a
sufficient sample of first-year students after removing from the study those students with missing
10
data. An important independent variable in this study, the student’s college entrance exam score,
is provided to NSSE by participating institutions on a voluntary basis. Institutions that elect not
to provide NSSE with this information or that do not require the student to complete either the
ACT or SAT for college admission (e.g., Canadian universities) were excluded from this study.
Fifty-four percent of the institutions in the study are privately controlled; 11% of institutions in
the sample have Carnegie classifications of Doctoral-Extensive, 9% are classified Doctoral-
Intensive, 47% Masters I or II, 17% Baccalaureate-Liberal Arts, and 15% have a classification of
Baccalaureate-General. Twenty percent of the sample institutions are categorized as Non- or
Less Competitive on the Barrons’ index of institutional selectivity, 44% are categorized as
Competitive, 24% as Very Competitive, and 11% as Highly or Most Competitive. Other
descriptive statistics for the institutional sample are located in Table 1.
_______________________
Table 1 About Here
_______________________
The student sample for this study comprised 129,597 students who were randomly
sampled from the participating institutions described above. Given the study’s focus on student
plans to volunteer before graduating from college, only first-year students at these institutions
were selected for the study. Four percent of the students in the sample are nontraditionally aged
(i.e., 20 or older), 67% are female, and 20% are students of color. Sixty-one percent of the
students in the sample have at least one parent with a four-year college degree or more, 24%
have a least one parent with some college education, and 15% have parents with no college
education. Other descriptive statistics for the student sample are located in Table 2.
11
_______________________
Table 2 About Here
_______________________
Variables
The dependent variable for this study is a single item from the NSSE instrument that
measures the student’s plans to engage in community service or volunteer work while in college.
The item appears along with seven other items (e.g., study abroad, independent study or self-
designed major) that in combination measure students’ plans to participate in various enriching
educational activities. The question for this set of items reads “Which of the following have you
done or do you plan to do before you graduate from your institution?” and students may choose
from the options ‘Done,’ ‘Plan to do,’ ‘Do not plan to do,’ and ‘Have not decided.’
At the student level, the independent variables comprise measures of the students’
background (i.e., age, sex, race, citizenship status, and parents’ education) academic achievement
(i.e., entrance exam score) and characteristics associated with the college experience (i.e.,
enrollment status, college major, commuter status, fraternity or sorority membership,
participation in varsity athletics, membership in a learning community, and working for pay on-
and off-campus.) At the institution level, the independent variables comprise measures of the
institutions’ characteristics (i.e., sector, size of the undergraduate student body, and degree of
urbanicity).
Analysis
Given the nesting of students with institutions, a hierarchical multinomial logit model
was estimated to study the relationship between students’ plans to volunteer during college, their
background characteristics and college experiences, and the characteristics of the institution. In
order to provide non-redundant contrasts between each of the response options in the dependent
12
variable, the parameter estimates for the response option ‘Plan to do’ were constrained to equal
zero. Odds ratios thus represent the effect of a unit change in the independent variable (e.g.,
being female as opposed to male) on the odds of one of the other response options (e.g.,
volunteered) versus the odds of planning to volunteer. Because of the negative connotation of the
response options “Do not plan to do” and “Have not decided,” odds ratios that are less than one
within these categories should be interpreted favorably. At the student level, all variables were
entered into the model grand-mean centered. An intercept that is then modeled at the institution
level can be interpreted as the adjusted proportion of students within a particular category of the
dependent variable.
Results
Before conducting our analysis, we estimated three binary logit models to test whether
any two contiguous outcomes were indistinguishable with regard to the independent variables in
the model. If the global null hypothesis of any one of these models is retained, combining the
two outcomes would produce a more parsimonious model (Long, 1997). Using a likelihood ratio
test and a very conservative significance level, the null hypothesis was rejected for all three tests
(See Table 3). These findings suggest that there are sufficient differences between the four
outcomes with regard to the independent variables to estimate an unrestricted model.
