introduction

34
Service and Diverse Interactions in College as Predictors of Civic Engagement in the Post-college Years: Differences Across Institutional Types Erica Yamamura, M.A. Nida Denson, M.A UCLA Higher Education Research Institute AIR Annual Forum San Diego, CA May 2005

Upload: dorjan

Post on 25-Feb-2016

18 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Service and Diverse Interactions in College as Predictors of Civic Engagement in the Post-college Years: Differences Across Institutional Types Erica Yamamura, M.A. Nida Denson, M.A UCLA Higher Education Research Institute AIR Annual Forum San Diego, CA May 2005. Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Introduction

Service and Diverse Interactions in College as Predictors of Civic Engagement in the

Post-college Years: Differences Across Institutional Types

Erica Yamamura, M.A.Nida Denson, M.A

UCLA Higher Education Research Institute

AIR Annual ForumSan Diego, CA

May 2005

Page 2: Introduction

Introduction

Shifts in community service and service learning (K-12 & Higher Education)

Increasingly diverse college campuses Impact of College on Volunteerism after

college

Page 3: Introduction

Background: Community Service and Service Learning

Few studies have looked at the long-term impact of college community service on post-college civic engagement. (Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999; Denson, Vogelgesang, & Saenz, 2005; Eyler, 2000)

Page 4: Introduction

Background: Racial Diversity in Higher Ed Types of Diversity

– Structural Diversity– Diversity Initiatives– Cross-racial Interaction(Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen,

1999; Milem, 2003)

Page 5: Introduction

Background: Cross-Racial Interaction Cross-racial interaction (CRI):

type of college diversity that looks directly at peer interaction with students of different racial and ethnic groups (Antonio, 1998; Milem, 2003).

Page 6: Introduction

Background: Cross-Racial Interaction Few studies have looked at the long-

term benefits of cross-racial interaction. A notable exception:

Bowen and Bok’s (1998) study of graduates of selective schools

Page 7: Introduction

Theoretical Framework:Institutional Type Analysis No current study on the impact of

college service and diversity on civic engagement post-college by institutional type

Institutional Types for Study:– Public– Private– Religious

Page 8: Introduction

Data Sources

CIRP 1994/1998 Data

2004 Post-College Follow Up Survey– supported by a three-year grant from the

Atlantic Philanthropies U.S.A., Inc

Page 9: Introduction

Method

Sample– 6,515 students from 138 institutions– 1994 SIF, 1998 CSS, 2004 PCFS

Analytic Approach– Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)

Page 10: Introduction

Logic of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002)

HLM decomposes relationships between variables into separate student-level and institution-level components

The different effects of a variable resulting from differing levels can be included in one model

Allows for formulation and testing of hypotheses about cross-level effects

Page 11: Introduction

Institution-level

Student-level

OutcomePost-College Volunteerism

Type AVG: service

AVG: CRI

Service CRI

% URM

Conceptual Framework

Page 12: Introduction

Research Question #1: Student-Level Effects

Institution-level

Student-level

Outcome Post-College Volunteerism

Type AVG: service

AVG: CRI

Service CRI

% URM

Page 13: Introduction

Research Question #2:Institution-Level Effect

Institution-level

Student-level

Outcome Post-College Volunteerism

Type AVG: service

AVG: CRI

Service CRI

% URM

Page 14: Introduction

Research Question #3: Institution-Level EffectsInstitution-level

Student-level

Outcome Post-College Volunteerism

Type AVG: service

AVG: CRI

Service CRI

% URM

Page 15: Introduction

Research Question #4: Cross-Level Effects

Institution-level

Student-level

OutcomePost-College Volunteerism

Type AVG: service

AVG: CRI

Service CRI

% URM

Page 16: Introduction

2004 Volunteerism Outcome (α=.81)12 Items- Frequency: performed volunteer work (.74)- HPW: volunteer work (.68)- Collect, prepare, distribute, or serve food (.60)- Collect, make or distribute clothing, crafts, or goods other

than food (.49)- Teach, tutor, mentor, coach, or referee (.56)- Fundraise or sell items to raise money (.54)- Supply transportation for people (.55)- Provide general office services (.49)- Provide information, be an usher, greeter or minister (.60)- Engage in music, performance, or other artistic activities

(.49)- Perform physical labor (.64)- Other (.49)

Page 17: Introduction

Variables of Interest Student-Level

– Service (no service, community service only, both community service and SL)

– Cross-racial interaction (CRI) Institution-Level

– Institutional type (public, private, religious)– Structural diversity (% URM)– Peer average levels of volunteerism– Peer average levels of CRI

Page 18: Introduction

Control Variables Student-Level

– Freshman pretest for volunteerism– Pre-college characteristics – College experiences

Institution-Level– Size, selectivity– Student-level aggregates (peer effects)

Page 19: Introduction

Sample – Percent by institutional type

05

101520253035404550

Public Private Religious

Page 20: Introduction

Service by Institutional Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Public Private Religious

No service

Communityservice onlyBoth communityservice and SL

Page 21: Introduction

CRI by Institutional Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Public Private Religious

Low CRIMedium CRIHigh CRI

Page 22: Introduction

2004 Volunteerism by Institutional type

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Public Private Religious

Low VolunteerismMedium VolunteerismHigh Volunteerism

Page 23: Introduction

Student-Level Findings

Volunteer (+++)Volunteer & SL (+++)Cross-racial interaction (++)

* p <.05** p<.01*** p<.001

Page 24: Introduction

Student-Level Findings HS volunteering (+++) Curricular/co-curricular diversity acts

(+++) Attended religious services (+++) Leadership/honors acts (+++) Challenged prof’s ideas in class (+++)* p <.05** p<.01*** p<.001

Page 25: Introduction

Student-Level Findings

Asian/Asian-American (-)Joined a fraternity/sorority (-)

* p <.05** p<.01*** p<.001

Page 26: Introduction

Institution-level findings

Institutional type: private (ns) Institutional type: religious (ns) Structural diversity: %URM (ns) AVG: volunteerism (ns) AVG: CRI (ns)

* p <.05** p<.01*** p<.001

Page 27: Introduction

Institution-level findings

AVG: attended religious services (++)

* p <.05** p<.01*** p<.001

Page 28: Introduction

Cross-Level Findings

AVG: volunteerism (ns)

* p <.05** p<.01*** p<.001

Page 29: Introduction

Cross-Level Findings

Structural diversity: % URM (--)AVG: attended religious services (+

+)

* p <.05** p<.01*** p<.001

Page 30: Introduction

Summary

Student participation in service and/or cross-racial interaction in college positively influences volunteerism after college

Attending religious services also positively influences volunteerism after college

Page 31: Introduction

Summary

Student peer group influence plays a larger role than institutional type (i.e. religious colleges) in predicting volunteerism after college

Page 32: Introduction

Summary

Structural diversity (as measured by %URM) had a weakening effect on the CRI volunteerism relationship

Peer average levels of attending religious services had a strengthening effect on the CRI volunteerism effect

Page 33: Introduction

For copies of our presentation…

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri

Page 34: Introduction

Question & Answer Session

Thank you!