University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring student motivations toward civic engagement: an application of expectancy-value theory

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring student motivations toward civic engagement: an application of expectancy-value theory

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
EXPLORING STUDENT MOTIVATIONS TOWARD
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: AN APPLICATION OF
EXPECTANCY-VALUE THEORY
by
Melissa A. Gaeke
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION)
May 2009
Copyright 2009 Melissa A. Gaeke

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother, Dorothy M. Kelley, who
taught me the importance of being involved and making a difference. Her quiet way
of contributing to the issues she cared about was a source of great inspiration.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Terry L. Cooper, dissertation chair, and
to Dr. Richard Sundeen and Dr. Ann Crigler, committee members. I am very grate-
ful for their excellent guidance, constructive criticism, and extremely valuable sup-
port at every stage of my doctoral studies. Over the years, I also had the pleasure of
working with each of them on various research and teaching projects, where I
observed and learned from their excellent craftsmanship.
A special acknowledgment must be paid to Dr. Jo Ann Farver, who spent
countless hours with me providing both exceptional counsel and friendship as I
pursue my course of inquiry.
I am indebted to Dr. Juliet Musso, Dr. Chris Weare, and Alicia Kitsuse,
along with the staff of the Neighborhood Participation Project for reigniting my
commitment to the study of civic engagement. My deepest thanks go to Dr. Musso,
who taught me many invaluable lessons in research, inquiry, and scholarship. I also
appreciate that she helped me find the beauty of the ugly first draft.
This work would not have been possible without the support of Dr. Amy
Johnson and the leadership of the Division of Student Affairs at the University of
Southern California (USC). I am indebted for their unwavering support. I am
grateful to the numerous colleagues who assisted in reaching students and whose
assistance made the data collection possible and even pleasurable.
I have been fortunate to have many exceptional teachers and mentors,
particularly Dr. Jill Kreutzer of Colorado State University and Dr. Elizabeth Durbin
of New York University. I acknowledge them for their inspiration, insight, and

iv
support, and I thank them for their commitment to making a difference in my
studies.
During my years at USC, many people have provided a supportive network
and, more important, friendship: Dr. Nail Oztas, Dr. Mark Velez, and Joseph Roth.
I cherish their friendship and I am indebted for their support and for making our
time at USC memorable.
My entire family has provided unlimited love and emotional support: my
mother, Melinda Gaeke; my brother, Albert Gaeke; my sister, Kelly Mobeck; and
immediate family members Shannon Bowen, Lynn Bowen, Mary and Russ Doyle,
Michael and Josephine Kelley, Nancy Kelley and Dan Kelley and Paul Gaeke. I am
forever grateful for their confidence in my abilities and limitless support and
encouragement. Finally, I thank many life-long friends: Debby Crooks, Vasilis
Karapanayiotis, Dianne and Tyrone Fields, Julia Mudarri, and Greg Spencer. I am
grateful to each of them for all of the help that they provided and counsel that they
offered at each stage of this project and for everything that they have shared with
me over the years.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ ix
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. x
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 9
Democracy Requires Participation ............................................................... 10
Motivation .................................................................................................... 12
Political Efficacy .................................................................................... 13
Expectancy-Value Theory ...................................................................... 14
Motivation Toward Civic Engagement .................................................. 17
Capacity for Civic Engagement .................................................................... 17
Civic Skills ............................................................................................. 18
Civic Interest........................................................................................... 19
Preparation for Civic Engagement ............................................................... 21
Socialization ........................................................................................... 21
School-Based Socialization and Learning .............................................. 23
Capacity Building Outside the Classroom .............................................. 25
Curriculum-Based Capacity Building .................................................... 26
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................... 33
Survey Development and Participant Recruitment ...................................... 35
Pilot Phase .............................................................................................. 35
Participant Recruitment .......................................................................... 37
The Survey Instrument ................................................................................. 40
Measures ....................................................................................................... 44
Dependent Variables ............................................................................... 44
Independent Variables ............................................................................ 45
Survey Coding ........................................................................................ 45
Analytic Methods ......................................................................................... 45
Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................. 47
Correlation Analysis ............................................................................... 47
Mixed Between-Within Subjects ANOVA ............................................ 47
t Tests ...................................................................................................... 48
Regression Analysis ............................................................................... 48

vi
Chapter 4: RESULTS ........................................................................................... 49
Preliminary Analyses .................................................................................... 49
Independence of Observations ................................................................ 49
Normal Distribution ................................................................................ 50
Homogeneity of Variance ....................................................................... 50
Type 1 Error and Type 2 Error ............................................................... 51
Multivariate Normality ........................................................................... 51
Equality of Covariance Matrices ............................................................ 51
Multiple Regression Assumptions .......................................................... 52
Scale Reliability ...................................................................................... 52
Pretest and Posttest Correlations ............................................................ 52
Statistical Analyses ....................................................................................... 53
Difference Between Groups Prior to Participation in a Civic
Activity (Time 1) .............................................................................. 55
Impact of Participation in Civic Activities on Motivational
Constructs Engagement Over Time .................................................. 57
Further Explanation of Group Differences ............................................. 63
Explaining the Variation in College Students’ Expectancy for
Future Civic Engagement ................................................................. 64
Discussion ..................................................................................................... 72
Chapter 5: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 76
Findings as Related to the Hypotheses ......................................................... 77
Students Are Different Before They Participate in Civic
Activities ........................................................................................... 77
Participation in Civic Activities Will Make a Difference Over
Time .................................................................................................. 78
Motivational Constructs Predict Civic Engagement .............................. 78
Participation in a Civic Activity Predicts Expectation for Future
Civic Engagement............................................................................. 79
Themes.......................................................................................................... 79
Expectancy-Value Theory Works to Explain Expectation for
Future Civic Engagement ................................................................. 80
Prospective Studies Can Assess Future Civic Engagement ................... 81
Utility and Civic Education .................................................................... 82
Structured Learning and Civic Education .............................................. 83
Peers and Civic Education ...................................................................... 85
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................... 87
Recommendations ........................................................................................ 88
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................. 88
Opportunities for Civic Education Practice ............................................ 91
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 94
APPENDICES

A. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE
(CEMQ) ................................................................................................... 99

vii
B. ORIGINAL QUESTIONS FROM WIGFIELD AND ECCLES,
WITH ORIGINAL FACTOR LOADING SCORES AND
SCALE RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ............................................ 111

C. DISCUSSION OF TESTS UTILIZED IN DATA ANALYSIS ............ 112

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: University-Sponsored Civic Activities ................................................ 34
Table 2: Distribution of Individual Groups Within Student Organization
Civic Activity ..................................................................................... 36
Table 3: Sample Size and Response Rate .......................................................... 37
Table 4: Frequencies and Percentages of Characteristics of Student
Respondents by Civic Activity ............................................................ 39
Table 5: Prior Civic Involvement by Civic Activity .......................................... 41
Table 6: Sample of Motivational Subscale Items .............................................. 43
Table 7: Variables by Measurement and Value ................................................. 46
Table 8: Reliability Statistics for the Motivation Subscales .............................. 53
Table 7: Relationships Among the Variables .................................................... 51
Table 8: Comparison of Motivation Constructs by Civic Activities
at Time 1 .............................................................................................. 53
Table 9: Relationships Among the Variables .................................................... 54
Table 10: Comparison of Motivation Constructs by Civic Activities
at Time 1 .............................................................................................. 56
Table 11: Comparison of Ability Scores Across Time by Civic Activity ........... 58
Table 12: Comparison of Interest Scores Across Time by Civic Activity .......... 59
Table 13: Comparison of Utility Scores Across Time by Civic Activity ............ 60
Table 14: Results of Independent Samples t Tests .............................................. 64
Table 15: Model Summaries for Hierarchical Regression Models ...................... 66
Table 16: Predictors of Expectancy for Future Civic Engagement at Time 1 ..... 67
Table 17: Predictors of Expectancy for Future Civic Engagement at Time 2 ..... 68
Table 18: Predictors of Expectancy for Future Civic Engagement at Time 3 ..... 69

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Ability motivational subscale scores over time ................................... 62
Figure 2: Interest motivational subscale scores over time .................................. 62
Figure 3: Utility motivational subscale scores over time .................................... 62

x
ABSTRACT
This dissertation explored the influence of participation in university-
sponsored civic activities on four aspects of motivation: future expectancy, sense of
ability, interest and utility. This study draws on previous research on service
learning, civic engagement, and student development. The essential thrust of this
research was to examine the underlying relationships between each of several
motivational constructs and the expectation of participating in civic engagement
activities in the future. In addition, the relative impact of participation in a variety
of civic activities, both at baseline and over time, was examined, as was the
strength of the motivational constructs to predict a student’s expectancy for future
civic engagement. This dissertation adds to the civic engagement literature by
examining how young adults benefit from participation in a variety of civic activi-
ties available to them on a college campus, including work in student government,
involvement in civic-oriented student organizations, service learning programs, and
other experiential civic engagement programs. It was hypothesized that participa-
tion in these programs will increase motivation toward future civic engagement.
Data were collected from undergraduate students engaged in a variety of
civic opportunities and from a control group. The analyses focused on four
questions that examined the relationships among the variables and highlighted
pathways for future research and programmatic improvements. This research has
demonstrated that it is possible to categorize civic engagement into a variety of
“civic tasks,” such as fundraising for a social cause, persuading others during an
election, working informally with others to accomplish something in the com-
munity, or tutoring children. Respondents were asked to comment on their sense of

xi
ability, interest in, and utility of each of the variables. The variables predicted
anticipated future civic activity. Finally, these data demonstrate that students who
participate in these sorts of civic activities are impacted by the activities and that
the activities make an impact on the students’ development. Recommendations for
future scholarship and practice are discussed.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
For more than 250 years, Americans have shared a vision of a democracy in
which all citizens understand, appreciate, and engage actively in civic and
political life—taking responsibility for building communities, contributing
their diverse talents and energies to solve local and national problems,
deliberating about public issues, influencing public policy, voting, and
pursuing the common good. (Carnegie Corporation of New York and
Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement
[CIRCLE], 2003), p. 4)
Preparing to take on the responsibilities of the citizen role, as described in
the passage above, requires not only personal commitment but also the opportunity
to learn, practice and master specific skills, all the while cultivating essential beliefs
and attitudes. Many scholars have documented the essential civic skills that are
necessary for effective engagement in political and civic life. Mary Kirlin (2003)
has been at the forefront of analyzing the developmental processes through which
young people develop and acquire these skills. Youniss, McLellan, and Yates
(1997) examined the more subjective aspects of a young person’s development of
civic identity and focused on the development of prosocial behaviors and moral
identities. These scholars were motivated to understand what facilitates a person’s
interest in civic engagement and asked questions such as, Is civic engagement
based on a strong moral imperative or identity? Or do people have a civic identity
that promotes civic behaviors? The aim of these inquires has been to understand
what promotes a person’s eventual political and civic engagement.
While young people are beginning to show signs of increased interest in
politics (Sax et al., 2003), coupled with high rates of volunteerism, questions
remain regarding how best to prepare youth for participation and civic engagement.
Educators and scholars such as John Dewey, James Youniss, Mary Kirlin, and

2
Scott Keener have suggested that youth gain participatory skills from their involve-
ment in organizations that allow for collective decision making and encourage the
development of civic skills that are believed to make a difference in a person’s
capacity for civic engagement. This sense of experiential learning or service learn-
ing has framed much of the recent trends in civic education, a topic that is reviewed
in detail in chapter 2.
The purpose of this study was to explore the strength of participation in
civic activities and investigate the influence of that participation on four individual
aspects of motivation: future expectancy, sense of ability, interest, and utility.
Involvement in service learning programs, interaction with peers, and out-of-class
opportunities, along with other civic activities, were investigated. The results of the
study will add to the civic engagement literature by examining how young adults
benefit from participation in a variety of university-sponsored civic activities avail-
able to them on campus, including student government, civic-oriented student
organizations, service learning programs, and other experiential civic engagement
programs. It was hypothesized that participation in these programs would increase
motivation toward future civic engagement.
The work reported in this dissertation relied on the belief that it is necessary
to cultivate requisite skills, attitudes, and behaviors at an early age. It was assumed
that, if successful, society will benefit from greater involvement and engagement
from its citizenry. Many civic education scholars, notably Youniss et al. (1997),
have suggested that many institutions, particularly schools, have an obligation to
promote engagement and prepare young citizens for civic life. Proponents of civic
education are not limited to the field of education; there are those in public
administration who argue for cultivating an educated citizenry. Advocates of

3
increased citizen involvement suggest that citizens must have opportunities to
participate in broad-based decision making. For instance, in The Rebirth of Urban
Democracy (Berry, Portney, & Thompson, 1993) the authors noted that attention
should be paid to how citizens are prepared to assume their roles and participate in
governance. The authors argued that the notion that citizens will participate if
opportunities are created is “naïve” and asserted that opportunities do not auto-
matically produce a more engaged and informed citizenry. They recommended that
opportunities to participate be paired with increased efforts to socialize and educate
citizens.
The emphasis on civic education and preparing young people for their role
as “citizens” is relevant to this dissertation because the focus is on student develop-
ment or, as a scholar remarked at a recent conference, the development of our
apprentice citizens. Embedded in this idea is the belief that there should be oppor-
tunities for citizens to express their preferences in public decisions, elect decision
makers, and participate in government. Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995)
discussed this notion in their seminal work on civic engagement;
No democratic nation—certainly not the United States—lives up to the
ideal of participatory equality. Some citizens are active: they vote or engage
in more demanding forms of participation. Others are not. In fact, a majority
of Americans undertake no other political activity aside from going to the
polls. (p. 1)
The unequal nature of civic engagement is the problem that underscores
much of the work in civic engagement studies; how and why people choose to
engage in civic and political matters has prompted scholars to explore the many
dimensions of civic engagement. For instance, there are comparisons of college-
attending students and non-college-attending students (Lopez, Kirby, Sagoff, &
Kolaczkowski, 2005); reviews of the effects of curriculum-based programs such as

4
service learning’s student outcomes, which include civic engagement outcomes
(Kahne & Sporte, 2008), and the range of pedagogical choices made to educate
young people to participate (Westheimer & Kahne, 2003).
The emphasis on youth civic engagement and civic education came to the
fore at the beginning of this century with the creation of influential consortia such
as CIRCLE, which is now housed at Tufts University. At the same time the Pew
Charitable Trusts and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
convened important meetings of scholars and practitioners to discuss the state of
youth civic engagement. The results of these efforts created working groups and
funded projects that produced materials such as the report entitled the Civic
Mission of Schools (Carnegie Corporation of New York & CIRCLE, 2003), in
which much of the focus was on understanding the trends in youth civic engage-
ment and the effectiveness of programs intended to develop civic knowledge, skills,
and attitudes.
One notable meeting, convened by The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching and CIRCLE in December 2005, brought together
numerous scholars from a variety of fields to define civic engagement as broadly as
possible in order to capture the numerous pathways to engagement. A specific
emphasis was placed on examining what motivates a student to engage in civic
activities, as well as the ability of university programs to create opportunities to
develop and practice civic skills. These scholars argued that higher education
“requires real-world activities and social interaction as well as discipline-based
instruction . . . . [They emphasized that] learning occurs in many venues and from
many sources” (p. 3). Of particular interest for the present study was the discussion
of the Carnegie Foundation’s Political Engagement Project (PEP), which has

