A COMPENDIUM OF SCALES for use in the SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

course. Pretest and posttest surveys are usually administered to students in a course with a
service component and compared to those in a course without a service component to
measure changes before and after service. This pre-post methodology may gloss over what
actually happens within the service experience, because it does not measure changes or detect
processes that occur while engaged in service (Boyle-Baise, 2002; Wang & Jackson, 2005).
In contrast, qualitative methods have identified the processes associated with the development
of cultural awareness (Rockquemore & Shaffer, 2000; Root et al., 2002) and social, community
and civic responsibility (Battistoni, 2002; Eyler, 2009). Qualitative research has been criticized
for relying on small samples of White, middle-class students and analytic techniques (i.e.,
ethnographic, focus groups) that make replication difficult (Boyle-Baise, 2002). The uniqueness
of the service context further limits the researchers’ ability to generalize the findings (Simons et
al., 2012). It is important to recognize that there is a trade-off between external and internal
validity in assessment methods of service-learning (Wang, Kelly, & Hritsuk, 2003). However, one
area that has received substantially less attention in the literature is service-learning and civic
engagement measures (i.e., scales). Although scholars have developed measures to assess
service-learning impacts, most of them have constructed single items to assess student
learning. In fact, Bringle, Phillips, and Hudson (2004) suggest that the development and
implementation of multiple-item measures are necessary if the field of service-learning is to
advance. The use of reliable and valid measures to assess service impacts (i.e., civic
engagement) may be the next step in the advancement of this area of scholarship. The purpose
of this chapter is to describe service-learning and civic engagement measures and distinguish
between those with and without psychometric evidence.
Method
Search Strategy
A comprehensive search of service-learning measures was conducted using electronic
databases search such as Ebscohost and ERIC. Keywords including service-learning, civic
engagement, social responsibility, civic attitudes, knowledge and skills, and community
engagement surveys, measures, instruments, and scales were used in this search. The search
led to a small number of scholarly publications. A broader search was conducted using Google
Scholar. This search identified different publication sources, including conference proceedings,
books, and journals (i.e., Teaching and Learning, Higher Education). Few peer-review or
scholarly journals were devoted solely to service-learning and civic engagement. The
publication sources identified from the Google search was compared to those identified on the
National Service-Learning Clearinghouse (NSLC) website (2015). The NSLC website listed 11
sources, but only seven of them include a peer review process for publication. The peer review
process differs and can be more rigorous for journals than for conference proceedings or edited
volumes. To limit the scope of the review process, only articles were reviewed that were
published in the Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning (MJCSL). The MJCSL is a
premier journal in the area of service-learning and community engagement. The goals of this
journal are to encourage scholarship on community engagement, contribute to the intellectual
103