_______________________
Table 3 About Here
_______________________
Next, we estimated an unconditional – or intercept only – model, which allows us to
examine the between institution variance in the proportion of students that fall within each
13
category. Entering the intercepts for the unconditional model (See Table 4) into the following
equations:
( )∑
=
+== J
jji
ii
xxy
2exp1
1)|1Pr(β
, (1)
( )
( )∑=
+== J
jji
miii
x
xxmy
2exp1
exp)|Pr(
β
β for all m > 1. (2)
we find that, for a typical institution, an estimated 41% of first-year students volunteered during
their first year of college, whereas another 40% planned to volunteer sometime during college,
14% had not decided about volunteering, and 6% did not plan to volunteer during college. The
estimated percentage of students that fell within any category, however, varied across
institutions. For example, the 95% plausible value interval (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) for the
estimated percentage of respondents who volunteered during their first year of college ranged
from 19% to 67% across the institutional sample.
_______________________
Table 4 About Here
_______________________
Finally, we estimated a conditional model that provides the effects of the student and
institutional characteristics on the students’ log odds of volunteering, being undecided about
volunteering, or not planning to volunteer (relative to planning to volunteer). Parameter estimates
and odds ratios are provided in Table 5, and are described in greater detail below.
Student Characteristics
14
All else being equal, nontraditionally-aged students had odds of volunteering during their
first year of college that were 24% greater than the odds of volunteering for traditionally-aged
students. These older students, however, also had odds of being undecided about volunteering or
planning not to volunteer that were greater than the odds for traditionally-aged students by 16%
and 50%, respectively. Females had greater odds than males of volunteering during their first
year of college (by 15%), and they had lower odds than males of being undecided about
volunteering (by 50%) or of not planning to volunteer during college (by 70%).
Although differences in the odds of volunteering between first-year students of color and
white students were statistically non-significant, students of color had consistently lower odds
than white students of being undecided about volunteering or of not planning to volunteer during
college. With regard to being undecided about volunteering, Asian American students had the
lowest odds relative to white students (0.56), followed by African American students (0.64) and
Hispanic students (0.66). With respect to not planning to volunteer in college, the same pattern is
evident, with Asian American students having the lowest relative odds (0.51), followed again by
African American students (0.57) and Hispanic students (0.61). International students had odds
of volunteering during their first year of college that were 13% lower than the odds for their
peers. These students, however, did not differ significantly from their U.S. peers with regard to
their odds of being undecided about volunteering or of not planning to volunteer while in
college.
Models estimates suggest that greater levels of parent education increase the students’
odds of volunteering during the first year of college, all else being equal. Relative to students
with one or more parents with at least a four-year degree, students with neither parent attending
college had the lowest odds of volunteering during their first college year (0.85), followed by
students with one or more parents with some college education (0.94). Differences by parent
15
education in the students’ odds of being undecided about volunteering or of not planning to
volunteer during college were statistically non-significant.
All else being equal, model estimates suggest that students who entered college with
higher levels of academic achievement had greater odds than their peers of volunteering during
the first year of college. Relative to first-year students in the highest interval of ACT composite
scores (i.e., 33 to 36), students in the lowest ACT interval (i.e., 13 to 15) had the lowest odds of
volunteering (0.54), followed by students in ACT interval 16 to 19 (0.63), ACT interval 20 to 23
(0.64), ACT interval 24 to 27 (0.73), and ACT interval 28 to 32 (0.84). Differences in the odds of
being undecided about volunteering or of not planning to volunteer during college by the
students’ entering level of academic achievement were not statistically significant.
_______________________
Table 5 About Here
_______________________
College Experiences
Students who were enrolled part-time during their first-year of college had odds of
volunteering that were 19% lower than the odds for full-time students. Part-time students also
had greater odds than full-time students of being undecided about volunteering (by 35%) and of
planning not to volunteer during college (by 60%). Students who had pledged with or joined a
fraternity or sorority had odds of volunteering during their first year of college that were 123%
greater than the odds of their peers. Their odds of being undecided about volunteering or of
planning not to volunteer were markedly less than that of their peers (by 62% and 57%,
respectively). Although students who participated in varsity athletics had the same odds as non-
athletes of volunteering during their first year of college, student athletes had lower odds than
16
non-athletes of being undecided about volunteering (by 18%) and of planning not to volunteer
(by 15%).
Although students who resided on campus had roughly the same odds of volunteering
during their first college year as students who commuted to campus, model estimates suggest
that living on campus had a positive influence on the students’ plans to volunteer, all else being
equal. Specifically, campus residents had lower odds than commuters of being undecided about
doing community service (by 28%), and of planning not to volunteer while in college (by 33%).
Residing in a learning community had a strong positive influence on students’ odds of
volunteering that was over and above the influence of residing in other living arrangements.