5
shown positive effects on students who participate in a variety of experiential civic
education programs at 21 colleges and universities. The types of programs included
in PEP are “service learning programs; internships, semesters in Washington,
visiting speakers, simulations, collaborative research projects, and living/learning
communities” (p. 3). In addition, opportunities such as “student government,
religious participation, groups that explore diversity and other experiential civic
learning” (p. 3) were included in the list of civic opportunities.
The result of this meeting was acknowledgement of the full range of civic
activities that foster interest in and build skills for civic engagement. It is this
author’s assertion that civic engagement encompasses both traditional political acts
such as voting and classic voluntary efforts such as tutoring children. Other
activities utilizing skills, such as persuading others or fundraising, are considered to
be civic engagement activities if there is a public benefit to the activity.
Youth civic engagement activities cannot be discussed without examining
the recent shifts in youth civic behavior since the mid-1990s. In a report written for
CIRCLE, Peter Levine and Mark Lopez (2002) reported that the rate of voting
among 18- to 25-year-olds had “declined steadily since 1972” (p. 1). They also
pointed out that “non-college attending young Americans have consistently voted
at levels below college attending youth” (p. 1). This was echoed by Keeter, Jenkins,
Zukin, and Andolina (2003), who reported that at the beginning of the century that
young people remained less interested in “politics and public life” than did older
generations. However, at the same time, youth were volunteering in their communi-
ties at rates that continued to rise throughout the decade. This trend prompted
Keeter and colleagues to question the notion that this generation is apathetic and
disengaged. They conducted a generational analysis of civic engagement and

6
created a typology that categorized individuals by “type” of engagement: civic
activist, political activist, dual activist, or not engaged. They reported that youth
between the ages of 18 and 24 were not equally disengaged from all forms of
participation; for example, they made more conscious decisions about their money,
choosing to support or not support businesses based on their political and civic
commitments. The authors termed this trend boycotting, and the identification of a
new behavior illustrates how young people of this generation are involved with
political activities and confirms that they pay attention to political matters. The
work by these scholars highlights the importance of thinking broadly about civic
and political behaviors, and recognizes that today’s youth may define engagement
differently from their parents’ definitions. Youth political engagement is the subject
of much interest for scholars in the field of higher education.
Alexander Astin, Jennifer Lindholm, Victor Saenz, and Linda Sax, all
scholars at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Higher Education
Research Institute (HERI), have conducted systematic surveys of students across
the United States, tracking characteristics, attitudes, values, and student outcomes
for more than 30 years. In 2003 they reported that freshmen entering in 2003
showed more interest in “keeping up to date with political affairs and discussing
politics” (Engle, 2003, p. 1). Sax, the director of the survey, said, “Although
today’s freshmen show far less interest in politics than their parents’ generation,
these recent shifts are noteworthy given their reversal of the long-term trend toward
political disengagement” (Sax et al., 2003, p. 1). The report specifically stated:
[The survey] finds that one-third (33.9 percent) of students feel that
“keeping up to date with political affairs” is a very important life goal. Prior
to 2000, the study revealed a three-decade trend of plummeting political
interest among freshmen, with a record low of 28.1 percent in 2000. . . .
Students in the new millennium express a renewed attraction to the political

7
sector. The percentage of freshmen who discuss politics on a frequent basis
increased from 19.4 percent in 2002 to 22.5 percent in 2003, marking the
highest point reached since 1993. Political engagement remains far below
the level recorded in the late 1960s, when 60.3 percent of the 1966
freshmen valued keeping up with politics and one-third of the 1968
freshmen discussed politics frequently. (Engle, p. 1)
This shift in traditional political behavior is occurring while this generation
is heavily engaged in traditional community service. The scholars at HERI found
that a large number of freshmen reported that they had volunteered during their last
year of high school. They described this as a trend that has continued since the mid-
1990s and that can be attributed to the growing community service requirement
imposed by many high schools for graduation.
Today’s college freshmen are continuing a decade-long trend of record-
setting volunteerism. 83.1 percent of students report participating in volun-
teer work during their last year in high school, compared to 82.6 percent in
2002 and a low of 66 percent in 1989. It appears that this growing trend at
the high school level is matched by increases at the college level. The per-
centage of students who say there is a “very good chance” that they will
participate in volunteer or community work in college also reached a record
high of 25.3 percent, compared with a low of 16.9 percent when this item
was introduced on the 1990 survey. An additional 41.2 percent of today’s
students indicate that there is “some chance” of participating in service
while in college. (Engle, 2003, p. 1)
All of these findings do not dispel the concern that civic activities may
supplant traditional political involvement, a concern that was addressed by Jenkins,
Andolina, Keeter, and Zukin (2003) in a paper prepared for the 2003 conference of
the Midwest Political Science Association. They noted that, when young people do
not participate in electoral politics, “they will exert less influence over the making
of public policy” and they argued that, despite high rates of involvement in civic
activities, there remains a “likely disconnect between policy makers and today’s
youth” (p. 11). Jenkins et al. acknowledge that, while there is a general connection
between volunteerism and civic engagement, the strength and direction of the
relationship between volunteerism and political engagement remains unknown.

8
The work by these scholars highlights the importance of thinking broadly
about civic and political behaviors, recognizes that today’s youth may define
engagement differently from their parents, and school-sponsored activities may
contribute to levels of involvement. What requires further investigation is the
strength of the impact made on students’ expectations for future civic engagement
after participating in a school-sponsored civic activity. This question is explored in
the present study.
Chapter 2 reviews the important related literature to illuminate the critical
factors that shaped the direction of this research. Chapter 3 outlines the methods
used in the analysis. Chapter 4 presents the results of the statistical testing. Chapter
5 provides a discussion of the results and presents suggestions for future scholar-
ship and practice.

9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study was to investigate the strength of involvement in
university-sponsored civic activities on four individual aspects of motivation:
future expectancy, sense of ability, interest, and utility. The study was based on two
assumptions: (a) It is necessary to cultivate requisite skills, attitudes, and behaviors;
and (b) democracy requires citizens to engage actively in civic life. Pateman (1970)
argued that a person’s participatory spirit is cultivated through successive participa-
tory experiences. Pateman’s notion that civic engagement is a learned behavior falls
in line with Bandura’s (1977) view of learning:
Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if
people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them
what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally
through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new
behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information
serves as a guide for action. (p. 2)
Taken together, these ideas form the normative foundation of this disserta-
tion, specifically that (civic) behavior is learned and that this learning occurs in
concert with others. The domain for this type of learning is not relegated to one
locale; research has shown that one can learn civic attitudes and behaviors in a
multitude of places, such as schools (Youniss et al., 1997), voluntary associations
(Verba et al., 1995), churches (Verba et al., 1995), and within families (Beck &
Jennings, 1982). This dissertation does not address the broad-based nature of civic
learning that benefits from the wide range of work focusing on the factors that
influence civic engagement and examine their relationship to the dimensions of
motivation for future civic engagement. Instead, this literature review (a) identifies
the normative framework that underscores this work, (b) articulates the rationale

10
and benefits of applying expectancy-value theory to civic engagement, (c) illumi-
nates the factors found in prior research that promote civic engagement, and
(d) concludes with a statement of the research questions and hypotheses.
Democracy Requires Participation
Pateman’s (1970) theory of democracy, one that builds on the work of Jean-
Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, asserts that, through meaningful experi-
ence, individuals can learn participatory behaviors and work to cultivate “a demo-
cratic character” (p. 103). Pateman draws on Rousseau’s social theory, which
recognizes that one of the benefits of participation is to integrate individuals into
community. She contended that there is bonding power in the affiliation of an
organization in which a person works with “like-minded” individuals on a shared
cause. According to Pateman, participation “increase[s] the feeling among indivi-
dual citizens that they ‘belong’ in their community” (p. 27). From her perspective,
the purpose of participation is to educate citizens and “for maximum participation
by all the people . . . ‘social training’ for democracy must take place in other
spheres in order that the necessary individual attitudes and psychological qualities
can be developed” (p. 42). What is useful in Pateman’s perspective is her assertion
that citizens must develop skills and attitudes to participate in “other spheres,” as
well as her emphasis on the utility of the workplace in cultivating these civic skills.
The other important contribution made by Pateman’s theory is her argument that
civic attitudes and capacities must be learned through a variety of experiences and
by participation itself.
Another theorist interested in the educational benefit of participation is
Benjamin Barber. In his 1998 work on civil society he wrote, “Community grows

11
out of participation and at the same time makes participation possible; civic activity
educates individuals to think publicly as citizens even as citizenship informs civic
activity with the required sense of publicness and justice” (p. 152). Thus, it is
essential, from Barber’s perspective, to have institutions reinforce and support
participation. These opportunities can take the form of organizations such as Rotary
Club that foster “civic membership,” and build the skills necessary for effective
participation. Barber supported the idea that civic membership is more than a
certain action; it involves personal commitments, beliefs, and judgments that shape
a person’s motivation to be engaged. His description of “strong democracy” is a
good illustration of this perspective: “Civil society is not an alternative to demo-
cratic government, but rather, the free space in which democratic attitudes are
cultivated and democratic behavior is conditioned” (p. 6).
From these works it is evident that involvement in civil requires a set of
shared values that are transmitted through families, peers, and membership in
associations and other community organizations. The emphasis on participation and
engagement in community organizations and neighborhood associations can be
found in much of the recent civic engagement literature. For example, Keeter et al.
(2003) grappled with the importance of organizations in their generational portrait
of the civic and political engagement of Americans. They looked at a broad
spectrum of civic activities and were motivated by the idea that engagement might
propel a person into more traditional political activities.
Political scientists in the U.S. have long observed that groups and associa-
tions not only provide important services to their communities but also
function as important players in the political game (Bentley 1908; Truman
1951). They serve as a means of mobilizing citizens to influence govern-
ment and a place for the training of citizens in the tools of collective action
that can be turned to more explicitly political activity. Especially for youth,
who find certain avenues of the political system closed off due to age

12
restrictions and cultural norms, civic involvement in the community may be
the best and most appropriate means for developing good skills for
citizenship. (p. 5)
In summary, as shown in the work by Pateman (1970), Barber (1984), and
Keeter et al. (2003), there is a fundamental assumption, that in order for democracy
to work, citizens must participate. It has been theorized that civic activity can be
found in numerous arenas, both traditional (polling place) and nontraditional (work
place). The important assertion made by Pateman is that individuals learn to
participate from their engagement with others in many arenas. This notion was
supported by Verba et al. (1995), who reported that “workplaces provide the most
opportunities for the practice of civic skills” (p. 320). Thus, from a normative
perspective, there is support for the idea that civic engagement is a learned behavior
and that institutions ought to promote activities that cultivate the necessary skills,
attitudes, and beliefs for one to become engaged. But just what does it take to
become engaged? What initially prompts a person to become civically engaged?
Motivation
It can be argued that participation initially requires motivation to take action
or to become involved. It was argued in the previous section that one learns to
participate through successive civic experiences. But what draws a person to
become involved in those experiences in the first place? Is it related to individual
attitudes and beliefs about one’s own ability or efficacy to accomplish a particular
objective? There is a body of literature related to political efficacy, or a person’s
sense of ability in politics.

13
Political Efficacy
The construct of political efficacy is important to understanding motivation
toward political engagement. Stephen Craig (1979) noted that “sense of efficacy
has become an important theoretical component in studies of individual attitude
sets and belief systems, political behavior” (p. 225). Niemi, Craig, and Mattei
(1991) noted,
Of the many indicators of general political attitudes developed in the 1950s,
sense of political efficacy is one of the most theoretically important and
frequently used. At the same time, however, there has been considerable
dissatisfaction with the manner in which efficacy is measured. (p. 1407)
The authors stated that the problem can be attributed to the two dimensions of
efficacy: (a) internal efficacy, or a person’s belief about his or her abilities, and (b)
external efficacy, which stems from beliefs about the responsiveness of government
to a person’s requests. They noted that these two dimensions are frequently con-
fused. They report that, since the mid-1970s, with the acknowledgement of this
problem, improvements were made to the efficacy scales but with little improve-
ment in their results. Thus, they proposed a new set of questions to be combined
with three from the original scale:
1. I consider myself to be well qualified to participate in politics; 2. I feel
that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues
facing our country; 3. I feel that I could do as good a job in public office as
most other people; and 4. I think that I am better informed about politics
and government than most people. (p. 1408)
The research by Niemi et al. (1991) found “strong initial support for the
quality—and distinctiveness—of the new efficacy questions” (p. 1409). They
concluded that the questions provided researchers with “a viable means for tapping
citizens’ beliefs about their competence to understand, and play an active role in,
the political life of the nation” (p. 1412).

14
Despite efforts such as these to clarify the measurement instruments and
underlying meanings behind the concept, political efficacy remains difficult to
measure. In their work on civic engagement, Verba et al. (1995) acknowledged this
difficulty: “We use measures of engagement such as political interest and efficacy,
but we try to rest our argument on measures that have clearer face meaning and
greater measurement solidity” (p. 276). Verba et al. noted that political efficacy
“has been shown to vary in significant ways across groups and to be a strong pre-
dictor of political involvement” (p. 346). They cited Almond and Verba’s 1963
work The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five %ations, noting
that it utilized a “five item ‘subjective competence’ scale based on the respondent’s
self assessment of ability to influence politics” (p. 346, note 22). This is similar to
the method of measuring perceived ability, which is one dimension of expectancy-
value theory, a subfield within the field of motivation that has been used to under-
stand differences in performance, task choice, and how long a person remains
involved in an activity.
Expectancy-Value Theory
Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne Eccles are considered leaders in utilizing
and verifying aspects of expectancy-value theory. In an article published in 2000
they wrote,
Achievement motivation theorists attempt to explain people’s choice of
achievement tasks, persistence on those tasks, vigor in carrying them out
and performance on them (see Eccles et al., 1998; Pintrich & Schunk,
1996). One long-standing perspective on motivation is expectancy-value
theory. Theorists in this tradition argue that individuals’ choice, persistence,
and performance can be explained by their beliefs about how well they will
do on the activity and the extent to which they value the activity. (p. 68)

15
As described in the passage above, the choice of an activity and perform-
ance can be an indicator of motivation. Eccles, Wigfield, and Schiefele (1997)
explained that motivational studies often focus on “which tasks to do, the persist-
ence with which they pursue these tasks, the intensity of their engagement in these
tasks, and their thoughts about their performance and their goals” (p. 1017). These
behaviors are similar to those examined by civic engagement scholars who were
concerned about how, why, and in what amount people (citizens) participate in
civic life.
In addition to task selection and persistence, other constructs comprise
motivation. Bandura (1997) discussed motivation and self-efficacy when he
described the notion of expectancy, which he defined as the expectation of success
or achievement with the assumed value of participation in the activity for the
person’s future (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, p. 70). Bandura distinguished between
efficacy expectations, or the person’s belief that she can accomplish a task, and
outcome expectancies, or the belief that a given action will lead to a given outcome.
Wigfield and Eccles, who built their theory on Bandura’s work, argued that ability
and expectancy beliefs are crucial to the expectancy-value theory of motivation
(p. 72). Eccles et al. (1983) stated that “one’s perception of the value of an activity
is more important in determining one’s decision to engage in that activity, while
one’s self-concept of ability is more important in determining one’s actual perform-
ance” (p. 113). In addition, they defined subjective task values as incentives for
doing various tasks and included interest in the task, its importance to individuals,
and its utility among the other factors considered. They asserted that adolescents’
subjective task values predicted “both their actual and anticipated task choice”
(p. 113).

16
Therefore, the use of expectancy-value theory allows determination of the
relative effect of a person’s self assessment of his or her ability on the task, the
importance of doing well, the interest in doing the task, and the relative value
placed on the person’s effort in doing those tasks or how useful task completion is
in meeting the person’s future goals. Eccles and her colleagues have dedicated
much of their work to understanding academic choices among school-age children,
applying the theory to examine gender differences in mathematics and other
subjects.
This theory has been used in other areas. Battle and Wigfield (2003) applied
it to women who had recently graduated from college, following them as they
decided to pursue graduate education or marriage. The dimensions of motivation
that these authors defined as significant elements of motivation that are illuminated
by expectancy-value theory were as follows:
Attainment value refers to the importance of doing well on a given task;
Intrinsic value is the enjoyment gained from doing the task; Utility value
refers to how task completion facilities future goals; Cost refers to what a
person must give up to do a task and/or the anticipated effort one will need
to put into task completion. (p. 58)
They saw task selection as a “task value” in which inherent in the choice was a
valuation of the activity along the four dimensions cited above.
Expectancy-value theory can be applied to any domain where there are
tasks to be completed and that requires an internalized sense of ability, interest, and
belief about the usefulness of completing the task for one’s future. This notion
mirrors that of much of the work done on political efficacy.

