Building the Field: The Case for Community Service Learning

Abstract

In this study, the authors examine the impact of a community service learning course on undergraduate students’ decisions to pursue careers as special education teachers or related service providers. Participants (N = 134) completed a course involving volunteer service with persons with disabilities in the local community and were surveyed as to whether they were interested in pursuing a career in special education upon graduation. Findings indicated that contact with a person with a disability through community service learning was a factor in influencing participants’ willingness to enter the field of special education.

Keywords

recruitment retention community service learning

The special education teacher shortage has been characterized as pervasive, severe, and chronic (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2004). In total, 49 states have reported an overall scarcity of special education teachers, and 82% of special educators and service providers have reported feeling that there are not enough professionals to meet the needs of students with disabilities in their districts (National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services, n.d.). Overall, 98% of the nation’s school districts have special educator shortages, with 14 states reporting a shortage of personnel to assist students who are deaf or hearing impaired, 11 states reporting a shortage of personnel to work with students with learning disabilities, and 10 states reporting a shortage of personnel to work with students classified under the emotional disturbance category (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2003, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2014).

Although the demand for certified special educators has grown, fewer individuals have chosen to join the profession. The reauthorized Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) stated that all teacher preparation programs must set annual goals for increasing the number of prospective teachers trained in shortage areas, one of which is special education. Despite this federal push, the supply of teachers in general, and in special education specifically, has remained insufficient. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2015), following a small increase between the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 academic years, enrollment in traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs has steadily declined. Total enrollment for teacher preparation programs was at 719,081 in 2008-2009 and by 2012-2013 it had decreased to 499,800. Despite this diminishing supply, Hussar and Bailey (2013) projected that K-12 student enrollment in public schools would increase 6% between 2011 and 2022.

The discrepancy between supply and demand of special education teachers, which has tended to have one of the highest shares of vacancies within K-12 teaching, has persisted, as the number of individuals electing to pursue special education credentials has remained flat (Cowan, Goldhaber, Hayes, & Theobald, 2015). Thus, an insufficient number of future teachers are being prepared to meet the ongoing demand for qualified special educators, and the shortage of these teachers has remained greater than shortages in any other area, including math and science (McLeskey et al., 2004).

Recruitment and Retention

The growing demand for special educators is well documented, but there are an insufficient number of studies exploring effective recruitment methods. Nichols, Bicard, Bicard, and Casey (2008) cited several reasons why potential candidates are dissuaded from entering the profession, including, but not limited to, low salaries, lengthy preparation programs, and discouragement from counselors and parents. The authors address a more specific problem of needing to increase diversity in the teacher workforce, which is difficult considering that students of color are less likely to choose special education teaching as a career. A potential recruitment strategy is for teacher preparation programs to engage in community partnerships in ethnically diverse neighborhoods and adopt recruitment strategies that specifically target individuals with a variety of backgrounds and experiences (Nichols et al., 2008).

An oft-cited suggestion for recruitment is to begin early, even targeting middle and high schools (Fall, 2010; Nichols et al., 2008). Zascavage and Armstrong (2005) found that peer support groups and other opportunities for involvement with students with disabilities had a positive influence on high school students’ decisions to become special education majors in college. Once in their undergraduate collegiate years, students are more seriously considering potential career paths and making decisions regarding their majors of choice. In a study of 57 special education teachers who were asked about the factors that contributed to their pursuit of a special education career path, 45% of respondents had first become interested in teaching special education as undergraduate students (Fish & Stephens, 2009). Beginning recruitment efforts in middle and high school can help draw potential candidates toward the field, and providing additional recruitment strategies in the undergraduate years can provide reinforcement for earlier efforts as well as draw potential new candidates.

Zascavage et al. (2008) explored undergraduate recruitment efforts across eight universities. The authors found that the recruitment strategies implemented by the various universities included grants and scholarships, community outreach, and media advertisement. The study included 112 participants who were all majoring in special education, and they were surveyed as to what influenced their decision to choose their college major. The activity that participants ranked as the most influential was contact with a person with a disability, followed by peer support participation. Overall, 69% of respondents ranked contact with individuals with disabilities outside of school as the greatest influence on their decision to major in special education. Although some students have friends or family members with a disability or are exposed to individuals with disabilities through peer support programs, there are many undergraduate students who have little or no exposure to individuals with disabilities in their communities. Therefore, providing time with individuals with disabilities during students’ undergraduate education is perhaps an untapped recruitment strategy that could be a powerful influence on students’ decisions to pursue careers in the field of special education.