Learning community members had odds of volunteering during their first year of college that
were 152% greater than the odds of nonmembers, and members had odds of being undecided
about volunteering and of not planning to volunteer that were lower than the odds of
nonmembers by 30% and 43%, respectively.
Students who worked on campus from one to fifteen hours per week had 14% greater
odds than students who did not work on campus of volunteering during their first year of college.
Students in the sixteen to thirty hour range of on-campus work per week also had greater odds of
volunteering than students who did not work on campus (by 12%). Relative to students who did
not work on campus, working on campus one to fifteen hours per week or sixteen to thirty hours
per week decreased the students’ odds of being undecided about volunteering by 16% and 28%,
respectively; and working on campus one to fifteen hours per week decreased the students’ odds
of not planning to volunteer by 11%.
A similar pattern was evident for moderate levels of off-campus work per week.
Specifically, relative to students who did not work off campus, working off campus one to
fifteen hours per week or sixteen to thirty hours per week increased the students’ odds of
17
volunteering during the first year by 15% and 7% respectively, and it decreased the students’
odds of being undecided about volunteering by 12% and 8%, respectively. Working off campus
sixteen to thirty hours per week, however, also increased the students’ odds of not planning to
volunteer in college by 18%, and working off-campus more than thirty hours per week increased
the students’ odds of not planning to volunteer in college by 38%.
Relative to students who are enrolled in arts and humanities disciplines, education majors
had the greatest odds of volunteering during their first year of college (by 29%), followed by
social sciences majors (by 13%), and business majors (by 8%). Education majors and social
sciences majors also had lower odds of being undecided about volunteering (by 31% and 30%,
respectively) and of not planning to volunteer during college (by 47% and 33%, respectively).
Students who belonged to academic programs within the biological sciences, engineering,
physical sciences, and professional occupations had odds of volunteering that were not
statistically different than the odds for students within the arts and humanities. Biological
sciences majors and professional occupations majors, however, had lower odds of being
undecided about volunteering (by 44% and 30%, respectively) and of not planning to volunteer
during college (by 61% and 48%, respectively), relative to arts and humanities majors. Finally,
students who were undecided about their major had the lowest relative odds of volunteering
during the first year of college (by 16%). Undecided majors had 12% greater odds of being
undecided about volunteering than their peers majoring in arts and humanities, but they also had
18% lower odds of not planning to volunteer during college.
Institutional Characteristics
After adjusting average institutional plans to volunteer by the student background
characteristics and college experiences represented in the model, students who attended private
institutions still had 40% greater odds of volunteering during the first year of college than their
18
public institution peers. Students who attended private institutions also had lower odds than their
peers of being undecided about volunteering and of planning not to volunteer (by 31% and 37%,
respectively). Evidence from the model also suggests that undergraduate student body size had a
negative impact on students’ odds of volunteering during their first year of college. Relative to
students at institutions with less than 1,000 undergraduates, students at institutions with 20,000
undergraduates or more had the lowest odds of volunteering during the first year of college (by
28%), followed by students at institutions with 10,000 to 19,999 undergraduates (by 26%).
Although, differences in odds of being undecided about volunteering or of planning not to
volunteer by institution size do not suggest as clear of a pattern, students who attended
institutions with 1,000 undergraduates or more typically had lower odds than students at
institutions with less than 1,000 undergraduates of being undecided about volunteering or of
planning not to volunteer.
Relative to students who attend institutions within large cities, students at institutions
located in mid-size cities and students at institution located in large towns had greater odds of
volunteering (by 21% and 53%, respectively). Students at institutions in these locales also had
lower odds of being undecided about volunteering (by 15% and 20%, respectively) and of not
planning to volunteer while in college (by 16% and 26%, respectively) than their peers at
institutions in large cities. Overall, students at institutions in small towns or in rural areas had
plans to volunteer that were not significantly different from students at institutions in large cities.