17
Motivation Toward Civic Engagement
Verba et al. (1995) discussed the components of their Civic Volunteerism
Model, which is composed of resources, engagement, and recruitment. The model
presented by Verba et al. is part of a comprehensive model that explains civic
engagement. In the authors’ conception engagement refers to the motivational
dimension and captures notions of political efficacy and motivation that were
described above. Resources refers to the skills required to participate. The work
represents a shift in the classic thinking about the factors that influence civic and
political engagement and specifically emphasizes the role of nontraditional arenas
in cultivating or reinforcing the skills required to participate.
Our conception of the participatory process rests upon two main factors: the
motivation and the capacity to take part in political life. A citizen must want
to be active. In America, participation is voluntary activity and, thus,
involves choice. However, the choice to take part in a particular way is a
constrained one. Various forms of participation impose their own require-
ments—the time to volunteer in a campaign, the money to cover a check to
a political cause, the verbal skills to compose a convincing letter. Thus,
those who wish to take part also need the resources that provide the where-
withal to participate. (p. 3)
Capacity for Civic Engagement
Civic skills are thought of as resources and are part conception of the
capacity to participate as presented by Verba et al. (1995). This section reviews the
civic engagement literature with regard to the capacity for participation. In light of
youth civic engagement, the focus of this dissertation, Verba et al. contended that
the important relationships that young people have with their families and teachers
help to develop the motivation and capacity to participate. “In the classroom and in
extracurricular activities, students learn communication and organizational skills.
They also absorb civic values and develop an interest in politics” (p. 420).
Socialization is thought to predispose the student to civic engagement and deepen

18
civic values. Verba et al. asserted that, for adults, professional work and member-
ship in nonpolitical organizations and associations create “opportunities for the
acquisition of politically relevant resources [and serve to promote] the enhancement
of a sense of psychological engagement with politics” (p. 3). Socialization and
involvement in organizations, work or otherwise, are part of the processes that
begin and/or deepen the capacity for participation. This concept is addressed later.
Civic Skills
This section reviews work that addresses the skills, attitudes, and beliefs
that are necessary for civic engagement. Gibson’s (2001) literature review on
citizenship reported general agreement that, today, citizens should be capable to act
in numerous civic capacities. Some of the activities mentioned were upholding
laws, protesting, voting, forming new organizations, and monitoring and influenc-
ing public decisions, which requires the ability to work with others and to express
ideas. Civic education scholars such as Kirlin (2003) and Youniss et al. (1997) have
suggested that democratic competence requires citizens to have both knowledge
and a range of civic skills to accomplish the above cited tasks.
Verba et al. (1995) posited that engagement in even the most mundane or
routine tasks, such as chairing a meeting or planning an event, are “skill-endowing
opportunities” (p. 4). Specifically, they suggested that
involvement in these institutions facilitates political participation not only
by providing exposure to political cues and recruitment networks but in
another way as well . . . activity on the job, at church, or in an organization,
activity that has nothing to do with politics or public issues, can develop
organizational and communications skills that are relevant for politics and
thus facilitate political activity. (p. 17)
One must have civic skills, which then empowers one to take part in politics
and engage in civic life. Verba et al. (1995) wrote, “Finally, the citizen who

19
possesses the requisite organizational and communications capacities—what we
call civic skills—will find it less daunting to take part” (p. 271). This implies that a
person who has skill in persuading his colleagues or who can organize her peers
will feel more capable of taking action. One can surmise that feelings of ability in
this context would lead to a greater sense of efficacy. What remains to be under-
stood is the level of the person’s interest as well as the person’s belief in the
usefulness of engagement.
Verba et al. (1995) asserted that, once a citizen has cultivated civic skills,
the citizen will use those skills in a variety of civic capacities based on personal
interests and motivations. The authors suggested that a citizen will make con-
nections between nonpolitical “skill endowing opportunities,” persons interests and
political or civic behavior, and thus will be motivated to take action. “In our under-
standing, then, those who possess civic skills, the set of specific competencies
germane to citizen political activity, are more likely to feel confident about exer-
cising those skills in politics and to be effective . . . when they do” (p. 305).
Civic Interest
Essential to the argument presented by Verba et al. (1995) is the notion that
civic action requires not only the resources but also “psychological engagement in
politics” (p. 334), which includes both an interest in politics and a sense of efficacy.
However, empirically verifying this presents some challenges.
All the aspects of political engagement, especially interest in politics, turn
out to be potent predictors of political activity . . . . there is reason to believe
that participation and engagement are mutually reinforcing: taking part in
politics probably enhances political interest, efficacy, and information;
reciprocally, these political orientations surely have an impact on participa-
tion. (p. 367)

20
The research reported by Verba et al. (1995) demonstrated that resources,
which are time, money, and skills, are “causally prior to political activity”

(p. 366)
and are derived from their participation in the work place, organizations, and
religious institutions, and with families. The authors argued that socioeconomic
status (SES) affords the skills that enable a person to participate in politics,
fostering political interest and efficacy, with the prime socioeconomic indicator
being education.
Relevant to this dissertation is the link between civic skills and motivation.
In exploring this relationship, Kirlin (2003) wrote, “Civic skills are a part of a
larger package including knowledge, motivation or interest, connections to net-
works of engaged people, and resources” (p. 4), a notion validated by the work of
Verba et al. (1995), who wrote “political engagement adds to an explanation of
political activity based on resources without replacing resources as a significant
factor in determining who is and who is not active” (p. 336). However, what
remains is to determine how one gains those resources, particularly when the focus
of the discussion is a young person. Thus, any discussion about young people and
civic engagement requires addressing political socialization and its role in fostering
civic engagement.
Several important works are generally regarded as standard bearers in the
field of civic engagement: Civic Culture by Almond and Verba (1963) and Partici-
pation in America by Verba and Nie (1972). These authors have spent their careers
working toward a fine-grained understanding of the factors that promote civic
involvement. Their work has influenced the political socialization literature by
providing a framework for engagement that has allowed researchers to examine the
manner by which a person learns the pertinent values, attitudes, and behaviors.

21
Preparation for Civic Engagement
Socialization
Political socialization can be thought of as the process by which one learns
political behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs that lead one to engage in civic life.
Central to the political socialization literature are discussions of how political
attitudes and behaviors are learned. Classically, it was thought that these behaviors
were learned as children and adolescents from parents and teachers, with parents
being the most significant source of learning. It was also believed that there was a
good deal of stability in these attitudes and beliefs over time, with little change over
the life span. However, Jennings and Niemi (1981) reported that political attitudes
and level of civic activity were not stable throughout adulthood and varied across
both political and nonpolitical arenas.
Significant amounts of instability occurred everywhere—in people’s
involvement in politics, in their preferences and attitudes, and in compar-
able nonpolitical domains. Though instability is itself variable, it seems like
a common rather than an unusual characteristic of adult political behavior
and attitudes. (p. 383)
This finding is important because it suggests that political attitudes can be
learned, shaped, and changed throughout a person’s life. Beck and Jennings (1982)
wrote an important work on the various “pathways” of political participation. Their
strongest claim was that there were many alternate explanations for political par-
ticipation (p. 95). Their specific interest was to understand how parental factors
(SES and civic orientations) influenced their children’s behavior. They examined
three models of political socialization to determine the levels of significance of
each contributing factor. The first model was based on Verba and Nie’s (1963)
classic study of participation, which made a strong case for the influence of SES on
civic orientations. Beck and Jennings found “an intermediate role of the standard

22
SES model in explaining political activity. Neither socioeconomic status nor civic
orientations spring to life upon attainment of adulthood. Rather, the roots of both
lie in parent socioeconomic status” (pp. 97-98). The second model was the Parent
Civic Orientations Model, which asserted that parents’ attitudes and values create
an atmosphere that fosters an interest in politics. They wrote, “Parent civic orienta-
tions may set the tone of family discourse on politics. Parent interest probably
promotes discussion of politics in the home, awakening the child’s interest in the
world of politics” (p. 98). The third model asserted that participation in a variety of
voluntary activities allowed a young person to have a “direct experience in political
association and interaction that can be drawn upon subsequently to ease entry into
adult activism” (p. 101). Beck and Jennings found that previous involvement in
high school activities played a significant role in influencing political participation
by young adults. This notion received a good deal of attention; it was thought that
extracurricular activities fostered development of the civic orientations that pro-
mote adult political activity and democratic attitudes. The authors argued, “Those
who engage in extracurricular activities are more likely to become politically active
later on. They may have developed skills and orientations that can be transferred to
the political world” (p. 105). After examining the results from each of the models,
the authors concluded,
Parent socioeconomic status, parent participation, youth high school
activity, and parent civic orientations all make distinct contributions to
young adult political participation. For parent status and parent civic
orientations, the influence is largely indirect. For parent participation and
high school activity, it is almost entirely direct. These results demonstrate
that political activity is a consequence of noncontemporaneous forces,
signifying the importance of the political socialization process. Through a
variety of socialization mechanisms, parents and schools leave a legacy for
later participation. (p. 106)

23
The work by Beck and Jennings (1982) was the beginning of many
inquiries into the influence of cocurricular activities on the development of civic
skills, attitudes, and behaviors. It is interesting to note that most civic engagement
and political socialization research examines the effect of high school activities on
civic engagement and involvement retrospectively and omits the college years as a
period of inquiry.
School-Based Socialization and Learning
Schools and universities have a role in promoting the development of a
student’s civic capacity and they have utilized service learning and cocurricular
opportunities to fulfill their “civic mission” (Carnegie Corporation of New York
and CIRCLE, 2003). Scholars Ernest Pascarella, Alexander Astin, and Patrick
Terenzini have devoted their careers to gaining a better understanding of the role of
the university and higher education on outcomes such as critical thinking and moral
development. Important to this research is the recognition that students learn in the
full context of being a student, both inside and outside the classroom. This was first
suggested by Astin (1985), who theorized that involvement could be thought of in
numerous ways, from preparing for an examination to assuming a leadership role in
a student organization (p. 36). Moore (1990) attributed much of the work in student
development theory to Astin, whose work has shaped the direction taken by most
theorists who define student development as influencing “intellectual as well as
interpersonal competence” (p. 87). It is generally suggested that education should
be thought of in a holistic manner and described as involving not only the intellec-
tual development but also the psychosocial development of a student. It is argued
that college is an active time in a young person’s development. The works in this

24
field support the notion that significant developments occur in a student’s life both
in and out of the classroom.
Kuh, Schuh, and Whitt (1991) have worked to operationalize a theory of
student development.
[Student development] includes those attitudes, skills, and values that
enable one: to understand and reflect on one’s thoughts and feelings; to
recognize and appreciate the differences between oneself and others; to
manage one’s personal affairs successfully; to care for those less fortunate;
to relate meaningfully to others through friendships, marriage, and civic and
political entities; to determine personally and socially acceptable responses
in various situations; and to be economically self-sufficient. (pp. 13-14)
Taking this expansive view, one can see that education requires attention to
the development of the whole student and involves examination of the student both
inside the classroom and outside the classroom. In addition, there is considerable
support for the idea that student engagement facilitates student learning. In order to
understand this phenomenon, Kuh and his colleagues at the University of Indiana
established a research center to examine the effects of student engagement across
hundreds of colleges and universities in the United States.
In a recent paper Carini, Kuh, and Klein (2006) presented findings on the
linkage between engagement and learning.
Student engagement is generally considered to be among the better pre-
dictors of learning and personal development. The premise is deceptively
simple, perhaps self-evident: The more students study or practice a subject,
the more they tend to learn about it. Likewise, the more students practice
and get feedback on their writing, analyzing, or problem solving, the more
adept they should become. (p. 2)
It is important to focus on the idea promoted by Kuh and his colleagues that student
development is a “deceptively simple” notion and that skill development requires
practice. It is the places of practice that are relevant to this dissertation. Student
development does take place both in and out of the classroom.

25
Capacity Building Outside the Classroom
To gain a greater awareness of the impact made on student development
outside the classroom, Hernandez, Hogan, Hathaway, and Lovell (1999) conducted
a meta-analysis of student development literature. They studied “key subcultures
that have historically bridged the student development and student learning gap,
including athletics, Greek organizations, general activities and organizations, on-
campus living, out-of-class involvement with faculty, peer interaction, and employ-
ment” (p. 186). They reported that the research included in their analysis uniformly
demonstrated that participation in organizations had a positive effect on student
development. Hernandez et al. found that the literature on organizational affiliation
showed “relatively positive” effects on student learning. In particular, they high-
lighted a study by Cooper, Healy, and Simpson that examined students who held
leadership positions in organizations while in college and showed that “leadership
roles appear to provide the opportunity to sustain and further develop develop-
mental skills” (p. 188).
Pascarella, Ethington, and Smart (1988) confirmed the importance of
leadership roles in organizations in supporting and strengthening “humanitarian and
civic involvement values” (p. 427). They found that holding a leadership position
or serving on a university or departmental committee had positive indirect and
direct effects on these values.
With regard to the specific gains made by students in their affiliation with
student organizations, Gellin (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of literature on
student involvement and investigated the effect of organizational affiliation on
critical thinking. He found that, for students, the essential component to enhance
critical thinking was exposure to diverse points of view, which occurred between

26
students and faculty and with peers, in the classroom and during cocurricular
activities. Gellin suggested that “students who are involved in a variety of co-
curricular activities may apply what they have learned through these experiences to
learning in a classroom environment” (p. 754).
In summary, several positive outcomes are associated with out-of-class
experiences. The idea that students create opportunities for themselves to learn is
strongly supported by Gellin’s analysis: “Student interaction with their peers
outside the classroom occurs as a natural part of being within a college environ-
ment. The free exchange of ideas with fellow students from potentially diverse
backgrounds fosters an atmosphere for growth in critical thinking” (p. 755).
Curriculum-Based Capacity Building
One cannot discuss student learning and development without considering
the gains made in the classroom. There has been much work on curricular-based
civic efforts, namely service learning programs. This section reviews those works.
There has been considerable work on the benefits of service learning and
connecting students with community service while students are engaged with a
course of study. Service learning as pedagogy has been linked to promoting
diversity awareness and a generalized sense of activism. Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda,
and Lee (2000) reported on the influence of service learning in their ongoing
survey of college students conducted by UCLA’s HERI. They found that service
learning had an “independent effect on both a student’s commitment to promoting
racial understanding and activism” (p. 17). They argued that service learning
courses enable students to become “concerned and involved citizens” (p. 17)—
attitudes that are often thought to sustain civic engagement.