Recruitment during undergraduate years also holds potential for preventing attrition, which is more pronounced in special education and compounds the already anemic workforce entering the market from teacher preparation programs. Newton, Rivero, Fuller, and Dauter (2011) found that special educators were 52% more likely than general educators to leave the profession, and the problem is more pronounced in high-poverty schools. Teachers who enter the profession and persevere through the initial years in the classroom are likely those who have had previous experience working with K-12 children and have valued the personal rewards associated with teaching (Borgerding, 2015). Borgerding’s (2015) study on recruiting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) teachers, an area of teaching with similar severe shortages as special education, showed that recruiting these likely “persistors” into the field through undergraduate experiences holds promise. Of the undergraduates who participated in a STEM teaching internship program, those who reported finding it rewarding also reported an increase in their interest in teaching. Thus, providing undergraduate students with contact with individuals with disabilities in meaningful and rewarding ways can both increase the pool of special education teacher candidates and potentially prevent later attrition for those who do choose to enter the field.

Service Learning

One instructional method that can provide undergraduates with exposure to individuals with disabilities is community service learning. Service learning has become a central component of many higher education institutions’ efforts to connect learning in a particular discipline with a commitment to civic engagement (Felten & Clayton, 2011). A frequently cited definition of service learning is that it is

a course-based, credit-bearing education experience in which students (a) participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility. (Bringle, Hatcher, & McIntosh, 2006, p. 12)

Service learning can include short-term modules, semester or yearlong activities, as well as multiyear projects (Felten & Clayton, 2011). The hallmark of service learning is that it involves reciprocal relationships and provides conditions under which transformative learning can occur (Felten & Clayton, 2011).

The benefits of service learning are well documented in the literature. Service learning has been shown to impact feelings of civic responsibility (Brandes & Randall, 2011) and a sense of connectedness to community (Eyler, 2010). Astin et al. (2006) conducted a study including a national longitudinal sample of 8,474 students who participated in courses with embedded service experiences. The students were surveyed as entering freshmen in 229 colleges and universities in the fall of 1994, and they were surveyed again 10 years later. Results indicated the unique positive effects of service learning over and above the effect of volunteer service performed under other conditions. The effects were associated with the postcollege outcomes of civic leadership, charitable giving, and overall political engagement.

Several studies have examined various benefits of service learning in specific disciplinary areas. Seider, Gillmor, and Rabinowicz (2011), for example, investigated the impact of the SERVE program, in which undergraduates chose a community service project and volunteered 10 hours per week, on participants’ understanding of poverty. The authors found that, after participating in the SERVE program, business and nonbusiness majors demonstrated a greater understanding of the factors that contribute to poverty. In qualitative interviews, the business majors reported that their understanding of poverty would positively impact their future work in the business world. Seider, Rabinowicz, and Gillmor (2012) investigated various types of service placements and found that participants who volunteered with adults demonstrated larger increases in commitment to public service than those who volunteered with youth, though the participants who volunteered with youth were more likely to characterize themselves as having engaged in meaningful service.

A great advantage of service learning is that students are able to apply the skills they learn directly in a relevant environment. “Where skill acquisition is an integral part of education, service learning provides a real-life context in which students practice what they learn” (McCarthy & Tucker, 2002, p. 630). Werder and Strand (2011) assessed the effectiveness of service learning in an undergraduate public relations capstone course by measuring four student learning outcomes: practical skills, interpersonal skills, personal responsibility, and citizenship. The students’ perceptions of service learning benefits were high across all four outcomes, but the students believed that they gained the most experience in practical skills. In addition, the measure of practical skills was the strongest predictor of overall course effectiveness.

The effects of community service learning on various student outcomes within undergraduate courses related to individuals with disabilities have not yet been studied, but the acquisition of knowledge in tandem with opportunities for application could be quite powerful. By engaging in volunteer projects within the local community, undergraduate students who are learning about individuals with disabilities could see firsthand how services are actually provided within community and school settings, gain insights into the strengths of our schools and local agencies in supporting individuals with various disabilities, and potentially identify gaps in service and/or care. As part of the service learning experience, they would also reflect more deeply about how our society views and supports individuals with disabilities in becoming active and productive members of the community.