Discussion and Implications
Student Characteristics
Consistent with the findings of previous research (Astin & Sax, 1998; Astin,
Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Fitch, 1991; Marks & Jones, 2004; Pierson, 2002; Serow &
19
Dreyden, 1990), we find that females are more likely than males to volunteer during their first
year of college. Our findings go beyond the current state of knowledge, however, to suggest that
male students are not only less likely to volunteer during their first year of college, but they are
also more likely than females either to be undecided about volunteering or not plan to volunteer
during college. In other words female students that have not volunteered by the end of their first
year of college often have plans to volunteer at some time during college; male students do not
share these plans. As opposed to rationalizing this finding away as the difference in the ethic of
caring between women and men, more needs to be done on college campuses to increase the rate
of volunteering among male students. Given the intentions of male students as found in this
study, simply informing these students of the available opportunities for community service is
not enough. Instead, campus resources should be directed toward instilling in these students the
individual and societal benefits of community service. Learning more about the different
motivations of these students (e.g., Fitch, 1987; Serow, 1991; Winniford, Carpenter, & Grider,
1995, 1997) may also be necessary to more effectively target programming to encourage male
students to volunteer.
As with the studies by Marks and Jones (2004) and Pierson (2002), we find no
differences by race or ethnicity regarding the students’ propensity to volunteer during the first
year of college. Our findings do suggest, however, differences by race or ethnicity in the
students’ intentions to volunteer during college. Specifically, students of color are more likely
than white students to plan to volunteer during college versus being undecided about
volunteering or not planning to volunteer. Knowing this, outreach to these student populations is
important for the university officials in charge of community service. Students of color may feel
less connected to the organizational structure and, although they intend to participate, they may
not be aware of the appropriate channels for participation (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen,
20
and Allen, 1999). Working with student organizations that primarily serve students of color may
help with their inclusion in the system and assist in turning their community service intentions
into practice.
We also find that students who enter college with greater educational capital (i.e.,
parents’ education and prior academic achievement) are more likely than their peers to volunteer
during their first year of college. It may be the case that these students were also more likely to
volunteer during high school, a behavior of the students that is predictive of volunteerism during
college (Astin & Sax, 1998; Astin, et al., 2000; Pierson, 2002) but that we were unable to
measure in this study. It may also be the case that these students need to devote less time to their
academic work, or that they are better able to manage their academic load, freeing up time for
such activities as volunteering. These students may also be more likely to join first-year honor
societies, or to take part in first-year honors programs, which often emphasize or require
community service.
Programmatic endeavors need not only focus on the honors students, however, colleges
and universities can encourage participation by first year students in cascading mentoring
programs wherein students in need of tutoring receive assistance from older students, but also
provide tutoring for high school students, becoming both student and teacher, recipient and
provider of service. Practices such as these can not only promote community service habits, but
also foster an increased academic self-efficacy in students that need assistance by allowing them
to be experts in an educational setting. The academic benefits of community service could also
be very helpful for students in need of remediation or who are classified as at-risk, providing
them with stronger connections to academic material and encouraging them to structure their
time more effectively.
21
College Experiences
Unlike the results of Fitch (1991), we find that students who live on campus do not
necessarily have a greater likelihood than their peers of volunteering during the first year of
college. The differences in our results may be due to the differences in sampling between the two
studies, and it may also be due to our inclusion of learning communities in our model. Regarding
students intentions, we do find that campus residents are more likely than their peers to plan to
volunteer as opposed to being undecided about or not planning to volunteer, suggesting some
benefit to living on versus off campus. More important than simply living on campus, however,
are the benefits of on-campus living arrangements that are educationally purposeful. Learning
community membership was the single most important factor in predicting students’ propensity
to volunteer during the first year of college. Encouraging on-campus residence (where
appropriate) and increasing the use of learning communities on campus are two areas in which
institutions may be able to influence service participation among their students. The positive
effects of implementing these practices on campus extend beyond community service
participation to include other forms of student engagement and development during college
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1990, 2005).
Consistent with previous research (Marks & Jones, 2004; Pierson, 2002; Serow &
Dreyden, 1990) students who were members of a fraternity or sorority were more likely than
their peers to volunteer during the first year of college. Greek membership was the second most
important factor in predicting volunteerism, and this finding suggests that membership in student
organizations where volunteerism is encouraged or even required joins the spirit of service with
involvement in a peer community and creates an experience for students that may reap benefits
similar to learning communities and service-learning initiatives.
22
Additionally, institutions can take away some lessons from learning communities and
Greek organizations, even when on-campus housing or large numbers of student organizations
are not available. Both communities have strong structures in place that both encourage students
to participate and provide channels for them to do so. The students in each community receive
consistent messages about the value and the importance of service. While requiring community
service may lead to a negative opinion of the process and decrease participation in the long run
(Marks & Jones, 2004), when students perceive a strong institutional commitment and receive a
consistent message from the university about the importance of and the opportunities for
participation, students are more likely to volunteer (Ward, 1996).