27
It is findings such as these that informed a 2003 report by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and CIRCLE that argued for renewed
commitment to in-school civic education. Their recommendations combined class-
room instruction with service learning opportunities to help students to learn what
it means to be a citizen. The contributors suggested that civic education “should
help young people acquire and learn to use the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that
will prepare them to be competent and responsible citizens throughout their lives”
(p. 4, ¶ 4). In addition, these scholars posited that students who engage in com-
munity service or service learning programs are more likely to be involved in
politics in the future.
Owen (2000) suggested that there is support for service learning in the
political socialization literature. She highlighted the work of Alwin, Cohen, and
Newcomb (1991), who reported a link between curriculum and civic attitudes in
young women. She also found support in the work of Youniss et al. (1997), whose
research confirmed that involvement in community service, such as working in a
soup kitchen, stimulated students to think about political issues, establish political
identities, and develop long-lasting habits of civic participation. In addition, in her
review of service learning programs and their impact on political outcomes, Owen
identified the following important findings from service learning research: “Studies
suggest that curriculum innovations can shape political attitudes such as tolerance
(Brody 1994); promote electoral involvement (McDevitt & Chaffee 1998); and
encourage students to identify with a political party (Benitez 1995)” (p. 639).
Of significant import for this dissertation is the work by Owen (2000),
whose findings illustrate that service learning and other programs enable students
to explore communities and develop political identities. Owen suggested that they

28
are promising methods and models for civic educators; in particular, it was shown
that organizational affiliation and other campus-based programs offered students
the benefit of relationships and peer interaction, which is a cornerstone of student
development theory.
Organizational affiliation offers students the opportunity to interact with
peers, which has been shown to have an impact on student learning. Dey (1997)
wrote, “Previous research suggests that peer groups have important influences on
student attitudes (Astin, 1993; Dey, 1996; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991), and these intra-college influences may serve as reinforcing or
countervailing forces relative to pressures generated by general society” (p. 400).
In summary, the research on student development, both curricular-based
programs and out-of-class experiences, have been found to have numerous effects
on educational outcomes and civic values. Pascarella et al. (1998) examined civic
values in the context of student development over a 9-year period and found that
“social leadership experiences . . . had positive indirect and direct effects on these
values” (p. 427). Being involved with organizations and interaction with peers
improve openness to diversity and challenge (Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, &
Terenzine, 1996); interpersonal competence, cognitive complexity, and humani-
tarianism (Kuh, 1995); and moral development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
Conclusion
This literature review suggests that participatory democracy requires
citizens to engage actively in civic life. Proponents contend that this behavior is
learned through successive experiences, whether in the classroom, in extracurricu-
lar activities, or in the work place. Verba et al. (1995) showed that civic

29
engagement requires not only resources, which are thought to include time, money,
and skills, but also “psychological engagement,” which includes political interest
and political efficacy and which is gained through education and other “skill-
endowing opportunities.” However, as noted by Berry et al. (1993), one cannot
assume that people will participate, even when opportunities are presented.
Participation requires motivation to take action or be involved, as well as a
sense of responsibility and agency. Democratic theorists such as Carole Pateman
assume that motivation is cultivated through participation in activities. So the
question remains, what is required to enable or cultivate the “democratic character”
that Pateman described? The literature review illuminated factors and influences
that define the citizen role and explain the changing nature of that role. The work
by Kirlin (2003) illustrated the considerable interest in understanding both civic
and political engagement, especially as it relates to the development of the citizen
role in young people. Understanding the influence of background, family, peers,
and involvement was a priority for the scholars exploring political socialization.
The work of Beck and Jennings (1982) described the important “pathways” of
participation and found that the family remains the strongest influence, followed by
involvement in high school activities—a finding that has been confirmed
repeatedly and continues to be shown as the mark of important socializing agents
for civic and political involvement.
As discussed in this chapter, most civic education, civic engagement, and
political socialization research has examined the effect of high school activities and
involvement on civic engagement but has not included the college years as a period
of inquiry. Much can be learned if the lessons of the civic engagement literature are
combined with the theory found in the field of student development. As described

30
here, considerable work has been done to examine the effect of cocurricular and
out-of-class experiences on civic values, openness to diversity, promotion of civic
responsibility, and critical thinking. These findings can make an impact in the field
of civic engagement research.
Meeting participants at the 2005 CIRCLE and Carnegie Foundation meeting
prepared a set of recommendations that informed the present study:
Motivation comes after membership and participation, not before. A
community . . . may recruit young people, including some who do not have
favorable dispositions prior to being recruited. In the course of participation
these young people incur obligations, obtain fulfillment, and develop
relationships that affect their identities. They become more likely to partici-
pate in the future (see Youniss, McLellan, and Yates, 1997). (Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching & CIRCLE, 2006, p. 3, ¶ 9)
The literature on motivation argued that choice of an activity and how long
a person stays with it can be used as an indicator of motivation. These behaviors
(task selection and persistence) are similar to those examined by civic engagement
scholars, who are concerned about how, why, and in what amount people (citizens)
participate in civic life.
Eccles et al. (1998) suggested that motivational studies often focus on
“which tasks to do, the persistence with which they pursue these tasks, the intensity
of their engagement in these tasks, and their thoughts about their performance and
their goals” (p. 1017). In addition to task selection and persistence, other important
constructs comprise motivation, such as expectancy (p. 70). Specifically, Bandura
(1977) distinguished between efficacy expectations (the person’s belief that she can
accomplish a task) and outcome expectancies (the belief that a given action will
lead to a given outcome). He suggested that this notion can be thought of as the
expectation of success or achievement with the assumed value of participation in
the activity for the future.

31
Eccles et al. (1983) defined components of task values, “including interest
in the task, its importance to individuals, and its utility for them” (p. 451). They
concluded that that adolescent’s subjective task values predicted both actual and
anticipated task choice.
This dissertation addresses the suggestion posited by Youniss et al.
(Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and CIRCLE, 2006) that
motivation occurs after participation in civic education programs. This notion is
consistent with democratic theory, which posits that participation itself is educative
and reinforces future participation. The aim of this research was to understand the
effects of participation in three distinct types of civic programs on a student’s
motivation toward civic engagement. As described in this literature review, there
are various approaches to civic education: (a) curricular approaches such as
traditional service learning; and (b) out-of-class efforts such as involvement in
peer-oriented student organizations. Specifically, the research questions that were
addressed in this study were:
1. Is there a relationship between specified motivational concepts (ability,
interest, and utility) and college students’ civic activity at baseline?
2. Is there a relationship between specified motivational concepts (ability,
interest, and utility) and college students’ civic activity over time?
3. What is the relation between students’ participation in civic activities at
the University of Southern California (USC) and their expectancy for future civic
engagement over time?
4. How much of the variation in college students’ expectancy for future
civic engagement is explained by the motivational constructs (ability, interest, and

32
utility), age, family SES, gender, college grade point average (GPA) and high
school civic activity?
These questions explore the relationship between participation in a
university-sponsored civic activity and the three dimensions of student motivation,
as well as the student’s expectancy for future civic engagement. The assumption
was that students who participated in a civic activity would show stronger
relationships among the variables than the control group.

33
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
This research project was a descriptive, quantitative analysis utilizing
survey data collected from undergraduate students at USC. This research used a
quasi-experimental, repeated measures design. USC was selected as the research
site due to the accessibility of student respondents, the prevalence of civic oppor-
tunities, and the location of the researcher. The unit of analysis was the individual
student, since the behavior and motivations of the student were the focus of the
study. Targeting students enrolled in certain civic programs and activities, along
with members of various civic student organizations, allowed the researcher to
collect information from students who were engaged in a variety of civic activities
at USC.
The civic activities identified in Table 1 were selected for their explicit
intent to engage students in civic and or political activities, incorporate interaction
with peers in program design or activities, have faculty or other interaction with a
staff advisor, and incorporate experiential activities into the overall program design.
The civic activities represent a wide range of activities and encompass the typical
types of immersive or ongoing community service and service learning programs
available to undergraduate students.
As described in chapter 2, Youniss et al. (1997) suggested that civic
engagement should be “disaggregated by form” (p. 3), suggesting that it is import-
ant to think of civic engagement as distinct tasks and categorize the intensity of the
involvement (i.e., one time or ongoing). For this research, the civic activities
selected were more regular and ongoing rather than one time or episodic. Given

34
Table 1

University-Sponsored Civic Activities

Civic/ Intensity/
USC civic activity Type political duration

Alternative spring break Out-of-class/service-
learning
Civic Short term
Joint educational project Curricular service-
learning
Civic Short term
Community service student
organizations
Out-of class student
organization
Mixed Semester
Political student assembly
and other political student
organizations
Out-of class student
organization
Political Semester

that civic engagement is often thought of as encompassing both civic pursuits (e.g.,
volunteering) and “traditional” political activities (e.g., voting), both arenas were
included. As discussed in chapter 2, civic educations efforts is thought to encom-
pass both curricular and out-of-class efforts. This research included curricular
service learning programs, and internships, as well as cocurricular student organiza-
tions, to explore the differences between the types.
Table 1 summarizes the variety of university-sponsored civic activities from
which the sample was drawn. The Alternative Break program is a long-standing
cocurricular program that engages students in a week of immersive community
service that includes educational and reflective activities. The Joint Educational
Project enrolls students in an 8-week traditional service learning program that is
held in conjunction with a course. Students typically spend 2 hours per week in a
classroom working with children. The civic-oriented student organizations included

35
the Helenes, Trojan Knights, and Troy Camp, three of the university’s most
established community service programs, as well as Blacks in Action, Chicanos for
Progressive Education, Asian American Tutoring Project, and Community Health
Involvement Project. The political organizations included the Undergraduate
Student Government and the Political Student Assembly, which included advocacy
groups such as Human Rights Watch, Environment First, USC Republicans, and
USC Democrats.
It was expected that students would have multiple involvements and that the
broad classifications would serve as their primary activity. It was also assumed that
the student organizations would share certain qualities, such as being self-directed,
independent of a department or program, and organized with a leadership board and
membership. The organizations included in the initial recruitment are described
above. Table 2 summarizes the breakdown for each student organization at Time 3
who completed each wave of the survey.
Survey Development and Participant Recruitment
Pilot Phase
The survey instrument was created for the purpose of this study; therefore,
it was necessary to test it for clarity, validity, reliability, and meaningfulness. In
order to determine effectiveness of the questions and validity of the responses, the
survey was piloted with a group of students employed in the USC Division of
Student Affairs.
The interviewer administered the survey to obtain feedback related to
question clarity, ease of completion, and length of time for completion. The survey
was administered to 25 students who were familiar to the researcher, with whom

36
Table 2

Distribution of Individual Groups Within Student Organization Civic Activity

Total at Total at
Group Time 1 Time 3

Undergraduate Student Government 34 13
Political Student Assembly
a
7 1
Trojan Knights 13 6
Helenes 16 9
Troy Camp 26 7
Blacks in Action 2 1
Chicanos for Progressive Education 4 0
Community Health Involvement Project 8 1
Asian American Tutoring Project 3 0
Total 129 44

a
Political Student Assembly included USC Republicans, USC Democrats,
Environment First, and Human Rights Watch.

she had opportunity to ask detailed questions regarding the instrument, and who
were not included in the study sample.
Because the instrument was using questions that were adapted from Eccles
et al. (1989) and related to four civic task areas, it was important to determine that
the questions were yielding the appropriate responses and that they were clear to
the readers. Based on the results of the pilot phase, the survey instrument was
revised to optimize question clarity.

37
Participant Recruitment
The survey respondent sample consisted of students recruited from four
groups, two of which were recruited via a census of all activity participants and one
of which were a random sample from the universe of members of civic-oriented
student organizations that was presented in Table 2. The fourth group, a control,
was drawn from the psychology subjects pool and was controlled for no current
participation in the selected USC civic activities. Table 3 describes the recruitment
and retention numbers for the sample by group.

Table 3

Sample Size and Response Rate

Initial Completed Completed Completed
Group interest Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

JEP
a
100 39 (39%) 25 (64%) 25 (100%)
ASB
b
120 53 (44%) 47 (88%) 35 (74%)
Student organizations
c
140 102 (73%) 65 (63%) 41 (63%)
Control 120 107 (89%) 28 (26%) 27 (96%)
Total 480 301 (63%) 165 (55%) 128 (78%)

a
Five Joint Educational Project (JEP) classes were chosen at random.
b
All
Alternative Spring Break (ASB) participants engaged in spring 2007 were invited
to participate.
c
Students were invited from selected student organizations:
Undergraduate Student Government, Political Student Assembly, USC Helenes,
Trojan Knights, USC Republicans, Environment First, Community Health
Involvement Project, and Troy Camp.

38
Once the groups were identified, the researcher went to a regularly
scheduled meeting, held during the first 5 weeks of the spring 2007 semester of the
group to introduce the study and invite students to participate. Students were given
the informed consent form and were given the opportunity to sign an interest list.
All interested students were sent an email with a link to the online survey with a
randomly generated respondent code that would be used as a unique case identifier
to complete the survey anonymously. (The survey was administered utilizing
Survey Monkey [http://www.surveymonkey.com], which assists researchers to
develop and host online surveys.) For each time period, students were given 1 week
to complete the survey; those who had not completed the survey by that time were
sent an email reminder. Students were given a total of 4 weeks to complete the
survey. Students who did not do so within 4 weeks were removed from the sample.
The surveys were administered on three occasions: Time 1 (baseline), before the
start of the civic activity (January 21 to February 16, 2007); Time 2, which was 3
weeks after the completion of the civic activity (March 19 to April 27, 2007); and
Time 3, which was 6 months after the end of the civic activity (September 17 to
October 27, 2007).
The completion rate for the survey from initial recruitment to Time 1 was
63.7%. A final survey response rate of 26.6% was based on the number of students
from the initial interest group who completed the survey at each time period.
Completion rates at each time period are shown in the last line of Table 3. Only the
respondents who completed the prior time period were invited to participate in the
next time period. The characteristics for the sample are presented in Table 4. As
indicated, the sample was fairly balanced with respect to descriptive characteristics.

39
Table 4

Frequencies and Percentages of Characteristics of Student Respondents by Civic
Activity

Student
Characteristic JEP ASB organization Control
and category (n = 25) (n = 35) (n = 41) (n = 27)

Gender
Female 21 (84%) 23 (66%) 24 (58%) 23 (85%)
Male 4 (16%) 12 (34%) 17 (42%) 4 (15%)

Year in school
Freshman 9 (36%) 5 (14%) 6 (15%) 1 ( 4%)
Sophomore 5 (20%) 8 (23%) 10 (24%) 11 (41%)
Junior 6 (24%) 9 (26%) 13 (32%) 7 (26%)
Senior 5 (20%) 13 (37%) 10 (24%) 8 (30%)
Fifth year + 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%)

Ethnicity
Caucasian 10 (40%) 13 (37%) 28 (68%) 13 (48%)
African American 0 ( 0%) 3 ( 9%) 1 ( 2%) 1 ( 4%)
Asian Pacific Isl. 8 (32%) 8 (32%) 4 (10%) 4 (15%)
Hispanic/Latino 5 (20%) 4 (11%) 2 ( 5%) 5 (18%)
Multiracial 1 ( 4%) 3 ( 9%) 5 (12%) 4 (15%)
Other 1 ( 4%) 4 (11%) 1 ( 2%) 0 ( 0%)

Mother’s level of education
< high school diploma 1 ( 4%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 3 (11%)
High school diploma 1 ( 4%) 4 (11%) 5 (12%) 2 ( 7%)
Some college 0 ( 0%) 4 (11%) 2 ( 5%) 1 ( 4%)
Associate degree 2 ( 8%) 4 (11%) 6 (15%) 5 (18%)
Bachelor degree 13 (52%) 11 (32%) 17 (41%) 10 (37%)
Master’s degree 7 (28%) 8 (23%) 4 (10%) 5 (19%)
JD or MD degree 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 6%) 5 (12%) 1 ( 4%)
Doctorate 1 ( 4%) 2 ( 6%) 2 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%)

How active in volunteer
activities in high school
Inactive 1 ( 4%) 1 ( 3%) 2 ( 5%) 5 (19%)
Somewhat active 5 (20%) 8 (23%) 9 (22%) 7 (26%)
Very active 19 (76%) 26 (74%) 30 ( 3%) 15 (55%)

Voted in last election
No 7 (28%) 7 (20%) 11 (27%) 9 (33%)
Yes 15 (60%) 24 (69%) 26 (63%) 10 (27%)
Don’t know 1 ( 4%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 2%) 0 ( 0%)

40
Table 4 (continued)

Student
Characteristic JEP ASB organization Control
and category (n = 25) (n = 35) (n = 41) (n = 27)

Party affiliation
Democrat 11 (44%) 17 (49%) 15 (37%) 9 (33%)
Republican 7 (28%) 3 ( 9%) 11 (27%) 6 (22%)
Independent 6 (24%) 13 (37%) 11 (27%) 5 (19%)
Other 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 3%) 2 ( 5%) 3 (11%)

Political views
Liberal 11 (44%) 18 (51%) 17 (42%) 12 (44%)
Conservative 5 (20%) 2 ( 6%) 10 (24%) 4 (15%)
Moderate 9 (36%) 14 (40%) 13 (32%) 7 (26%)