Purpose of the Study

The special education teacher shortage is severe, and it is incumbent upon our field to identify successful strategies for recruitment and retention. Research suggests that contact with a person with a disability is a powerful influence on individuals’ decisions to become special educators; providing undergraduate students—who are considering future career options—with opportunities for contact is an unexplored recruitment strategy. Community service learning has the potential to connect undergraduates with individuals with disabilities within their community and provide contact on a level that is both meaningful and rewarding. In this study, we sought to explore the influence of community service learning on undergraduates’ willingness to pursue careers as special education teachers. We also included related service providers in our research questions and analyses to capture individuals who would like to pursue careers in special education (e.g., as a paraprofessional, behavioral therapist, etc.), which involve serving students with disabilities in the school system. In this study, we attempted to answer the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Does taking a course with embedded service learning increase undergraduate students’ interest in becoming a special education teacher or related service provider?

Research Question 2: What factors influence undergraduates’ decisions to pursue careers in special education?

Method

Participants

A total of 134 undergraduate students from a large, diverse public university in Northern California participated in the study. Students were eligible to participate if they were enrolled in an introduction to disability course, which is required for students pursuing a special education minor and is also an upper division general elective course open to all majors. The scope of the course includes ways in which society defines, fosters, and understands children and adults with disabilities. The course also engages the broader topic of intergroup relationships and how disability is situated within social hierarchies. The purpose of the course is to prepare knowledgeable, insightful, and sensitive practitioners in education and related fields to advance the quality of educational experiences for all learners, including those with differing abilities, languages, and social and cultural backgrounds. For students who enroll in the course but do not intend on pursuing an occupation as a practitioner or direct service provider in special education, the course intends to validate the unique potential and perspective of every individual as a valued member of his or her community.

During the time of data collection, four sections of the course were offered, each taught by a different instructor. Students were recruited as participants from each of the four sections; a total of 35 students participated from Section 1, 32 from Section 2, 32 from Section 3, and 35 from Section 4. Of the 134 total participants, 90% were female (n = 120) and 10% were male (n = 14). The participants ranged in age from 18 to 47 years with a mean age of 22 years (SD = 4.8). The majority of participants were either in their third (n = 66) or fourth (n = 47) year in college. The majority of participants reported their college major to be Child and Adolescent Development (CAD; n = 35) or Communicative Disorders (CD; n = 51). The remaining 48 participants represented a wide variety of college majors including, but not limited to, Drama, Literature, American Studies, Biochemistry, Kinesiology, Art, Nursing, Journalism, and Criminal Justice.

The participants were asked whether they self-identified as a person with a disability, had an immediate family member with a disability, had a friend or extended family member with a disability, and whether they had any prior experience working (paid or volunteer) with individuals with disabilities. Of the 134 participants, 10% (n = 13) identified as a person with a disability and 90% (n = 121) did not identify as a person with a disability; 29% (n = 39) reported having an immediate family member with a disability and 71% (n = 95) did not; 55% (n = 73) of participants reported having a friend with a disability, 45% (n = 60) did not have a friend with a disability, and one participant elected not to respond; 60% (n = 80) of participants reported having prior experience working with individuals with disabilities, 40% (n = 53) did not, and one elected not to respond.

Measures

Demographic variables

Participants provided demographic information including age, gender, current major, and year in college. Participants were asked to respond yes or no to the aforementioned demographic questions related to their exposure to individuals with disabilities.

Strategic recruitment survey

The survey was adapted from a 21-item questionnaire developed by Zascavage et al. (2008) to acquire information on what most influenced students in their decision to choose special education as a major. The participants in the present study represented a variety of majors and were not limited to special education majors or minors. We adapted the survey to conform to our primary research question, which was whether students planned to pursue a career in special education. The first item of the survey asked participants whether they planned to teach or provide related services to individuals with disabilities upon graduation. Participants could respond yes, no, or unsure. If participants responded yes during the second administration of the survey (explained in detail in the subsequent section), they were instructed to move on to the next section, which asked participants to rank the five most influential factors in their decision to pursue an occupation teaching or providing related services to individuals with disabilities. Participants were asked to rank order the activities from 1 (least influential) to 5 (most influential). The activities included the following: videos/brochures, committee activities, tuition payments/scholarships, research grants, project expansion grants (working with a faculty member), technology/media, special education peer support group participation (e.g., Best Buddies), the service learning course’s content (i.e., lecture, in-class material), contact with a person with a disability through volunteering for the service learning course, and contact with a person with a disability not including community service completed for the course.