Compared to students in education, the social sciences, and business, students in the arts
and humanities, biological sciences, engineering, physical sciences, and professional occupations
are less likely to volunteer during the first year of college. Although the particular grouping of
majors in this study may be crude, the differences in plans to volunteer by major suggest some
broad areas or disciplines in which service learning could be further implemented. The on-going
challenge for several of these disciplines (e.g., engineering, and physical sciences) is to
incorporate service into the curriculum in a way that provides a meaningful and seamless
learning experience for students.
The fact that undecided majors are less likely than others to volunteer and are more likely
than their peers to be undecided about volunteering suggests that tying volunteerism to such
student support services as career planning and placement. Among the imperatives for the field
of career services provided by Rayman (1993) are accepting the position of career planning and
placement offices as “the most obvious and continuing link between corporate America and the
academy” and developing “alternative means of facilitating the transition from college to work”
(p.105). To the extent that local business are also involved within the community, linking the
23
academy and businesses together through joint participation in community service will reinforce
in college students the importance of service while giving the students an opportunity to explore
career opportunities and relationships with potential employers.
Contrary to previous research (Fitch, 1991; Marks & Jones, 2004), our findings suggest
that working on- or off-campus is not a detriment to the students’ propensity to volunteer. In fact,
at moderate levels, working may even be a positive factor regarding the students’ community
service and plans to volunteer. Only when the number of hours per week exceeds thirty does
working off-campus start to have a negative impact on students’ plans to volunteer during
college. This finding is similar to that of Rago and Moore (2004) who found that moderate
amounts of work (up to 20 hours off campus and up to 30 on campus) were associated with more
hours spent in both academic preparation and participation in extracurricular activities. Rago and
Moore hypothesized that students with moderate workloads had developed better time
management skills and were therefore able to successfully incorporate more activities into their
lives.
Institutional Characteristics
Even after controlling for a number of the characteristics (i.e., nontraditional age,
employment status, commuting status, part-time enrollment status) of the students that these
institutions serve, students at institutions located within urban areas are less likely to volunteer or
even to plan to volunteer than students at institutions in less urban areas. This finding is
disappointing given the numerous opportunities for these institutions to connect with their local
communities through service (Palm & Toma, 1997). It may be the case that urban institutions,
although having many opportunities for partnering with the local community, may face some of
the greatest challenges to effective partnerships, including power differences, culture or race
24
issues, differences in rhetoric, limited resources, differences in leadership, lack of measurement
and documentation of effectiveness, and the limited visibility of partnerships (Holland, 2005).
Another troubling finding of our study is that students who attend larger institutions are
less likely than students at smaller institutions to volunteer. This finding suggests that these
institutions may have more difficulty than smaller institutions in creating and maintaining an
environment that demonstrates a commitment to community service. Although these institutions
often have a larger number of student organizations and activities than smaller institutions, the
fact that these student activities are competing for student involvement may create students who
are more consumer oriented toward selecting those activities and organizations that have the
highest benefit-cost ratio. In this type of student marketplace, student organizations may be more
lenient in their community service requirements to attract and maintain their membership.
Other Implications
On the whole, the results of our study suggest that college students who are unengaged in
community service activities are not a single entity with regard to either their background
characteristics or their intentions to volunteer in the future. Consequently, a one-policy-fits-all
approach to attract these students to community service opportunities may be costly and
ineffective. Creating initiatives that effectively target these students for community service
opportunities requires a better understanding of the interactions between the students’ intentions,
their background characteristics, and the characteristics of the institutions that they attend. Using
coefficients from the current study or replicating this study with data from a single institution,
institutional researchers and other campus stakeholders who are interested in community service
initiatives at the postsecondary level can simulate the community service participation and
intentions of entering students to better realign programs and resources toward maximizing the
number of students who participate in community service while in college.
25
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
One of the major limitations of this study is the absence of independent variables that
have been demonstrated elsewhere to have an impact on college students’ propensity to
volunteer. An important predictor that was not available for this study is a measure of the
students’ pre-college community service. The Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement
(BCSSE), a survey being piloted by NSSE, asks entering college students to provide detailed
information on their high school academic and extracurricular experiences, as well as the value
that they place on their engagement in college. Using data from 70 institutions that participated
in the 2005 pilot administration of BCSSE and the 2006 administration of NSSE, we plan to
address this limitation in the current study by examining the relationship between the extent of
students’ involvement in high school service clubs and organizations, the value that they place
on service learning in college, and their propensity to volunteer during the first year of college.