%ote. JEP = Joint Educational Project, ASB = Alternative Spring Break

An interesting attribute of this sample was the extent of prior involvement
by student in their respective civic activities. In particular, a large percentage of
students involved in JEP had an average of 2.3 semesters of prior JEP activity. This
is contrasted with the 12 ASB students (34%) who had a previous alternative break
experience. Also, within the Student Organization group, 38% had experience with
Undergraduate Student Government for an average of 2.2 semesters. This was
followed by experience with both Troy Camp and Helenes, each of which are long-
standing community service organizations on campus (Table 5).
The Survey Instrument
The survey instrument, called the Civic Engagement Motivation Question-
naire (CEMQ; appendix A) was designed for this research project. The survey had
three parts: (a) basic demographic questions, (b) civic engagement questions, and
(c) motivational scale questions. The demographic section asked respondents to

41
Table 5

Prior Civic Involvement by Civic Activity

Student
JEP ASB Organizations Control
Group (n = 25) (n = 35) (n = 41) (n = 29)

JEP 60% (15) 34% (12) 34% (14) 28% (8)
ASB 20% (5) 37% (13) 3% (3) -
USG 12% (3) 23% (8) 38% (16) 3% (1)
Helenes 4% (1) 5% (2) 15% (6) -
Troy Camp 12% (3) 14% (5) 15% (6) 3% (1)

%ote. JEP = Joint Educational Project, ASB = Alternative Spring Break, USG =
United Student Government.

provide information about their age, grade level, current GPA, major and minor
course of study, and level of education completed by their parents.
The civic engagement section was based in part on questions from both
established political attitudes research and civic engagement studies. Two primary
sources were used: (a) the work of David King and the Harvard University Institute
of Politics (2006) biannual survey of undergraduate student attitudes; and (b) the
Verba et al. (1995) work Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American
Politics. The civic engagement questions asked respondents to indicate whether
they were registered to vote, how they rated their political views (from liberal to
conservative), their party affiliation, and whether they considered themselves to be

42
civically and politically active. Finally, the respondents were asked to indicate their
level of participation in a variety of university-sponsored civic-oriented groups,
both currently and over time.
The motivation section was developed in consultation with Jacquelynne
Eccles, based on the work of Eccles et al. (1997). The questions used to form the
motivation subscales were divided into three parts: ability, interest, and utility.
Each of the questions was asked in the four civic engagement areas: persuading
others, fundraising, working informally with others, and tutoring children. These
areas were chosen from the list of civic activities included in the work of the
scholars involved with the PEP, a program of the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching (see http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/general/
index.asp?key=25). The motivation questions asked in each task area are shown in
Table 6. All responses were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale. The
original questions from Eccles et al. are included in appendix B, along with their
original factor scores and scale reliability coefficients.
The questions included in Table 6 represent one of the four civic
engagement areas included in the survey. Each question was written in the same
manner and the underlined civic engagement area item was replaced by one of the
other three: tutoring children, persuading others in the 2006 election, and working
informally with others to solve a problem in the community. The rationale for
selecting these four civic engagement areas was to address the need to provide a
range of activities that would cover what is generally believed to encompass
modern notions of civic engagement.
Finally, students were asked to respond to a list of 20 civic engagement
activities by indicating how likely they were to engage in this activity in the next

43
Table 6

Sample of Motivational Subscale Items

Group Item

Ability
How good are you at raising money for a charity or social cause?

Compared to the other students who participated with you, how
would you rate yourself at raising money for a charity or a social
cause?

Compared to most other civic engagement activities that you are
involved in, how good are you at raising money for a charity or a
social cause?

Interest
How important to you is raising money for a charity of a social
cause?

In general, I find raising money for a charity or a social cause (very
boring to very interesting).

How much do you like raising money for a charity or a social cause?

Utility
How useful do you think that raising money for a charity or a social
cause will be for what you want to do after you graduate and go to
work?

In general how useful is what you learn when you raise money for a
charity or a social cause?

Is the amount of effort it will take to do well at raising money for a
charity or a social cause this year worthwhile to you?

2 years. The results were used to compute the future expectancy dependent
variable. The list of activities is included in the complete survey instrument in
appendix A.

44
Measures
Dependent Variables
The dependent variable future expectancy and the motivational subscales
were captured in an instrument consisting of questions designed to elicit responses
around four “typical” civic engagement areas that represent the range of civic
activities that are based on the work of the Ann Colby’s PEP, which was high-
lighted in the 2005 CIRCLE meeting cited in chapter 2. Specifically, the activities
were fundraising for a charity or other social cause, tutoring children, persuading
others during the 2006 national election, and working informally with others to
address a problem in the community. As noted above, these categories were chosen
specifically to capture the range of civic tasks that could be classified under the
construct of civic engagement and believed to be those with which students would
have some experience.
The future expectancy of civic engagement was a summated scale com-
prised of all scores for the question, “Based on the scale below, how likely is it that
you will be involved in these activities over the next 2 years?” Respondents chose a
score that ranged from 7 = very likely to 1 = not very likely. The future expectancy
dependent variable was used in the multiple regression analysis.
The motivational subscales ability, interest, and utility were the dependent
variables for the analysis of variance. In each of the four civic activity areas,
respondents were asked questions about their perceptions and beliefs as they related
to persuading others during the 2006 national election, fundraising for a social
cause or charity, working informally with others to solve a community problem,
and tutoring children. Each of the motivational subscales was a summated scale of
all of the scores for each question in all four civic engagement areas. The specific

45
language included in each motivational subscale is indicated in Table 6. Response
choices ranged from 7 = very likely to 1 = not very likely.
Independent Variables
As indicated in the research questions, this research was designed to under-
stand the effect of the factors listed below on a student’s motivation to participate
in civic engagement activities. As discussed in chapter 2, numerous factors have
been repeatedly shown to influence or predict civic engagement. The independent
variables were organized into two groups: (a) the control variables, which included
gender and mother’s education; and (b) the predictor variables, which included
current college GPA; level of high school civic involvement; type of university-
sponsored civic activity; and score for the student’s total participation in civic-
oriented pursuits at USC.
Survey Coding
When the respondents had completed the online survey, the responses were
downloaded into computer software spreadsheet, cleaned, and imported into
SPSS™ for analysis. Table 7 illustrates the measurement protocol that was used to
derive the values for each of the variables.
Analytic Methods
Multiple analytic methods were employed to interpret these data. This
approach allowed for the greatest level of understanding of the data and enabled the
researcher to paint a richer portrait of student motivation. Specifically, five types of
statistics were used: descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, mixed between-
within subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA; sometimes referred to as split-plot

46
Table 7

Variables by Measurement and Value

Motiva- Independent
tional scale Measure variables Measure

Ability Summated
scale score
Age

Gender

Ethnicity

Mother’s
education
Raw data were collected

0 = Male; 1 = Female

1 = WNH, 2 = AF, 3 = API, 4 = H, 5 =
NA, 6 = M, 7 = O

1 = < high school, 2 = high school
diploma, 3 = some college, 4 = Associ-
ate degree, 5 = Bachelor degree, 6 =
Master’s degree, 7 = doctorate
Interest Summated
scale score
High school
involvement
Scale response 1 = low to 7 = high
Utility Summated
scale score
USC GPA Raw data were collected
Future
Expectancy
Summated
scale score
Past
participation

Civic
activity

Civic
opportunity
1 point was given for each yes
response and for each year engaged

1 = JEP, 2 = ASB, 3 = Student
organization, 4 = control group

1 = Yes, 0 = %o

%ote.

W = White Non Hispanic, AF = African American, API = Asian Pacific
Islander, H = Hispanic, NA = Native American, M = Multiracial, O = Other; USC
= University of Southern California; GPA = grade point average; JEP = Joint
Educational Project, ASB = Alternative Spring Break.

ANOVA; see Pallant, 2005, p. 239), comparison of means using t tests, and linear
regression analysis.

47
Descriptive Statistics
This analysis reflected the attributes of the students in each group. For each
group, the similarities and differences between the means of the variables capturing
their individual attributes were estimated.
Correlation Analysis
This test was used to determine the strength and direction of the relation-
ships among the variables. A Pearson correlation coefficient was produced for each
bivariate relationship examined. The variables were put into a correlation matrix to
determine the degree to which they were associated. This is an important step, first
as an evaluative step to determine the extent of multicollinearity inherent in the
model, which is a critical step that is necessary to take prior to regression analysis.
The second step was used for descriptive purposes and the results were added to the
descriptive analysis, thus yielding a richer and more complete description of the
relationship between the characteristics of the students and the degree to which the
specific variables were related to one another.
Mixed Between-Within Subjects A%OVA
This test was an extension of a repeated measures ANOVA and examined
the relationships between the independent variable and the dependent variable over
time. The results yielded an interaction effect between the independent variable,
civic activity, and the motivational subscale; as well as a main effect of the mean
scores on each of the motivational subscales over time. This analysis determined
the degree to which there was change in student attitudes over time (main effect)
and the degree of the impact on that change over time made by participation in the
civic activity (interaction effect).

48
t Tests
Independent samples t tests were run to examine the differences between
the means across each of the dependent variables. The sample was divided along
each of the civic activities. The results confirmed the post hoc testing conducted
during the ANOVA and more clearly illustrated differences between the groups.
Regression Analysis
Three models were developed to statistically determine and quantify the
influence of the selected independent variables on future expectancy of civic
engagement at each time period. The specific regression analysis indicated the
strength of the model, providing a measure of the amount of variation of future
expectancy of civic engagement that is explained by the selected independent
variables. In addition, the analysis determined the relative strength and predictive
ability of each independent variable by the calculation of regression coefficients.

49
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
As described in the chapter 3, three analytic methods were used to explore
the relationships present in the data as well as the differences between the groups
over time. This chapter begins with an overview of the tests of assumptions and an
examination of the properties of the data set that allowed the researcher to deter-
mine the validity and reliability of the data. Then each of the analyses is presented
in turn with each set of findings being described, both in written form and through
the presentation of summary tables.
Preliminary Analyses
Data were downloaded from an Internet survey Web site, SurveyMonkey™,
into the Microsoft
®
Office
®
Excel
®
program, where it was made ready to import
into SPSS™ version 16.0. Once imported into SPSS, a series of frequency tables
was run to check for errors, which included verifying the values for each response,
identifying extreme values, and making the appropriate corrections. Once the data
file was prepared, the preliminary analyses were run to determine validity and
reliability and to test the assumptions needed for the regression analysis and the
ANOVA. The full discussion of these tests and corresponding tables are included in
appendix C.
Independence of Observations
The assumptions underlying ANOVA relate to the distribution of means
and the level of measurement, and critical to this assumption is the independence of
observations. Pallant (2005) stated that each observation must be independent and

50
“not influenced by any other observation or measurement” (p. 197). The data
collected in this study was gathered from individual students responding to the
questionnaire independently from the other students and there was no interaction
between groups throughout the study; therefore, the researcher is confident that the
observations are independent.
%ormal Distribution
Pallant (2005) noted that many social science studies violate the assumption
of normal distribution but added that most of the statistical tools (SPSS included),
are “robust” enough to “tolerate the violation of this assumption” (p. 198) As
shown in Table C1, the data for some of the variables violated the assumption on
first inspection results; as suggested by Pallant, the accompanying plots were
reviewed. The plots produced in this research indicated that each of the dependent
variables was “reasonably normal,” which, as Pallant noted, is common in research
of this nature, where examining attitudes is often skewed either positively or
negatively.
Homogeneity of Variance
The assumption of homogeneity of variance requires that samples be
“obtained from populations of equal variances” (Pallant, 2005, p. 198) and that the
variability be similar for each of the groups. The results of this test revealed that the
data did not violate this assumption and the variation was similar across each
subgroup in the sample.

51
Type 1 Error and Type 2 Error
Type 1 error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is actually
true; this error usually occurs when the researcher believes that there is a difference
between the groups but there is none. Pallant (2005) suggested that Type 1 error
can be avoided by setting an appropriate alpha level for significance testing, which
is generally either .05 or .01; in this research the alpha level was set at .05. Type 2
error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is false, or when the
researcher believes that the groups do not differ but they are different. Pallant
suggested that the power of a test can alleviate this problem and is dependent on the
sample size, effect size, and alpha level. Stevens (1996) suggested that it is helpful
to inspect the power values provided in the output along with the analysis. If a
result is insignificant and there is a power value less than .80, care should be taken
in interpreting that result because it could indicate that there was “insufficient
power for the test, rather than no difference between the groups” (as cited in
Pallant, p. 199).
Multivariate %ormality
A factor in understanding the normal distribution of the data is to identify
the presence of outliers. The appropriate critical value was compared to the output
generated and it was determined that eight cases exceeded this critical value.
Equality of Covariance Matrices
As a part of the ANOVA, Box’s M was generated to test the assumption of
homogeneity of variance and covariance of the data. The results of this test
indicated that the data did not violate this assumption.

52
Multiple Regression Assumptions
The presence of multicollinearity was examined in the correlational
analysis. The motivation subscales were highly correlated, r > .90. Due to this
finding, the regression models were run separately with each subscale for each time
period. Finally, the normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of the data were
examined; the data did not violate any of these assumptions.
Scale Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha was computed to test for the reliability of the individual
subscales of the motivation measure for the current sample. In prior work by Eccles
and Wigfield (1993), using the motivational questionnaire with school-age
children, the ability, interest, and utility scales had Cronbach alpha ranging from
.75 to .85. Table 8 summarizes the reliabilities for each of the motivation subscales
for the current sample. The coefficients presented are from the base line data taken
at Time 1.
Pretest and Posttest Correlations
Zero-order correlations were computed to examine the relationships among
the subscales and the dependent variables. As shown in the correlation matrix in
Table 9, the subscales were highly correlated. In addition, future expectancy was
positively correlated with total college involvement and current civic opportunity
and GPA. Participation in a civic opportunity (JEP, ASB, or service and political
student organizations) was positively correlated with future expectancy of civic
engagement, total college involvement, and the utility motivational subscale. There
were significant positive correlations among the three motivation subscales: ability,
interest, and current GPA.

53
Table 8

Reliability Statistics for the Motivation Subscales

Scale Cronbach’s alpha

Ability .87
Interest .82
Utility .84
Future expectancy of civic engagement .85

Students’ total college involvement was correlated with each of the
motivational subscales. Current GPA was positively correlated with each of the
motivation subscales and with mother’s education (the proxy variable for family
SES). Student’s level of high school activity was negatively correlated with total
college involvement.
Statistical Analyses
As reported in chapter 3, multiple analytic methods were employed to
interpret these data. This approach allowed for the greatest level of understanding
of the data and enabled the researcher to paint a richer portrait of student
motivation. Specifically, four types of statistics were used: descriptive statistics,
correlation analysis, “mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance”
(sometimes referred to as “split-plot ANOVA design”; Pallant, 2005, p. 239), and
linear regression analysis. The detailed review of the statistical results for each of
the four research questions is followed by a summary of the findings.

54

55
Difference Between Groups Prior to Participation
in a Civic Activity (Time 1)
The first series of analyses explored the first research question, regarding
the differences between groups prior to the start of their civic activity. A one-way
between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the differences between each of
the three groups prior to the start of participation in the civic activity and the
control group. Results presented in Table 10 and indicate significant differences
between groups for each motivational subscale.
The variance between the ability scores was significant, F(3, 124) = 5.75,
p < .001, and the effect size (measured by the partial eta squared coefficient) was
.122, indicating a moderately large effect. The results for the interest and utility
subscales were similar to those of the ability subscale, F(2, 124) = 5.27, p < .002
and F(2, 124) = 5.23, p < .002, respectively. Each of these subscales had an effect
size of .11, which indicates a moderately large effect (Cohen, 1988). (The eta
squared coefficient is not provided as a part of the SPSS output produced for the
one-way ANOVA procedure and was calculated by dividing the sum of squares
between groups by the total sum of squares (Pallant, 2005).
Given the significant results in the one-way ANOVA, post hoc tests were
run to determine which groups were statistically different from the others. The final
column in Table 10 indicates the results of the Tukey HSD post hoc tests, which
revealed a statistical difference between the mean scores for each motivational
subscale between the JEP group and the Control group and the Student Organiza-
tion group and the Control group. The JEP and Student Organization groups were
consistently higher than the Control group on each of the subscales.