Procedure

After obtaining institutional review board approval, the first author visited each of the four sections of the course during the second week of the semester. The first week of instruction entailed review of the course syllabus and community service learning requirements; therefore, the instructors agreed that the second week of instruction would be appropriate for disseminating the survey (Time 1). It should be noted that participants had not yet received course content related to disability and had not begun community service hours at the time of the first survey dissemination. The first author gave a brief presentation in each section explaining the study’s purpose and procedures and obtained informed consent from interested students. If students agreed to participate, they were provided with a packet that included demographic questions and the first item of the survey, which asked whether they planned to teach or provide direct service to individuals with disabilities upon graduation. Participants were asked to write their student identification numbers on the first page of the packet. This information was not recorded or stored but was collected so that the presurveys and postsurveys could be matched. Students completed the surveys anonymously and were given as much time as needed to answer the questions. Completed surveys were returned directly to the first author and were not seen by each section’s instructor.

Participating students completed all requirements of the introduction to disability course, including the community service learning component. During each week of the semester, instructors provided content and related activities covering the following topics: perspectives on the historical treatment of individuals with disabilities; federal laws, regulations, and litigation related to individuals with disabilities; working with families who are culturally and linguistically diverse; Individualized Education Programs (IEPs); early intervention; universal design for learning; positive behavior support; and disability-specific information for eligibility designations such as autism, specific learning disabilities, intellectual disability, and visual impairment. The instructors collaborated on their course content and instructional methods such that the included content, in-class activities, and assignments were consistent across sections.

The service learning component of the course involved a minimum of 20 hours of community service in a local school, agency, or organization that serves individuals with disabilities. Students were able to select a service location of their choice from a list of approved community and school partners. Though undergraduate students had flexibility in their choice of location, and the service activities varied by organization, all participating students were required to have direct contact with individuals with disabilities. Some service options included a local recreation and rehabilitation center that provided recreational, vocational, and educational opportunities for adults, children, teens, and seniors with disabilities; a nonprofit organization that paired undergraduates with children in local elementary schools who needed an intensive reading intervention; and a community organization that provided recreational and educational opportunities for individuals with visual impairments and physical disabilities. All the approved community and school partners were located in diverse, urban settings.

Participants also reflected on their community service experiences, as required by the course’s service learning component. All students enrolled in the course were required to complete three journal entries: one due at the beginning of their service, one at the halfway point, and one at the end. During the early stages of their service, students were asked to objectively report what was happening, state the population being served, and describe relationships that were forming. At the halfway point, students were prompted to write about what they had learned thus far and any differences the experience had made in their thinking or learning. The final journal prompt asked students to reflect on the broader implications of the service experience, including how they would think or act in the future as a result of the experience.

During the final week of the semester, the first author returned to each of the four sections and disseminated a new packet, which included a first page with the student’s identification number and the study’s measures. During this survey administration (Time 2), if participants responded yes to the question asking whether they intended to teach or provide direct services to individuals with disabilities upon graduation, they were instructed to move on to the next section, which included the rank ordering of activities that most influenced their decision. Participants were given as much time as needed to complete the items. After all surveys were collected, they were matched with the presurveys and assigned a numeric code; the first pages with the students’ identification numbers were destroyed. No personally identifying information was recorded or retained in any of this study’s data.

Data Analyses

The first research question inquired about the effect of the service learning course on undergraduate students’ willingness to become a special education teacher or related service provider. Participants were asked at the beginning (Time 1) and end of the course (Time 2) whether they were interested in pursuing a career as a special education teacher or related service provider upon graduation. Students could respond yes, no, or unsure. A no response was assigned a code of 0, unsure was assigned a code of 1, and yes was assigned 2. As this dependent variable was on an ordinal scale, the Wilcoxon signed-rank nonparametric analysis was used to determine whether there was a significant change in participants’ responses from Time 1 to Time 2. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the nonparametric equivalent to the dependent samples t test, is an appropriate analysis for investigating any change in scores from one time point to another for data that is not on an equal interval scale. To analyze the second research question, descriptive analyses were conducted to determine the frequency with which participants ranked the aforementioned activities as influencing their decision at Time 2 to become a special education teacher or related service provider. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 24.0.