Although we were able to demonstrate differences in students’ likelihood of volunteering
by the structural characteristics of the institutions that they attend, finding more meaningful
measures of institutional programmatic efforts is essential to understanding institutional impact
on students’ engagement in community service in college. To this end, we hope to combine
NSSE data with data from the Campus Compact survey of its member institutions to examine 1)
the differences in institutional commitment to community service (e.g., types of service
programs offered on campus, campus support for community service, campus obstacles to the
extension of service-learning, etc.) by the characteristics of institutions, and 2) and the effects of
institutional commitment to community service on the community service participation of
students.
26
Conclusions
Although the impacts of volunteerism on college student development are extensive and
well-documented, the characteristics of students who volunteer during college are not well
understood. Only a limited number of studies have examined the predictors of volunteerism
during college, and several limitations to this small body of research render this evidence
suspect. Using data from over 125,000 first-year students attending over 620 four-year colleges
and universities in the U.S., this study contributed to the literature by examining the differences
in students’ plans to volunteer during college by their background characteristics and college
experiences, and by the characteristics of the institutions that they attend. On the whole, the
results of our study suggest that college students who are unengaged in community service
activities are not a single entity with regard to either their background characteristics or their
intentions to volunteer in the future. Consequently, a one-policy-fits-all approach to attract these
students to community service opportunities may be costly and ineffective. Study results suggest
changes to several campus policies and programs that may remove barriers to successful
community service participation among first-year students.
27
References Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation.
Journal of College Student Development, 39, 251-263. Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long term effects of volunteerism during the
undergraduate years. Review of Higher Education, 22, 187-202. Astin, A., Vogelgesang, L., Ikeda, E., & Yee, J. (2000). How service learning affects students.
Higher Education Research Institute. Boyle-Baise, M., & Kilbane, J. (2000). What really happens? A look inside service-learning for
multicultural teacher education. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 54-64.
Cabrera, A. (1994). Logistic regression analysis in higher education: An applied perspective. In
Smart, J. C. (ed). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 10 (pp 225-256). New York: Agathon Press.
Dey, E. & Astin, A. (1993). Statistical alternatives for studying college student retention: A
comparative analysis of logit, probit, and linear regression. Research in Higher Education, 34, 569 – 581.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D., Jr. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J., Giles, D., Jr., & Braxton, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning on college students.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 5-15. Eyler, J., Root, S., & Giles, D., Jr. (1998). Service-learning and the development of expert
citizens: Service-learning and cognitive science. In R. G. B. & D. K. Duffy (eds.), With service in mind: Concepts and models for service-learning in psychology. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Fitch, R. (1987). Characteristics and motivations of college students volunteering for community
service. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 424-431. Fitch, R. (1991). Differences among community service volunteers, extracurricular volunteers,
and nonvolunteers on the college campus. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 534-540.
Giles, D., Jr., & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on
students' personal, social and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 327-339. Gray, M., Ondaatje, E., Fricker, R., Geschwind, S., Goldman, C., Kaganoff, T., Robyn, A.,
Sundt, M., Vogelgesang, L., & Klein, S. (1998). Coupling service and learning in higher education: The final report of the evaluation of the Learn and Serve America, Higher Education Program. RAND.
28
Holland, B. (2005). Reflections on community-campus partnerships: What has been learned?
What are the next challenges? In Pasque, P., R. Smerek, B. Dwyer, N. Bowman, & B. Mallory (eds.), Higher education collaboratives for community engagement and improvement. The National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning
environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 26, no. 8. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Long, J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Advanced
Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences Series, 7. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marks, H., & Jones, S. (2004). Community service in the transition: Shifts and continuities in
participation from high school to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 75, 307-339. National Survey of Student Engagement (2005). NSSE 2005 grand frequencies by class and
Carnegie classification. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Palm, R., & Toma, J. (1997). Community relationships and partnerships. In Dietz, L., and V.
Triponey (eds). Serving students at metropolitan universities: The unique opportunities and challenges.. New Directions for Student Services, No. 79 (pp 57-65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students, vol. 2: A third decade of
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pierson, C. (2002). Volunteerism in college: Impacts on cognitive outcomes, learning
orientations, and educational aspirations. Unpublished dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Rago, M., & Moore, J. (2004). Disengaged and ignored: Are working students a lost cause.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA.
