Revisiting Pedagogical Variations in Service-Learning and Student Outcomes

Thomas A. Dahan


This article presents results from a quasi‐experimental replication study that extended Mabry’s 1998 correlational study by introducing a counterfactual (using psychometrically defensible measures) and controlling for academic motivation and relationships among students, faculty, and staff. The study offered evidence of the effectiveness of frequency of contact, reflection, and service duration in influencing civic and academic outcomes. Though the study’s quasi-experimental approach posed modest limitations, the measured effects were similar to those identified in Mabry’s study, thus improving confidence around findings related to the impacts of service-learning pedagogical variations and their implications for instructional design. 


replication; service-learning; pedagogy; quasi-experiment

Full Text:



Adams, A. T., Ajrouch, K. J., Henderson, H., & Heard, I. (2005). Service-learning outcomes research: The role and scarcity of replication studies. Journal of Applied Social Science, 2, 55-71.

Bringle, R. G. (2003). Enhancing theory-based research on service-learning. In S. Billig & J. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts (pp. 3-21). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Muthiah, R. N. (2010). The role of service-learning on the retention of first-year students to second year. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 38-49.

Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M. A., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service learning: Research scales to assess student experiences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bringle, R. G., & Steinberg, K. (2010). Educating for informed community involvement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(3-4), 428-441.

Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment (vol. 2A). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (2003). Philosophies of social science: The classic and contemporary readings. Maidenhead, UK: Open University.

DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

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

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1997). The importance of program quality in service-learning. In A. Waterman (Ed.), Service-learning: Applications from the research (pp. 57-76). New York: Routledge.

Gujarati, D., & Porter, D. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Irwin.

Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 197-219.

Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Muthiah, R. (2004). Designing effective reflection: What matters to service-learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1), 38-46.

Indiana University. (2011). What is the internal consistency of the gains scales? NSSE psychometric portfolio online. Retrieved from

Kenny, D. A. (1975). A quasi-experimental approach to assessing treatment effects in the nonequivalent control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 82(3), 345-362.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

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

Moely, B. E., & Ilustre, V. (2014). The impact of service-learning course characteristics on university students’ learning outcomes. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(1) 5-16.

Pascarella, E. T. (2007). Methodological report for Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education. Iowa City, IA: Center for Research on Undergraduate Education.

Reeb, R. N. (2006). The community service self-efficacy scale: Further evidence of reliability and validity. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 32(1-2), 97-113.

Reeb, R. N., Folger, S. F., Langsner, S., Ryan, C., & Crouse, J. (2010). Self-efficacy in service- learning community action research: Theory, research, and practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(3-4), 459-471.

Reeb, R. N., Katsuyama, R. M., Sammon, J. A., & Yoder, D. S. (1998). The community service self-efficacy scale: Evidence of reliability, construct validity, and pragmatic utility. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 48-57.

Simons, L., Russell, B., Hirschinger-Blank, N., Williams, E., & Willis, K. (2009). An exploration of the value of cultural-based service-learning for student and community participants. In B. Moely, S. Billig, & B. Holland (Eds.), Creating our identities in service-learning and community engagement (pp.189-214). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Steinberg, K. S., Bringle, R. G., & McGuire, L. E. (2012). Attributes of high-quality research on service learning. In P. Clayton, R. Bringle & J. Hatcher, Research on service learning. Volume 2A: Students and faculty (pp. 27-56). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Waterman, A. S. (Ed.). (1997). Service-learning: Applications from the research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.


  • There are currently no refbacks.