Results

To analyze whether the service learning course had an effect on undergraduates’ decisions to pursue a career as a special education teacher or related service provider, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted; the results were significant, z = −2.57, p < .05. Of the 134 total participants, 31 changed their responses from Time 1 to Time 2 in a positive direction meaning that they moved from a no response at Time 1 to unsure at Time 2 or from an unsure response to yes. Thirteen participants changed their responses from Time 1 to Time 2 in a negative direction; these participants moved from a yes response to unsure or unsure to no. Eighty-seven participants did not change their responses from Time 1 to Time 2.

The frequency of participant responses in the yes, unsure, and no categories, overall, can be seen in Table 1. At Time 1, 51.5% of participants (n = 69) responded yes to the question of whether they planned to become special education teachers or related service providers, 38.1% (n = 51) of participants responded unsure, and 10.4% (n = 14) responded no. Of the 69 yes responses at Time 1, seven moved in a negative direction at Time 2: five participants changed to unsure and two changed to no. Of the 51 unsure responses at Time 1, 26 changed directions at Time 2: six became no responses and 20 changed to yes. Of the 14 no responses at Time 1, 11 changed at Time 2: six became unsure and five responded yes. At Time 2, the number of yes responses increased to 64.9% (n = 87), the number of unsure responses decreased to 26.9% (n = 36), and the number of no responses decreased to 8.2% (n = 11).

Table 1.

Number of Participants Planning to Pursue Careers in Special Education by Major.

	Time 1		Time 2
	n	%	n	%
Communicative Disorders
Yes	47	92.2	49	96.0
Unsure	3	5.8	1	2.0
No	1	2.0	1	2.0
Child and Adolescent Development
Yes	3	8.6	14	40.0
Unsure	25	71.4	15	42.9
No	7	20.0	6	17.1
Other Majors
Yes	19	39.6	24	50.0
Unsure	23	47.9	20	41.7
No	6	12.5	4	8.3
Overall
Yes	69	51.5	87	64.9
Unsure	51	38.1	36	26.9
No	14	10.4	11	8.2

Table 1 also displays the frequency of participant responses in each category disaggregated by major. We report frequencies for CD and CAD, as these two majors involve the study of typical and atypical development and prepare students to enter careers working directly with children and adolescents. In addition, these two majors are the closest to education-related fields, as the university from which the sample is drawn does not offer Education or Special Education as a major. CD prepares students to provide services to individuals with disabilities, and the vast majority of students in this major responded yes that they planned to teach or provide related services to individuals with disabilities upon graduation at both Time 1 (92.2%) and Time 2 (96%). Fewer of the CAD majors reported that they intended to pursue a career in special education or a related field at Time 1 (8.6%), and most were unsure (71.4%). At Time 2, however, 14 CAD majors responded yes (40.0%), and only 15 responded unsure (42.9%). The Other Majors category includes all other noneducation related majors including, but not limited to, Drama, English, Humanities, Journalism, Sociology, Biochemistry, and Political Science. In this group, 19 responded yes at Time 1 (39.6%), 23 were unsure (47.9%), and six responded no (12.5%). At Time 2, 24 responded yes (50.0%), 20 were unsure (41.7%), and four responded no (8.3%). For all three groups, there was an increase in yes responses from Time 1 to Time 2 and a decrease in unsure responses from Time 1 to Time 2. For CAD and Other Majors, there was also a decrease in no responses from Time 1 to Time 2.

At Time 2, participants who indicated yes to the question of whether they planned to pursue a career teaching or providing related services to individuals with disabilities were asked to rank order items that had the most influence on their decision. Of the 87 participants who provided a yes response at Time 2, three did not provide rankings for items and 10 completed the section incorrectly. Of the three participants who did not provide rankings, one participant wrote none beneath the options, indicating that something other than the activities listed influenced his or her decision to pursue special education or a related career. The 10 participants who completed the section incorrectly did so by providing rankings for all items listed rather than selecting the top five most influential; as multiple items were assigned the same score, we were unable to directly interpret the scores and therefore could not include them in the analysis. A total of 74 participants provided valid data; we did not include the invalid data from four participants in Section 1, three in Section 2, four in Section 3, and two in Section 4.

Participants selected the top five items out of 10 and rank ordered those five items on a scale from 1 (least influential) to 5 (most influential). The three items most frequently selected as having influenced the participants’ decisions were contact with a person with a disability through volunteering for the service learning course (n = 66), the course’s content (i.e., lecture and in-class material; n = 64), and contact with a person with a disability not including community service completed for the course (n = 61). The items least frequently selected as influencing participants’ decisions were research grants (i.e., research in special education; n = 9) and project expansion grants (working with a faculty member; n = 5).