56

57
The mean difference for the JEP group and Student Organization group was
15.95 (p < .01) and 17.06 (p < .001) points higher, respectively, on the ability scale
compared to the Control group. The other subscales were similar, with the JEP
group having mean scores that were 17.27 for interest and 18.69 for utility (p < .01)
higher than the Control group. The Student Organizations group had slightly lower
scores than the JEP group, but they were significantly higher than those of the
Control group: 16.08 (p < .01) and 16.91 (p < .01) for interest and utility, respect-
ively. The scores for each of the groups followed a similar pattern for the Future
Expectancy for Civic Engagement scale: The JEP group had a mean score of 17.73
points higher than the Control group (p < .01) and the Student Organization group
had a mean score of 18.09 points higher than the Control group (p < .01).
Impact of Participation in Civic Activities on Motivational
Constructs Engagement Over Time
The next analysis addressed the second and third research questions, related
to variation over time among the motivational subscales. In particular, this analysis
was conducted to understand the degree to which participation in a university-
sponsored civic activity influenced the three motivational subscales over time. A
mixed between/within subjects ANOVA (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) was com-
pleted for each of the motivational subscales to determine (a) whether there was a
change in the scores over time, and (b) whether there was an interaction effect that
could be attributed to participation one of the civic activities.
As shown in Tables 11 through 13, the results indicated change over time
when each of the individual motivational subscales was examined. The results
indicate a significant main effect for each motivational subscale. In an ANOVA of
this nature, main effects show change over time for respondents. However, the

58

59

60

61
interaction effects, or the effect over time of participating in a university-sponsored
civic activity, were mixed.
The ability subscale showed no significant interaction between ability and
civic opportunity, suggesting that student participation in a civic opportunity made
no difference in the student’s sense of ability over time. However, the main effect
for change over time in the ability scores was significant, F(2, 123) = 9.00, p <
.000. The partial eta squared coefficient was .128, indicating a moderately large
effect. The results for the utility subscale were similar to those for the ability
subscale, F(2, 123) = 9.10, p < .000, and showed a moderately large effect, with a
partial eta squared of .129.
The results for the interest subscales showed a significant interaction effect
between interest and civic opportunity, F(6, 246) = 2.77, p < .013, and a partial eta
squared of .549, which is an exceptionally large effect size. This indicates that
interest in these civic activities changed over time for students who participated in a
university-sponsored civic activity. In addition, there was a moderate main effect
for interest, F(2, 123) = 7.47, p < .000, with a partial eta squared = .063.
In addition to the results of the testing for interaction and main effects, the
between-subjects tests revealed significant differences between some of the civic
groups. The final column of Tables 11 through 13 display the results of post hoc
tests run as a part of the mixed between/within subjects ANOVA; and each of these
differences is displayed in Figures 1, 2, and 3. These figures illustrate that there
were significant statistical differences between the Student Organizations group
and the Control group: As indicate, the Student Organization group was
consistently higher than the Control group on each of the subscales. The mean
difference for the Student Organization group was 12.87 points higher (p < .001)

62

Figure 1. Ability motivational subscale scores over time. JEP = Joint Educational
Project, ASB = Alternative Spring Break.

Figure 2. Interest motivational subscale scores over time. JEP = Joint Educational
Project, ASB = Alternative Spring Break.

Figure 3. Utility motivational subscale scores over time. JEP = Joint Educational
Project, ASB = Alternative Spring Break.

63
than the Control group on the ability scale, 10.10 points higher (p < .001) on the
interest scale, and 12.74 points higher (p < .003) on the utility scale.
Further Explanation of Group Differences
As described above, the post hoc testing conducted during the ANOVA
revealed significant differences between the Student Organization group and the
control group; each of the means for the motivational subscales scores was between
10.1 and 12.8 points higher. A series of t tests was performed to examine the group
means across the dependent variables by dividing the sample along each of the
civic activities. Since the post hoc testing revealed significant differences with the
student organizations, the individual student groups with the three largest
percentages were examined. Given the significant difference between the Student
Organization civic activity and the control group, attention was paid to examining
the individual differences between the various individual groups represented in that
activity. In particular, as shown in Table 2, a majority of the students included in
this civic activity were involved with the Undergraduate Student Government (n =
13), Helenes (n = 9), or Troy Camp (n = 7). The influence of participating in these
specific groups was compared to JEP and ASB and is summarized in Table 14.
Students who participated in Undergraduate Student Government had
significantly higher mean scores across the dependent variables at Time 1 and Time
3, with the exception of interest.
Another notable finding was related to the Helenes group, which was the
only group to have a significant difference at Time 2 for each of the motivational
subscales: Ability, M = 36.6, SD = 15.6, t(126), p = .022; Interest, M = 25.1,

64
Table 14

Results of Independent Samples t Tests

United Student Not United
Government Student Government t
Variable M SD M SD (df = 126) p

Ability Time 1 40.5 19.7 29.4 18.1 2.77 .006***
Ability Time 2 24.3 21.9 23.9 18.5 0.10 .920
Ability Time 3 31.9 21.2 24.5 18.5 1.78 .077
+

Interest Time 1 43.4 20.6 32.7 18.7 2.59 .011**
Interest Time 2 16.9 14.0 15.7 13.0 0.27 .787
Interest Time 3 29.4 16.9 29.4 18.0 -0.01 .987
Utility Time 1 43.5 22.8 31.6 19.3 2.72 .007**
Utility Time 2 25.8 22.6 25.9 19.8 -0.01 .992
Utility Time 3 34.3 23.5 25.9 19.7 1.88 .062
+

Future Time 1 102.8 19.8 89.6 20.6 2.99 .003**
Future Time 2 92.4 26.6 97.4 37.8 0.77 .438
Future Time 3 110.1 17.5 90.5 27.5 3.51 .001***

+
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

SD = 10.1, t(126), p = .015; Utility, M = 37.4, SD = 16.1, t(126), p = .049; and
Future Expectancy, M = 107.8, SD = 18.6, t(126), p = .089.
Explaining the Variation in College Students’
Expectancy for Future Civic Engagement
The next set of analyses addressed the fourth research question, examining
the degree to which the specific motivational subscales predicted a student’s

65
expectancy for involvement in future civic engagement activities. To examine the
predictors of students’ expectancy for future civic engagement, a series of
regression analyses was performed. In each analysis, students’ age, mothers’ level
of education, students’ current GPA, gender, level of high school activity, and past
USC participation were entered into the equation as control variables. Participation
in a university-sponsored civic opportunity and one of the motivation subscales
were then entered as predictors in two steps. As noted in earlier in this chapter, all
three of the motivation subscales could not be included in the same regression
equation because they were highly intercorrelated, as indicated in Table 9. Table 15
shows the change in the adjusted R
2
in each of the models over all three time
periods. As indicated, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed.
Model 1 included the control variables gender, age, college GPA, and
mother’s education level. The second model included the high school activity
measure and the dummy variable measuring participation in the university-
sponsored civic activity. The third model added the motivational subscale: ability,
interest, and utility. As shown in Table 15, control variables were significant only
at Time 1. At each time period the models, when run with the motivational
subscales, were significant predictors of future expectancy.
The final nine regression models are presented in Tables 16, 17, and 18.
The models were run utilizing data collected at each time point before the students’
programs began, immediately after the programs ended, and 6 months later.
Table 16 shows that, at Time 1 (before students participated in their
university-sponsored civic activity), expectancy for future civic engagement was
significantly predicted by each of the motivational subscales, as well as by
participation in a civic opportunity. Each of these associations between the

66
Table 15

Model Summaries for Hierarchical Regression Models

%ote. Model 1 predictors: (constant), gender, age, gpa, momed; Model 2 predictors:
(constant), gender, age, gpa, momed, hsactive, civicop; Model 3a predictors:
(constant), gender, age, gpa, momed, hsactive, civicop, ability; Model 3b pre-
dictors: (constant), gender, age, gpa, momed, hsactive, civicop, interest; Model 3c
predictors: (constant), gender, age, gpa, momed, hsactive, civicop, utility. The
motivation variables were included in the model separately because they were
highly intercorrelated, r > .90.

+
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

motivational subscale and future expectancy was positive and each was the most
significant coefficient in their respective models. All three motivational subscales
were positive and highly significant (p < .000); specifically, in model A the ability
coefficient (.64) explained 25% of the variance in the dependent variable alone and
R
2

Time and model R R
2
Adjusted R
2
SE Change

Time 1
Model 1 .256 .082 .052* 20.5 .082
Model 2 .406 .165 .123** 19.7 .083
Model 3a .646 .417 .382*** 16.5 .252
Model 3b .618 .382 .345*** 17.0 .217
Model 3c .670 .449 .417*** 16.0 .284

Time 2
Model 1 .157 .025 -.007 29.3 .025
Model 2 .206 .043 -.005 29.3 .018
Model 3a
2
.472 .223 .177*** 26.5 .181
Model 3b
2
.446 .199 .152*** 26.9 .156
Model 3c
2
.464 .215 .169*** 26.6 .172

Time 3
Model 1 .183 .034 .002 26.8 .034
Model 2 .223 .050 .002 26.8 .016
Model 3a
3
.591 .349 .311*** 22.3 .300
Model 3b
3
.560 .314 .274*** 22.8 .264
Model 3c
3
.594 .353 .315*** 22.2 .304

67

68

69

70
the model accounted for 38% of the total variation in future expectancy. In model B
the interest coefficient (.59) explained 22% of the variation in future expectancy
and the model itself represented a total of 34% of the variation in the dependent
variable. The model including the utility subscale explained the largest percentage
of variation in future expectancy, with an adjusted R
2
of .42. The utility coefficient
(.64) represented 28% of the total variation in future expectancy alone. These
findings supported the hypotheses and indicated that all three of the subscales
positively predicted students’ expectancy to engage in future civic activities.
The coefficients for civic opportunity in model A and in model B (6.6 and
7.0, respectively) explained approximately 1.4% of the variance in the dependent
variable (model A included the ability subscale and model B included the interest
subscale). While this is a significant positive result, it does not account for a large
amount of the variance in the dependent variable (i.e., participation in a
university-sponsored civic opportunity explained only 1.4% of the variance in
future expectancy at Time 1, or prior to participation in the civic activity.
The same models were run with the data collected 6 weeks after students’
completion of their university-sponsored civic activity (Time 2). The results (Table
17) indicate that all three of the models were significant and explained approxi-
mately one fifth of the variance in the dependent variable, with an adjusted R
2

ranging from .15 to .17. As hypothesized, each of the motivation subscales were
significant predictors of the expectancy for future civic engagement. A detailed
description of the statistical results follows.
In model A
2
the ability coefficient .70 explained 20% of the variance in
the expectancy for future civic activity; in model B
2
the interest coefficient .92
explained 17% of the variance in the dependent variable. Both of these coefficients

71
were the strongest predictors of expectancy to engage in civic activities over the
next 2 years. The utility coefficient in model C
2
was also a significant predictor,
with a coefficient of .63 that explained 19% of the variance in the dependent
variable. No other variables were significant in any of the three models at this time
period.
The same models were run with the data collected 6 months after students’
completion of their university-sponsored civic activity (Time 3). The results (Table
18) indicated that all three models were significant and explained approximately
one third of the variance in the dependent variable, with an adjusted R
2
ranging
from .22 to .26. As hypothesized, each of the motivation subscales was a
significant predictor of the expectancy for future civic engagement. A detailed
description of the statistical results follows.
In model A
3
the ability coefficient .79 explained 31% of the variance in the
expectancy for future civic activity; in model B
3
the interest coefficient 1.1
explained 4% of the dependent variable. Both of these coefficients were significant
and positive predictors of students’ expectancy to engage in civic activities over the
next 2 years. In addition, these coefficients were stronger predictors at Time 3 than
at Time 1 (before the students participated in the civic opportunity). The utility
coefficient in model C
3
was the strongest predictor, with a coefficient of .75
explaining 32.4% of the variance in the dependent variable.
A student’s total participation (.19, p < .05) was also a factor in explaining
the dependent variable, in particular in model B
3
. A student’s high school activity
level emerged as the next strongest predictor, explaining nearly 2% of the variance
in the dependent variable.

72
Discussion
First, it was hypothesized that students who participated in university-
sponsored civic activities would have higher scale scores for the motivational
constructs ability, interest, and utility at Time 1 when compared to the Control
group. There was at least a 9-point differential when each of the civic activity
groups was compared to the Control group. As shown in Table 10, there were
significant differences between two of the three civic activity groups at Time 1
(prior to the start of the civic activity). In particular, both the JEP and Student
Organization groups had utility scale scores that were nearly 20 points higher than
those of the Control group.
Although this research does not address the causal nature of this difference,
one could speculate that engaged students would be more likely to see the value in
the civic activity, given the numerous benefits promised by their participation, and
would therefore respond more positively to the questions. While this study was
limited by the lack of evaluative data on the experience of engaging in the civic
activity, this could be true for the JEP group, who were pursuing the civic activity
to satisfy a course requirement, where clear selective benefits were identified prior
to beginning the program.
Second, it was hypothesized that students’ motivational scale scores would
be stronger as a result of participation in USC civic activities when compared to the
Control group over the three time periods. In addition, it was hypothesized that
students who participated in USC civic opportunities would have significantly
different future expectancy scale scores over time when compared to the Control
group.

73
The results allow acceptance of these hypotheses: The students who
participated in the civic activities had scores that were different from those of the
Control group, and the JEP and Student Organization groups were statistically
different from those of the Control group. While scores were different, as indicated
in Tables 11, 12, and 13, there was a sharp decline in all scores for each of the civic
activity groups at Time 2 (immediately after the completion of the civic activity).
One explanation is that the students in each of the groups left the experience with a
more realistic picture of what they could “really” do to make change and thus their
beliefs changed, which resulted in lower scores.
Third, it was hypothesized that the scale scores for the motivational
constructs would be significant strong predictors of students’ future expectancy of
civic engagement. As reported, the results of the regression analysis supported the
hypothesis that each of the motivational subscales (ability, interest, and utility)
were significant predictors of future expectancy of civic engagement. As shown in
Tables 16 and 18, at Time 1 and again at Time 3 the motivational constructs
explained a large percentage of the variance in students’ expectancy for future civic
engagement. At Time 3 the strength of the motivational subscales remained
consistent over the 6 months between the first and last measurement. While each
scale, along with the control variables, explained less of the total variation, the
individual portion of the variation explained by the motivation subscales increased
over time, thus becoming a stronger explanatory factor. Ability was 2.6 points
stronger in its individual explanatory power than it was prior to participation in the
civic opportunity.
Fourth, it was hypothesized that participation in a university-sponsored
civic activity would have a positive influence on a student’s expectation for future

74
civic engagement. The results indicated that it was a moderately significant
predictor, explaining a modest amount of the variation in the dependent variable in
the two of the three models. The coefficients for civic opportunity in model A and
model B (8.0 and 8.6, respectively) explained approximately 2% of the variance in
the dependent variable (model A included the ability subscale and model B
included the interest subscale). These results were consistent at Time 3 as well,
which indicated some lasting effect of participating in a university-sponsored
activity. While the motivational constructs remained the most significant predictors
at Time 3, the student’s level of civic activity in high school emerged as a predictor
that was of equal strength as participating in a civic activity. This result is
consistent with much of the civic engagement. Thus, the results presented in this
chapter confirm that the ability, interest, and utility constructs acted as a bundle of
beliefs that strongly related to future expectancy, as seen in Table 19.
Motivation toward civic engagement is more clearly understood by
measuring how likely a person is to participate in the civic activity in question. The
results reported here illustrate that there is promise in an approach that asks
respondents to think about their involvement in recent (within the past year) civic
tasks and to describe their beliefs about their competency and interest in the activity
and the usefulness of their participation for their future. The results also highlight
an interesting relationship between the impact of independent (not structured or
supervised) activity on beliefs and attitudes held by students. Not all of the
subscales responded in the same way over time, suggesting a possible opportunity
to influence these areas and, as a result, influence overall motivation. These themes
are explored in detail in chapter 5.