Rayman, J. (1993). Concluding remarks and career services imperatives for the 1990s. In
Rayman, J. (ed). The changing role of career services. New Directions for Student Services, No. 62 (pp 101-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis
methods (2nd). Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences Series, 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rudolph, F. (1977). Curriculum: A history of the American undergraduate course of study since
1636. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29
Serow, R. (1991). Students and voluntarism: Looking into the motives of community service
participation. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 543-556. Serow R., & Dreydan, J. (1990). Community service among college and university students:
Individual and institutional relationships. Adolescence, 25, 553-566. Terenzini, P. T. (1994). Educating for citizenship: Freeing the mind and elevating the spirit.
Innovative Higher Education, 19, 7-21. Vogelgesang, L. J., and Astin, A. W. (2000). Comparing the Effects of Service-Learning and
Community Service. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 25-34. Wang, W. (2000). Service Learning: Is it good for you? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association Conference Roundtable, New Orleans, LA.
Ward, K. (1996). Service-learning and student volunteerism: Reflections on institutional
commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Winniford, J., Carpenter, D., & Grider, C. (1995). An analysis of the traits and motivations of
college students involved in service organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 27-37.
Winniford, J., Carpenter, D., & Grider, C. (1997). Motivations of college student volunteers: A
review. NASPA Journal, 34, 134-146.
30
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Institution-Level Predictor Variables
Variable Mean SD Private sector 0.543 0.499 Undergraduate enrollment size less than 1,000 † 0.088 0.284 Undergraduate enrollment size 1,000 to 2,499 0.327 0.470 Undergraduate enrollment size 2,500 to 4,999 0.215 0.411 Undergraduate enrollment size 5,000 to 9,999 0.173 0.379 Undergraduate enrollment size 10,000 to 19,999 0.148 0.355 Undergraduate enrollment size 20,000 or more 0.048 0.214 Located in a large city † 0.350 0.477 Located in a mid-size city 0.372 0.484 Located in a large town 0.051 0.221 Located in a small town 0.177 0.382 Located in a rural area 0.050 0.218 N = 623 † Reference group
31
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Student-Level Predictor Variables
Variable Mean SD Nontraditional age 0.044 0.204 Female 0.666 0.472 African American 0.052 0.222 Asian American 0.055 0.228 Hispanic/Latino 0.046 0.209 White/Caucasian † 0.796 0.403 Other race 0.052 0.222 International student 0.032 0.175 At least one parent with a bachelor's degree † 0.613 0.487 At least one parent with some college 0.240 0.427 Neither parent attended college 0.147 0.354 ACT composite score 13 to 15 0.017 0.128 ACT composite score 16 to 19 0.129 0.335 ACT composite score 20 to 23 0.289 0.453 ACT composite score 24 to 27 0.316 0.465 ACT composite score 28 to 32 0.226 0.418 ACT composite score 33 to 36 † 0.024 0.152 Part-time enrollment status 0.017 0.128 Resided in campus housing 0.769 0.421 Learning community member 0.142 0.349 Fraternity/Sorority member 0.107 0.310 Student athlete 0.125 0.330 Did not work on campus † 0.743 0.437 Worked on campus 1 to 15 hours per week 0.220 0.415 Worked on campus 16 to 30 hours per week 0.034 0.181 Worked on campus over 30 hours per week 0.003 0.050 Did not work