Table 2 includes the frequency with which participants ranked each of the items on a scale from 1 (least influential) to 5 (most influential) at Time 2. The item most frequently ranked as the most influential (score of 5) was contact with a person with a disability outside of the course (n = 23, 31.1%) followed by contact with a person with a disability through volunteering for the course (n = 15, 20.3%) and the course’s content (n = 13, 17.5%). Contact with a person with a disability through volunteering for the course was frequently ranked as the second most influential (4 out of 5; n = 25, 33.8%). The service learning course’s content (lectures and in-class material) was frequently ranked as the second (n = 16, 21.6%) and third (n = 17, 23.0%) most influential item. The other items that participants ranked as having somewhat of an influence on their decision were special education peer support group participation, technology/media, and videos or brochures.

Table 2.

Participant Rankings of Items From Least Influential to Most at Time 2.

Activity	Least influential								Most influential
	1		2		3		4		5
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Videos, brochures	15	20.3	8	10.8	10	13.5	7	9.5	2	2.7
Committee activities	11	14.9	6	8.1	4	5.4	5	6.8	3	4.1
Tuition payments/scholarships	7	9.5	5	6.8	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	4.1
Research grants (research in special education)	3	4.1	0	0.0	4	5.4	2	2.7	0	0.0
Project expansion grants (working with a faculty member)	2	2.7	1	1.4	1	1.4	0	0.0	1	1.4
Technology/media—seeing a presentation	7	9.5	13	17.6	5	6.8	4	5.4	9	12.2
Special education peer support group participation (e.g., Best Buddies, Special Olympics)	4	5.4	13	17.6	13	17.6	6	8.1	4	5.4
The service learning course’s content (lecture, in-class material)	5	6.8	13	17.6	17	23.0	16	21.6	13	17.6
Contact with a person with a disability through volunteering for the course	8	10.8	8	10.8	10	13.5	25	33.8	15	20.3
Contact with a person with a disability (not including community service completed for the course)	11	14.9	7	9.5	10	13.5	10	13.5	23	31.1

Discussion

Results of this study suggest that service learning courses related to the study of individuals with disabilities can influence undergraduate students’ willingness to enter the field of special education. The change in decisions from Time 1 to Time 2 was statistically significant, and the results are also meaningfully and practically significant for informing the strategic recruitment of individuals to the field. Most of the undergraduate students who did not consider a career in special education prior to the course responded at the end of the course that they did wish to pursue a career teaching or providing a related service to individuals with disabilities or were at least considering it. For these students, the knowledge acquired through the course and exposure to individuals with disabilities in a variety of settings allowed them to consider a career path they may not have otherwise. The number of unsure responses also decreased with many undergraduates solidifying a yes position after taking the course.

The service learning course was an influential factor in participants’ willingness to enter the field, but it may also have dissuaded some participants, as evidenced by the negative direction change for 13 respondents. This result is encouraging as it indicates that the experience of the service learning course resulted in some undergraduate students changing their minds about becoming special education teachers or related service providers. Though we want to recruit individuals to the field, we also want to provide opportunities for individuals to discover that the career path may not be well suited for them prior to assuming their professional roles. Rather than expending resources training special education teachers and related service providers and investing in mentoring and support only to have them leave the field, it would be prudent to provide early field experiences for students to determine their fit prior to embarking on a preparation program. Service learning courses at the undergraduate level have the advantage of enabling undergraduates to contribute to their community while simultaneously determining whether their strengths and interests are conducive to the type of work they are doing.

It should be noted that many students came into the course with an interest in a future career in special education. Overall, 64% of the participants were CAD majors, who typically want to work with early childhood and school-aged populations though not necessarily in special education, or CD majors who typically intend on becoming speech–language pathologists. For some undergraduate students, the decision to embark on a particular career path is made prior to or very early in their collegiate years. A service learning course can be an influential recruitment method for undergraduate students, but providing similar opportunities even earlier than college could also be a powerful influence. In addition, the impact of the course on students majoring in nonrelated fields is encouraging as previous research suggests that drawing potential candidates from a variety of backgrounds increases the diversity of the special education teacher workforce (Nichols et al., 2008). Students majoring in a variety of fields can bring their knowledge and experiences to their future teaching careers.