75
Table 19

Summary of Significant p Values From Regression Analyses Across All Variables
at Each Time Period

Age .013 .ns .ns
Mother’s education .ns .ns .ns
Grade point average .ns .ns .ns
Gender .ns .ns .ns
High school involvement .ns .ns .071
Total participation .003 .ns .067
Civic activity .081 .ns .ns
Ability .000 .000 .000
Interest .000 .000 .050
Utility .000 .000 .000

Future Future Future
Expectancy Expectancy Expectancy
Independent variable Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

76
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Preparing to take on the responsibilities of the citizen role requires not only
a personal commitment to engage actively in community and political life but also
time to cultivate essential attitudes and opportunities to learn, practice, and master
specific skills. The purpose of this study was to understand the impact on student
motivation toward future civic engagement made by participating in a university-
sponsored civic activity. As discussed at the end of chapter 2, this study draws on
previous research on service learning, civic engagement, and student development.
The essential thrust of this research was to examine and understand the underlying
relationships between several motivational constructs and the expectation of
participating in civic engagement activities in the future. In addition, the relative
impact of participation in a variety of civic activities both at baseline and over time
was examined, as was the strength of the motivational constructs to predict a
student’s expectancy for future civic engagement.
As reported in chapter 4, data were collected from undergraduate students
who were engaged in a variety of civic opportunities and from a control group who
were not engaged in those activities. The data analyses addressed four questions,
each focused on examining the relationships between the variables and highlighting
pathways for future research and programmatic improvements. In this chapter the
results are discussed in light of each hypothesis; second, four themes that emerged
as a result of these findings are discussed; third, suggestions are made for practice
and future scholarship.

77
Findings as Related to the Hypotheses
Students Are Different Before They
Participate in Civic Activities
It was hypothesized that students who participate in USC civic activities
would have higher scale scores for the motivational constructs of ability, interest,
and utility at Time 1 when compared to the control group. As reported in chapter 4,
each of the groups had at least a 9-point differential with the Control group, with
both the JEP and Student Organization groups varying from the Control group in a
statistically significant manner. The ASB group, while scoring higher than the
control group, was not statistically different from the Control group. There were
significant differences between two of the three civic activity groups prior to the
start of the civic activity. In particular, both the JEP and Student Organization
groups had utility scale scores that were nearly 20 points higher than those of the
control group.
While this study was limited by the lack of evaluative data on the experi-
ence of engaging in the civic activity, it is plausible that the difference found the
JEP group could be attributed to the fact that many were pursuing the civic activity
to satisfy a course requirement. Also, as indicated in Table 5, 60% of the JEP group
had an average of 2.3 prior semesters of this service learning activity, thus posi-
tively influencing their sense of individual ability and interest.
Thus, there was clear selective benefit to participating, which was identified
prior to beginning the program. It is possible that this condition, combined with the
percentage of students who had participated in a JEP activity in the past, could
explain the higher and significant differences at baseline.

78
Participation in Civic Activities Will
Make a Difference Over Time
Students’ motivational scale scores and future expectancy scores were
significantly stronger as a result of participation in USC civic activity. The results
reported in chapter 4 lead to acceptance of the hypotheses; however, it is important
to note that more detailed examination of the findings illuminates an interesting
trend. As discussed, there was a sharp decline in all scores for each of the civic
activity groups. One explanation is that the students in each group left the experi-
ence with a more realistic picture of what they could “really” do to make change
and thus their beliefs changed, which resulted in lower scores. It is interesting to
note that the motivational scale scores for all groups increased at Time 3. They did
not regain their original scores but clearly, with some distance from the end of the
activity and perhaps some additional experiences, the students began to value the
tasks more highly.
Motivational Constructs Predict Civic Engagement
It was hypothesized that the scale scores for the motivational constructs
would be significant strong predictors of students’ future expectancy of civic
engagement. As described in chapter 4, the results of the regression analysis sup-
ported the hypothesis that each of the motivational subscales (ability, interest, and
utility) was a significant predictor of future expectancy of civic engagement. In
addition, the motivational constructs explained a large percentage of the variance in
students’ expectancy for future civic engagement.
Unlike other studies, where the significant predictors were related to the
respondents’ characteristics, such as GPA (Morgan & Streb, 2001), prior involve-
ment in high school activities (Verba et al., 1995), or parental background (Beck &

79
Jennings, 1982), as opposed to motivational measures such as efficacy, this study
clearly indicates potential for capturing prospective data related to a respondent’s
current beliefs and attitudes as they relate to civic engagement.
The strength of the motivational subscales remained consistent over the 6
months between the first and last measurement periods. This study demonstrates
promise in an approach that asks respondents to think about their involvement in
recent (i.e., within the past year) civic tasks and to describe their beliefs about their
competency and interest and the usefulness of their participation for their future.
Participation in a Civic Activity Predicts Expectation
for Future Civic Engagement
It was hypothesized that participation in a university-sponsored civic
activity would have a positive influence on a student’s expectation for future civic
engagement. The results indicated that this variable was a moderately significant
predictor, explaining a modest amount of the variation in the dependent variable in
the two of the three models. Civic opportunity explained approximately 2% of the
variance in the dependent variable. These results were consistent at Time 3, which
indicates some lasting effect of participating in a university-sponsored activity. In
addition to the motivational constructs, the student’s level of activity in high school
was another significant predictor, equal in strength to participating in a civic
activity. This result is consistent with much of the civic engagement literature.
Themes
In light of the previous discussion, there are three emergent themes, which
are now discussed in light of their contribution to both future scholarship and civic
education practice.

80
Expectancy-Value Theory Works to Explain Expectation
for Future Civic Engagement
This research has demonstrated the empirical validity and applicability of
the expectancy-value theory to civic engagement. Motivation is best understood in
light of task selection and persistence: “Individuals’ choice, persistence, and
performance can be explained by their beliefs about how well they will do on the
activity and the extent to which they value the activity” (Wigfield, 1994, p. 68).
Central to expectancy-value theory is the notion that there are component beliefs
related to the individual’s assessment of his/her ability to perform the task, interest
in the task, and valuation of utility of the task to the person’s future; further, all of
these components are posited to work together to motivate a person to participate in
an activity.
As seen in the each of the regression models (see Tables 13 and 14), the
motivation subscales explained a significant amount of the variance while the
classic predictors were not significant. The instrument captured the student’s
beliefs and values at the same time as the expectation to engage in civic activities.
Each of the subscales predicted a significant amount of the variation in future
expectancy, thus illustrating the strong positive relationship between the student’s
belief about self-ability, interest, and sense of utility and the student’s expectation
for future civic engagement.
In a similar vein, Bandura (1977) noted that efficacy is the person’s belief
that she can accomplish a task, and outcome expectancies are the belief that a given
action will lead to a given outcome. From a motivation perspective, both come into
play when choosing to engage in a task. Eccles et al. (1983) asserted that subjective
task values are incentives for doing tasks and include not only a person’s interest in
the task and the relative importance to the person but also some assessment of the

81
personal utility of the task. “Researchers have found that adolescent’s subjective
task values predicted both their actual and anticipated task choice” (p. 451).
This research has demonstrated that it is possible to break civic engagement
into a variety of “civic tasks,” such as fundraising for a social cause, persuading
others during an election, working informally with others to accomplish something
in the community, or tutoring children, and then to ask respondents to comment on
their sense of ability and interest in the activity and the utility of the activity. All of
these predicted anticipated future civic activity.
It is not known what contributed to the respondents’ subjective task value
and the relative benefit of participating in university programs on shaping the sense
of ability, interest in, or valuation of utility of the task. Never the less, from a
practical standpoint, there is much to be gleaned from these findings. Much of
service learning practice is grounded in the orientation of incorporating reflection,
which connects the students’ experience in the community to what they are
learning in the classroom. One of the most frequently cited learning outcomes for
service learning is greater civic engagement (Owen, 2000); thus, it would seem that
strides could be made in connecting students’ subjective civic engagement task
values (their sense of ability, interest, and utility) to the course or experience in a
way that would make a difference.
Prospective Studies Can Assess
Future Civic Engagement
Respondents in this study were asked to recall the previous year and to
respond only if they had participated in the task. The survey instrument collected
current information as well as an assessment of the student’s beliefs and values
closer to the time at which the student had engaged in the civic activity. The ability

82
to capture the respondent’s valuation of the task in (relatively) close proximity to
completion is different from many other civic engagement studies, which are
retrospective by design. The benefit of this study is that it shows promise statistic-
ally meaningful data on beliefs and values as they relate to their actual engagement
in civic activities can be captured. Kahne and Sporte (2008) examined service
learning programs and student commitment to civic engagement. They commented,
There are also studies that rely on retrospective accounts of educational
experiences to explain the development of civic commitments and levels of
engagement (Verba et al., 1995). Adults are interviewed about their current
forms of participation and about experiences they had in high school. These
studies are useful in many ways, but, as in the case of the relationship
between curriculum and commitments described above, it is difficult to
know whether it was their participation in civic activities as students that
prompted their civic participation and commitments as adults or whether
those who already possessed commitments to civic participation pursued
these opportunities or remembered them when they occurred. (p. 8)
As implied above, the problem of recall bias is ever present in retrospective
studies, in particular when the sample consists of people who are actively involved
in civic pursuits and may recall being more involved in their past than was the case.
Also, it is very difficult to verify these involvements because they happened in the
past, thus making it difficult to ascertain the validity of the self-report.
Utility and Civic Education
The findings presented here demonstrate a very strong relationship between
each of the subscales and the utility subscale as a slightly stronger variable among
the three. Thus, connecting a student’s sense of future benefit to civic engagement
tasks would seem to matter, despite any normative tendency to present engagement
from a purely selfless, altruistic orientation. It would seem that civic education
could benefit from connecting the activity with a student’s sense of utility and
future orientation.

83
This is an important discussion because, as pointed out by Jenkins et al.
(2003), civic education ought to have a focus where “citizenship goes beyond
engagement for purely self-interested purposes” and “the importance of psycho-
logical traits such as altruism and concern for others” is emphasized as “critical to
well-rounded youth political and civic development” (p. 3). As Sherrod, Flanagan,
and Youniss (2002) pointed out, “One can be quite selfish and oriented entirely to
one’s own material or occupational success and still be involved with and com-
mitted to the nation state, in regard to voting, campaigning, following news, and so
on” (p. 173).
Clearly, this debate and the strength of these results suggest that there is
room to understand how students think about their task choice and how this is
associated with utility. In addition, there is reason to believe that it would be
beneficial to examine what students think about regarding questions about civic
engagement.
Structured Learning and Civic Education
It was hypothesized that participation in a university-sponsored civic
activity would influence student beliefs about ability, interest in, and valuation of
utility of a civic task. As seen in the ANOVA presented in chapter 4, there was
change over time in the scores on each of the motivational subscales but there were
few noteworthy interaction effects, with the exception of one when examining the
effects for the JEP and ASB groups. (It is possible that, given the sample size, there
was insufficient power to generate a significant effect; see Pallant, 2005).
There was a significant interaction effect between the interest subscale and
civic opportunity for the students who participated in an ASB activity. These

84
students had a modest increase in interest scores over the 6 months, while the mean
scores for interest decreased over time for the other three groups. One possible
explanation for this is the immersive nature of an ASB activity intensifies a
student’s level of interest in civic activities. This study is limited in its ability to
attribute change to specific aspects of the civic activity, a consideration that would
lend itself to future research.
While there were modest increases in scores along one motivation
dimension for one group, there were no significant results that could be attributed
to participation in one of the structured civic activities (JEP or ASB) over time.
This calls into question what, in terms of measureable outcomes, can be expected
from structured service learning programs. In many other studies, the benefits
attributed to service learning as pedagogy have been linked to stronger results in
promoting diversity awareness and a generalized sense of engagement. For
example, Astin et al. (2000) found that service learning had an “independent effect
on both a student’s commitment to promoting racial understanding and activism”
(p. 17). Following this, Kirlin (2002) suggested that “many service and volunteer
programs have failed to sufficiently address the fundamental civic skills such as
expressing opinions . . . as a part of their design” (p. 571). Kirlin cited the work of
Hunter and Brisbin, who stated that “service learning participants ‘learn about their
community, further some academic skills and feel that they have helped members
of their community’ (p. 625). However, little to no change was indicated for self-
reported attitudes toward political engagement (p. 571). Many scholars (e.g.,
Morgan & Streb, 2001; Perry & Katula, 2001; Raskoff & Sundeen, 1998; Scrow,
1991) have questioned the outcomes of service learning and volunteer programs
with regard to changes in student attitudes and behavior. Kirlin suggested that

85
“young adults must practice the skills necessary for civic engagement” (p. 573) and
argued that “adults should facilitate learning by asking questions, and providing
support and encouragement, but not prepackaged experiences” (p. 574). There was
a more significant story for the Student Organization group, discussed below.
Peers and Civic Education
As discussed in this section, mean scores for the sample as a whole along
each of the motivational subscales decreased over time. As indicated in chapter 4,
at Time 3 the Student Organization group was significantly higher than the Control
group and had regained some of the loss in the mean scores experienced at Time 2.
As with the structured civic activities, it is difficult to attribute this result to
specific aspects of their affiliation with their organizations. It could be argued that
the informal, peer-oriented nature of a student organization allows for students to
explore issues and problems more deeply and to make sense of their experience as
it relates to their involvement and investment. It has been identified that many of
the critical civic skills, such as organizing others, planning an agenda, recruiting
members, and persuading others, are all skills that are learned and practiced in
informal settings (Pateman, 1970; Verba et al., 1995). Perhaps students are experi-
encing and practicing these civic skills in their student organizations over time and
thus their beliefs about their abilities and their utility are internalized more so than
in a structured service learning program such as JEP or ASB, where students
encounter the community while performing a variety of service tasks but do not
have the same opportunity to reflect or make sense of their investment in a personal
sense.

86
It has been shown that cocurricular experiences have an impact on student
development and outcomes beyond personal growth. These results include being
involved with organizations and interaction with peers improves openness to
diversity and challenge (Edison et al., 1996); interpersonal competence, cognitive
complexity, and humanitarianism (Kuh, 1995); and moral development (Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991). Specifically, Gellin (2003) investigated the effect of organiza-
tional affiliation on critical thinking and found that, for students, this was enhanced
by exposure to diverse points of view, which occurs between students and faculty,
with their peers, in classrooms, and in cocurricular activities. Gellin suggested that
“students who are involved in a variety of co-curricular activities may apply what
they have learned through these experiences to learning in a classroom environ-
ment” (p. 754).
Taking this one step further, the idea that students create opportunities for
themselves to learn is strongly supported by Gellin’s (2003) analysis: “Student
interaction with their peers outside the classroom occurs as a natural part of being
within a college environment. The free exchange of ideas with fellow students from
potentially diverse backgrounds fosters an atmosphere for growth in critical think-
ing” (p. 755). The results of the present study found significant effect size for the
student organization group (students who were involved in civic engagement-
oriented student organizations). The results consistently showed that this group had
stronger scale scores along each of the motivational constructs. The work by Kahne
and Sporte (2008) supports this finding: “We expect that extra-curricular activities
that focus directly on civic and political issues and on ways to act both civically
and politically would be more consequential when it comes to civic outcomes”
(p. 7). A study by McFarland and Thomas (2006) indicated that this is the case.

87
Further support can be found in the work of Otto in 1976, Scott and Willits in 1998,
Smith in 1999, and Zaff et al. in 2003 (all as cited in McFarland & Thomas).
The experience of students working independently on issues that they care
about, with motivated and engaged peers, deepens students’ feeling about their
involvement and works to internalize their beliefs about their ability and the
usefulness of their effort and solidifies their interest in the issue and/or problem.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this research are twofold: First, it utilizes single-method
self-report data, which are not generalizable to a broader population of students.
The study utilized students who were already exposed to the civic activity or had
prior experience with civic activity, thus rendering them more likely to express
higher ratings on civically oriented questions. It has been argued that the self-
selection bias cannot be overcome with statistical analysis of existing data alone.
Heckman (1979) noted that it is correlation between unobserved determinants of
the outcome and unobserved determinants of selection into the sample that bias
estimates and that this correlation between unobservable variables cannot be
directly assessed by the observed determinants of treatment.
Donaldson and Grant-Vallone (2002) suggested that, in social science
research, the problem of self-report data is related to participant response.
“Research participants want to respond in a way that makes them look as good as
possible. Thus, they tend to under-report behaviors deemed inappropriate by
researchers or other observers, and they tend to over-report behaviors viewed as
appropriate” (p. 247).