off campus † 0.720 0.449 Worked off campus 1 to 15 hours per week 0.148 0.355 Worked off campus 16 to 30 hours per week 0.109 0.312 Worked off campus over 30 hours per week 0.023 0.149 Arts and humanities major † 0.147 0.354 Biological sciences major 0.087 0.281 Business major 0.138 0.345 Education major 0.106 0.308 Engineering major 0.054 0.225 Physical sciences major 0.036 0.187 Professional occupations major 0.107 0.309 Social sciences major 0.132 0.339 Other major 0.138 0.345 Undecided major 0.055 0.228 N = 129,597 † Reference group
32
Table 3. Specification Tests for Combining Contiguous Outcomes
Dependent Variable Deviance d.f. Sig. ‘Done' vs. 'Plan to do' 327147.06 46 < 0.0000 ‘Plan to do' vs. 'Have not decided' 202588.44 46 < 0.0000 ‘Have not decided' vs. 'Do not plan to do' 75557.39 46 < 0.0000
33
Table 4. Results of Unconditional Hierarchical Multinomial Logit Model of Volunteering Done Have not decided Do not plan to do
Independent Variable b Std. Error b Std. Error b Std. Error Intercept 0.02 0.02 -1.12 0.02 -2.02 0.03
34
Table 5. Results of Conditional Hierarchical Multinomial Logit Model of Volunteering
Done Have not decided Do not plan to do Independent Variable b Odds Ratio b Odds Ratio b Odds Ratio
Intercept 0.02 -1.24 -2.30 Nontraditional age 0.21 †† 1.24 0.15 †† 1.16 0.41 †† 1.50 Female 0.14 †† 1.15 -0.70 †† 0.50 -1.21 †† 0.30 African American -0.03 -0.45 †† 0.64 -0.55 †† 0.57 Asian American -0.03 -0.59 †† 0.56 -0.68 †† 0.51 Hispanic/Latino 0.05 -0.41 †† 0.66 -0.49 †† 0.61 Other race 0.05 -0.17 †† 0.84 -0.10 International student -0.14 † 0.87 0.09 0.02 Parent with some college -0.06 †† 0.94 0.04 0.02 Parents with no college -0.16 †† 0.85 0.03 -0.04 ACT composite score 13 to 15 -0.61 †† 0.54 -0.02 -0.07 ACT composite score 16 to 19 -0.47 †† 0.63 0.02 -0.18 ACT composite score 20 to 23 -0.44 †† 0.64 -0.00 -0.20 ACT composite score 24 to 27 -0.32 †† 0.73 -0.03 -0.14 ACT composite score 28 to 32 -0.17 † 0.84 -0.06 -0.10 Part-time enrollment status -0.21 † 0.81 0.30 †† 1.35 0.47 †† 1.60 Resided in campus housing -0.03 -0.33 †† 0.72 -0.40 †† 0.67 Learning community member 0.92 †† 2.52 -0.36 †† 0.70 -0.56 †† 0.57 Fraternity/Sorority member 0.80 †† 2.23 -0.97 †† 0.38 -0.85 †† 0.43 Student athlete -0.03 -0.20 †† 0.82 -0.16 †† 0.85 Work on campus 1-15 hours 0.13 †† 1.14 -0.17 †† 0.84 -0.12 † 0.89 Work on campus 16-30 hours 0.11 † 1.12 -0.33 †† 0.72 0.07 Work on campus 31+ hours 0.21 0.07 0.16 Work off campus 1-15 hours 0.14 †† 1.15 -0.13 †† 0.88 0.09 Work off campus 16-30 hours 0.07 † 1.07 -0.08 † 0.92 0.16 † 1.18 Work off campus 31+ hours 0.13 -0.03 0.32 †† 1.38 Biological sciences major 0.07 -0.58 †† 0.56 -0.93 †† 0.39 Business major 0.08 † 1.08 -0.10 -0.09 Education major 0.26 †† 1.29 -0.37 †† 0.69 -0.63 †† 0.53 Engineering major -0.01 -0.04 -0.14 Physical sciences major 0.01 -0.08 -0.17 Professional occupations major 0.06 -0.35 †† 0.70 -0.65 †† 0.52 Social sciences major 0.13 †† 1.13 -0.35 †† 0.70 -0.39 †† 0.67 Other major 0.13 †† 1.14 -0.01 -0.09 Undecided major -0.17 †† 0.84 0.11 † 1.12 -0.19 † 0.82 Private sector 0.34 †† 1.40 -0.37 †† 0.69 -0.46 †† 0.63 Size 1,000 to 2,499 -0.11 -0.11 -0.19 Size 2,500 to 4,999 -0.19 -0.30 † 0.74 -0.34 † 0.71 Size 5,000 to 9,999 -0.23 -0.14 -0.16 Size 10,000 to 19,999 -0.30 * 0.74 -0.29 * 0.75 -0.36 Size 20,000 or more -0.32 * 0.72 -0.38 † 0.68 -0.41 † 0.66 Located in a mid-size city 0.19 †† 1.21 -0.16 † 0.85 -0.17 † 0.84 Located in a large town 0.43 †† 1.53 -0.23 † 0.80 -0.30 † 0.74 Located in a small town 0.12 -0.02 -0.06 Located in a rural area 0.25 -0.21 * 0.81 -0.21 * p < .05, † p < .01, †† p < .001