In this study, undergraduate students most frequently identified contact with a person with a disability—both within and outside of the service learning course—as the activity that most influenced their decision to pursue a career in special education. Results of this study corroborate previous findings that contact with a person with a disability strongly influenced undergraduates’ decision to choose special education as a major (Zascavage et al., 2008). What is perhaps more surprising is that undergraduates also identified the service learning course’s content as highly influential to their decision. This provides support for the integration of service learning within a course related to disability so that content and application are meaningfully connected. Contact alone may be a powerful recruitment tool, but providing knowledge in tandem with opportunities to connect with individuals with disabilities in rewarding and positive ways may be more effective.

Service learning has documented benefits, but in this study, we make the case that it can build the field of special education in positive ways. Creating courses related to disability that include service learning components, or adding service learning to existing courses, provides undergraduate students with both knowledge of and experience with special populations. Undergraduate students who serve individuals with disabilities in a variety of settings within their communities have the opportunity to see firsthand available career options related to individuals with disabilities. In this study, the service learning experience was a factor in many students’ decisions to pursue careers as special education teachers or related service providers. The course’s content also influenced undergraduate students’ decisions to choose a future career in special education. Thus, courses with embedded service learning components may be advantageous recruitment tools.

Limitations

Although the sample of undergraduate students in this study was large and diverse, it represents only one institute of higher education. Future studies should include undergraduate students from colleges and universities in various locations throughout the United States. Future studies would also benefit from a more balanced sample of males and females, though, currently, more females than males pursue careers in teaching. In addition, this study is limited by the absence of a control group. Due to the integration of service learning in all offered sections of the course, a control group at the university was not available. We are unable to say whether the community service component alone, the course content alone, or the integration of both impacted participants’ change in decision from Time 1 to Time 2. Future studies could include other institutions that have similar introduction to disability courses without the service learning component for comparison purposes.

In this study, we have additional limitations related to the administration of the measures. First, 10 participants did not complete the survey correctly, which suggests that they did not understand the instructions for rank ordering influential items. In the future, the instructions should be clarified to ensure that participants understand what is asked of them. Second, we did not collect data on influential factors at Time 1 so we are unable to determine which factors influenced participants’ desire to pursue special education or a related field prior to the service learning course experience. Finally, one participant noted that none of the activities listed influenced his or her decision, which suggests that we may have overlooked an activity that could potentially influence participants. An “Other” item could be added in the future to allow participants to write in any activities not included in the provided list.

Future Directions

In this study, we investigated community service learning at the college level, but it would be beneficial to examine ways in which meaningful contact with persons with disabilities could be achieved even earlier. Future studies could explore course offerings and volunteer experiences at the high school level and the impact of those on students’ career choices. At the undergraduate level, it would be advantageous to design service learning courses related to disability and make them accessible to students from a variety of majors. Future research could explore the impact of service learning on attitudes toward disability, interest in special education as a career, and the effect of service learning on students pursuing majors other than those related to the study of typical and atypical child and adolescent development. Future research could also explore demographic factors, such as having an immediate family member with a disability, as moderators that may weaken or strengthen participants’ interest in pursuing a career related to the service of individuals with disabilities.

The field of special education would benefit from continued research on the impact of service learning, especially, in varied contexts and settings. Future studies could include group versus individual service, type of disability, and ages of individuals with disabilities as variables. Future studies could also examine the aspects of service learning that most positively impact undergraduate students. Finally, in this study, we investigated recruitment, but future research should also investigate the impact of service learning on retention. Longitudinal studies could examine whether individuals who participate in service learning enter the field of special education and remain longer than their peers. Overall, service learning could provide tremendous benefit to the field of special education in a variety of ways, and continued research will elucidate the ways in which this recruitment activity could be built upon for the purposes of recruitment and retention.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Janelle E. Lawson earned her PhD in special education from a joint doctoral program between University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) and is an assistant professor of special education (mild/moderate disabilities) at San Francisco State University (SFSU). Prior to entering the doctoral program, she taught students with mild/moderate disabilities at a comprehensive public high school, and she has been committed to supporting special education teachers through her research efforts.

Allison R. Firestone is a PhD student in the University of California, Berkeley, and SFSU’s joint doctoral program in special education. Prior to beginning her doctoral studies, she earned a master’s degree in special education from the University of Oregon and worked as a special education teacher at the elementary school level. Her research interests include special education teacher preparation, knowledge acquisition.

References

Astin

A. W.

Vogelgesang

L. J.

Misa

Anderson

Denson

Jayakumar

. . . Yamamura

(2006). Understanding the effects of service-learning: A study of students and faculty. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://www.skidmore.edu/community_service/documents/Astin.pdf

Billingsley

B. S.

McLeskey

(2004). Critical issues in special education teacher supply and demand: Overview. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 2-4. doi:10.1177/00224669040380010101

Borgerding

L. A.

(2015). Recruitment of early STEM majors into possible secondary science teaching careers: The role of science education summer internships. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10, 247-270. doi:10.12973/ijese.2015.244a

Brandes

Randall

(2011). Service learning and civic responsibility: Assessing aggregate and individual level change. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23, 20-29.

Bringle

R. G.

Hatcher

J. A.

McIntosh

R. E.

(2006). Analyzing Morton’s typology of service paradigms and integrity. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13, 5-15.

Cowan

Goldhaber

Hayes

Theobald

(2015). Missing elements in the discussion of teacher shortages. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/missing-elements-discussion-teacher-shortages

Eyler

(2010). What international service learning research can learn from research on service learning. In Bringle

R. G.

Hatcher

J. A.

Jones

S. G.

(Eds.), IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research. International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (Vol. 2, pp. 225-242). Sterling, VA: Sylus.

Fall

A. M.

(2010). Recruiting and retaining highly qualified special education teachers for high-poverty districts and schools: Recommendations for educational leaders. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 76-83.

Felten

Clayton

P. H.

(2011). Service-learning. In Buskist

Groccia

(Eds.), Evidence-based teaching: New directions for teaching and learning (pp. 75-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.470

10.

Fish

W. W.

Stephens

T. L.

(2009). Special education: A career of choice. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 400-407. doi:10.1177/0741932509355961

11.

Higher Education Opportunity Act, H.R. 4137, 110th Cong. (2008).

12.

Hussar

W. J.

Bailey

T. M.

(2013). Projections of Education Statistics to 2022 (NCES 2014-051). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014051.pdf

13.

McCarthy

A. M.

Tucker

M. L.

(2002). Encouraging community service through service learning. Journal of Management Education, 26, 629-647.

14.

McLeskey

Tyler

N. C.

Flippin

S. S.

(2003). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the nature of chronic shortage of special education. Gainesville, FL: Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. Retrieved from http://copsse.education.ufl.edu/docs/RS-1/1/RS-1.pdf

15.

McLeskey

Tyler

N. C.

Flippin

S. S.

(2004). The supply and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 5-21. doi:10.1177/0224669040380010201

16.

National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services (n.d). Special education personnel shortages factsheet. Retrieved from http://specialedshortages.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NCPSSERS-Fact-Sheet.pdf

17.

Newton

X. A.

Rivero

Fuller

Dauter

(2011). Teacher stability and turnover in Los Angeles: The influence of teacher and school characteristics (Working paper). Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California, Berkeley.

18.

Nichols

S. M. C.

Bicard

S. C.

Bicard

D. F.

Casey

L. B.

(2008). A field at risk: The teacher shortage in special education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 597-600.

19.

Seider

S. C.

Gillmor

S. C.

Rabinowicz

S. A.

(2011). The impact of community service learning upon the worldviews of business majors versus non-business majors at an American university. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 485-503.

20.

Seider

S. C.

Rabinowicz

S. A.

Gillmor

S. C.

(2012). Differential outcomes for American college students engaged in community service-learning involving youth and adults. Journal of Experiential Education, 35, 447-463. doi:10/5193/JEE35.3.447

21.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2014). Teacher shortage areas, nationwide listing, 1990-1991 through 2014-2015. Retrieved from http://fa.nmsu.edu/files/2015/12/TeacherShortageAreas.doc

22.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2015). Higher Education Act, title II reporting system. Retrieved from https://title2.ed.gov/public/44077_Title_II_Issue_Brief_Enrollment_V4a.pdf

23.

Werder

K. P.

Strand

(2011). Measuring student outcomes: An assessment of service-learning in the public relations campaigns course. Public Relations Review, 37, 478-484.

24.

Zascavage

Armstrong

(2005, December). The significance of peer support group formation to special education teacher recruitment. Paper presented at the 2005 TASH Conference, Phoenix, AZ.

25.

Zascavage

Schroeder-Steward

Armstrong

Marrs-Buttler

Winterman

Zascavage

M. L.

(2008). Considerations for the strategic recruitment of special educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 207-221.