88
It is generally suggested to “triangulate” one’s method to mitigate the
various biases found in the negative effects of self-report data. However, Wentland
and Smith (1993) completed a meta-analysis of studies that used “objective criteria
to evaluate the accuracy of self-reports” and noted that “attitudes, feelings and
impressions were not included because they cannot be verified independently” (as
cited in Reis & Gable, 2000, p. 196).
Second, the study did not include evaluative data on civic activity, thus
making it difficult to assess causation and to attribute change to particular aspects
of the civic activities.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Future Research
This study only begins to explore the applicability of expectancy-value
theory to civic engagement. The following are suggestions for future research.
First, more can be done to investigate the specific nature and relationships
among the choice of and persistence with an activity and the individual’s subjective
civic engagement task values. In particular, additional research can be conducted
that follows respondents’ actual selection of activities while measuring how long
they stay involved (persistence) and explores the relationship between the motiva-
tional subscales and activity choice. For example, there were differences between
students engaged in Student Organizations and those participating in ASB and JEP
activities. A possible research question could be, “What is the relationship between
a student’s choice of a civic activity and in what way does the student’s sense of
ability, interest, and utility change over time with repeated participation?” This
research could follow students to test the hypothesis that prolonged participation

89
would deepen a student’s sense of ability, strengthen the interest, and enhance a
sense of the usefulness of engagement. Such research could lead to better under-
standing of what happens when students cease involvement and could measure the
impact on their motivational constructs. For example, do they end involvement
because they do not feel that they are making an impact, do they lose interest in the
issue or agenda of the organization, or does another opportunity emerge that allows
them to do more and is thus more useful?
Second, there is great promise in conceptualizing civic engagement as
subjective tasks. Within the field of social psychology there has been impressive
work around subjective task values and “performance and other achievement-
related behaviors, [which has] been a central concern of social and personality
theory for more than 50 years” (Eccles, O’Neill, & Wigfield, 2003, p. 1). Much of
this work is based on work by Feather (1982), who wrote that task values
capture the focal, abstracted qualities of past encounters, that have a
normative or oughtness quality about them, and that function as criteria or
frameworks against which present experience can be tested. They are tied to
our feelings and can function as general motives (p. 275).
It is interesting to think about how task value relates to civic engagement task
choice, selection, and persistence. In the current research there was some indication
that students preferred either civic activities or political activities, suggesting that
the civics/politics divide is real for students. More work can be done in exploring
the differences between these two dimensions of civic engagement and subjective
task value.
Future research should focus on in-depth follow-up with the students to
examine the relative change in students’ associations and the nature of their
involvement with the associations, to categorize their involvements in terms of

90
civic skills. The first area of inquiry relates to roles that students play within the
student organization or in civic activity. Research questions arise: (a) Does it matter
more (make a larger impact) if the student plays a role in decision making? and (b)
What is the impact on motivation for future civic engagement derived from holding
a leadership position in a student organization or service learning program? Does
this vary by the length of time in the leadership position?
The second area of inquiry relates to verifying the aspirations expressed in
the survey by utilizing additional methods to capture actual behavior. For example,
it would be interesting to understand whether the respondents stated that they were
persuaded someone to do something or to take a different position. The research
could create opportunities for respondents to describe that experience and, if
possible, to follow up with the respondents via triangulation.
The third area of inquiry would be to include more specific evaluative or
reflective categories in the survey instrument, which would allow respondents to
relate certain elements from their civic activity to what has contributed to their
sense of civic responsibility. For example, the survey could include the following
categories: (a) Individuals—did they have a significant experience with a peer,
teacher, advisor, or other person that shaped the experience in a meaningful way?
(b) Opportunities—other than their civic activity (JEP, ASB, Student Organiza-
tion), was there another specific class or activity (club, service learning, immersive
service experience) that impacted their belief in ability, interest, or utility? (c)
Beliefs—how would students categorize the impact of their faith background
and/or other cultural norms on their beliefs in ability, interest, or utility? (d)
Specific activities—how would they rank the following elements as significant in
shaping their beliefs about their ability, interest, or utility: discussions with peers,

91
discussions with parents, discussions with teachers in a classroom setting,
discussions with advisors in and out of the class setting, and reflective activities
associated with a service learning activity?
The fourth area for research would be to explore the impact made by the
reflective practice of service learning programs. For example, a question could
address the degree to which the impact of service learning programs changes when
faculty adjust their reflective practice to incorporate more intentional processing
around issues of ability, interest, and utility.
Opportunities for Civic Education Practice
The question underscored by this research project is, What can universities
do to promote effective civic engagement among their students? As presented here,
the clear benefit of service learning and/or experiential learning as a pedagogy is
that it deepens knowledge, raises awareness of differences, and sharpens critical
thinking, which are often among the more impactful student outcomes. Dewey
(1938) argued that genuine education comes about through experience, although
not all experiences are the same.
Some experiences are mis-educative. Any experience is mis-educative that
has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience. An
experience may ne such as to engender callousness; it may produce lack of
sensitivity and responsiveness. Then the possibilities of having richer
experience in the future are restricted. (p. 13)
With attention to the quality of the experiences in service learning
programs, administrators and faculty alike have the opportunity to fulfill the civic
mission of the university by incorporating more focus on the civic learning that
occurs in these classes and activities. It has been shown in this research that
students who participate in civic activities have different and stronger measures of

92
motivation that predict their expectation to engage in civic activities in the future.
As outlined by the Constitutional Rights Foundation (2000), service learning
programs ought to work to create a citizenry that is (a) informed about the history
and the fundamental principles of American democracy; (b) skilled in communicat-
ing, problem solving and equipped with strategies to effectively participate in civil
society; (c) committed to civic virtues such as equal rights, tolerance, respect and
the capacity to make a difference; and (d) actively engaged in community action
and political processes to solve problems and protect the rights and interests of the
citizenry.
Orienting service learning programs in this manner would strengthen them
with the intentional focus on acquiring civic knowledge along with the skills and
attitudes that foster civic engagement. The implications of this benefit is in con-
necting the service learning experience to civic aims in more specific and focused
ways. It is unclear to what degree the reflective practice associated with the service
learning programs asks students to reflect on their specific place in society and the
degree to which their citizen role comes into play as they are engaged in their
community service project.
The same might be said for students engaged in civically oriented student
organizations. This research has shown clear differences between students partici-
pating in peer-oriented student organizations and those involved in the structured
service learning programs. The dilemma in leaving students alone in their student
organization is that little facilitated reflection is mirrored for the students by mem-
bers of the university community that could serve as civic reference points or role
models. It would seem that there is an opportunity to build a culture of reflective

93
practice within student organizations so that students, together, reflect and
deliberate about the civic aims of their work.
Dewey argued democracy depends on education for a citizenry who are
capable of making critical decisions about communal life. This involves the
ability to reflect critically on one’s place in society, as well as the place of
others. Education for democracy demands that schools help individuals see
how they are linked in the public sphere. (Rhoads, 1997, p. 210)
There is much to be learned from continued exploration into civic education
efforts and service learning. As these data demonstrate, students who participate in
these sorts of civic activities are impacted by them and they make a lasting impact
on the students’ development.

94
REFERENCES
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political attitudes over the
life span. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Astin, A. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change, 17, 35-39.
Astin, A., Vogelgesang, L., Ikeda, E., & Yee, J. (2000). How service learning
affects students. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles,
Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/PDFs/HSLAS/HSLAS.PDF
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Barber, B. R. (1998). A place for us: How to make society civil and democracy
strong. New York: Hill and Wang.
Battle, A., & Wigfield, A. (2003) College women’s value orientations toward
family, career, and graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 56-
75.
Beck, P.A., & Jennings, M. K. (1982). Pathways to participation. American Politi-
cal Science Review, 76(1), 94-108.
Berry, J., Portney, K., & Thompson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Carini, R., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. (2006). Student engagement and student learning:
Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
Carnegie Corporation of New York and Center for Information and Research on
Civic Learning and Engagement. (2003). The civic mission of schools. Re-
trieved July 17, 2003, from http://www.civicmissionofschools.org/
site/campaign/cms_report.html
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Center for Information
and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. (2006). Higher educa-
tion: Civic mission and civic effects. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/files/elibrary/highered_civic.pdf
Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2000). Fostering civic responsibility. Service
Learning %etwork Report, 8(1). Retrieved September 12, 2008, from
http://www.crf-usa.org/service-learning-network/8_1-fostering-civic-
responsibility.html

95
Craig S. (1979). Efficacy, trust, and political behavior: An attempt to resolve a lin-
gering conceptual dilemma. American Politics Quarterly, 7, 225-239.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Indianapolis: Kappa Delta Pi.
Dey, E. (1997). Undergraduate political attitudes: Peer influence in changing social
contexts. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 398-413.
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in
organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17,
245-260.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L.
et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence
(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Fran-
cisco: Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., O’Neill, S., & Wigfield, A. (2003). Ability self-perceptions and sub-
jective task values in adolescents and children. Child Trends, 1, 1.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C. A., Miller, C., Reuman, D. A., & Yee, D.
(1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and
changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283-310.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1997). Motivation to succeed. In W.
Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.). Vol.
3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 1017-1095). New
York: Wiley.
Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences on
students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college.
Journal of Higher Education, 67, 174-195.
Engle, S. (2003). Higher Education Research Institute press release for fall 2003
report. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Higher Educa-
tion Research Institute. Retrieved August 12, 2007, from http://www.gseis
.ucla.edu/heri/03_press_release.pdf
Feather, N. (1982). Expectations and actions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical
thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature 1991-2000. Journal of College
Student Development, 44, 746-762.
Gibson, C. (2001). From inspiration to participation: A review of perspectives on
youth civic engagement. Washington, DC: Grantmaker Forum on Com-
munity and National Service. Retrieved July 17, 2006, from http://www
.pacefunders.org/publications/pubs/Moving%20Youth%20report%20REV3
.pdf

96
Harvard University Institute of Politics. (2006). The 11th Biannual Youth Survey on
Politics and Public Service. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www
.iop.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/Research-
Publications/fall_2006_topline.pdf
Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica,
47, 153-161.
Hernandez, K., Hogan, S., Hathaway, C., & Lovell, C. (1999). Analysis of the lit-
erature on the impact of student involvement on student development and
learning: More questions than answers? %ASPA Journal, 36, 184-197.
Jenkins, K., Andolina, M., Keeter, S., & Zukin, C. (2003, April). Is civic behavior
political? Exploring the multidimensional nature of political participation.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. (1981). Generations and politics. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Kahne, J., & Sporte, S. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning
opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. American
Educational Research Journal, 45, 738-766.
Keeter, S., Jenkins, K., Zukin C., & Andolina, M. (2003, March). Three core
measures of community-based civic engagement: Evidence from the Youth
Civic Engagement Indicators Project. Paper presented at the Child Trends
Conference on Indicators of Positive Development, Washington, DC. Re-
trieved February 5, 2005, from http://www.childtrends.org/Files/
KeeterJenkinZukinAndolinaPaper.pdf
Kirlin, M. (2002). Civic skill building: The missing component in service pro-
grams? Political Science and Politics, 35, 571-575.
Kirlin, M. (2003). The role of civic skills in fostering civic engagement. Medford,
MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engage-
ment. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.civicyouth.org/
PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP06Kirlin.pdf
Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with
student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education,
66, 123-155.
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., and Whitt, E. J. (1991). Involving colleges. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, P., & Lopez, M. H. (2002). Youth voter turnout has declined by any
measure. Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic
Learning and Engagement. Retrieved May 13, 2005, from http://www
.civicyouth.org/research/products/fact_sheets_outside.htm

97
Lopez, M. H., Kirby, E., Sagoff, J., & Kolaczkowski, J. P. (2005). Electoral en-
gagement among non-college attending youth. College Park, MD: Center
for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
McFarland, D., & Thomas, R. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary asso-
ciations influence adult political participation. American Sociological
Review, 71, 401-425.
Moore, L. (Ed). (1990). Evolving theoretical perspectives on students: %ew direc-
tions for student services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2001). Building citizenship: How student voice in
service-learning develops civic values. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1),
154-169.
Niemi, R., Craig, S., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in
the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85,
1407-1413.
Owen, D. (2000). Service learning and political socialization. Political Science and
Politics, 33, 638-640.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis
using SPSS. New York: Open University Press.
Pascarella, E. T., Ethington, A. A., & Smart, J. C. (1988). The influence of college
on humanitarian/civic involvement values. Journal of Higher Education,
59, 413-437.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Perry, J., & Katula, M. (2001). Does service affect citizenship? Administration and
Society, 33, 330-333.
Raskoff, S., & Sundeen, R. (1998). Youth socialization and civic participation: The
role of secondary schools in promoting community service in southern Cali-
fornia. %onprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 66-87.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Handbook of research methods in social and
personality psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rhoads, R. (1997). Community service and higher learning: Explorations of the
caring self. Albany: State University of New York.

98
Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Lindholm, J. A., Korn, W. S., Saenz, V. B., & Mahoney,
K. M. (2003). The American freshman: %ational norms for fall 2003. Los
Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Higher Education Research
Institute.
Sherrod, L., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Growing into citizenship: Multiple
pathways and diverse influences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and
social equality. New York: Harper and Row.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntar-
ism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wentland, E. J., & Smith, K. W. (1993). Survey responses: An evaluation of their
validity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2003). Reconnecting education to democracy: Demo-
cratic dialogues. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 9-14.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A de-
velopmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement moti-
vation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R., Arbreton, A., Freeman-Doan, C.,
et al. (1997). Change in children’s competence belief and subjective task
values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 89, 451-469.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering
civic identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 620-631.

99
APPENDIX A
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT MOTIVATION
QUESTIONNAIRE (CEMQ)
I am asking you to take part in a study concerning students’ participation in civic
engagement activities and how you perceive the value and benefit of your
involvement.

The purpose of this questionnaire is to get information on your involvement in four
areas that are considered to be typical civic engagement activities and to rate your
ability to do well in the activity, interest in the activity, and the usefulness of the
activity for your future. The questionnaire also asks you to describe any other
activities you are involved in and to provide some demographic information. The
questionnaire should take approximately forty-five minutes to complete.

1. How old are you? ____________

2. What year are you in college?
First year/Freshman
Second year/Sophomore
Third year/Junior
Fourth year/Senior
Fifth year plus

3. What is your gender?________

4. What is your ethnicity?

White/Caucasian
Black/African American
Asian Pacific Islander
Native American
Hispanic/Latino
Multiracial/Mixed
Other

5. What is the highest level of education your mother completed?

High School diploma
Some College
Associates Degree
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
JD or MD
PhD

100
6. What is the highest level of education your father completed?

High School diploma
Some College
Associates Degree
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
JD or MD
PhD

7. What is your undergraduate major?:
_________________________________________

Minor: __________________________________________________________________

Double major:____________________________________________________________

8. What is your current GPA?________________

9 Based on the scale below, how likely is it that you will be involved in
these activities over the next TWO YEARS?

Please use the scale below to respond. Write a number next to each item.

Very
Unlikely
Very
Likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Voting in the national election
Displaying a campaign button, sticker or sign
Joining a political party
Leaving your car at home and walk or take alternate transportation to
school
Buying certain products or services because you like the social or
political values of the company
Spending time with your friends
Going to USC football games and tailgate activities
Being an active member of a student club or organization
Attending a debate or lecture about a public policy issue
Participating in a political organization
Regularly volunteering for a social service organization
Taking part in a protest, march, rally or demonstration
Contacting the media to express your opinion on a political issue
Contacting an elected official to ask for assistance or to express an
opinion
Staying up to date on current events

101
10. List three reasons why you would want to be civically engaged.

10a.
_________________________________________________________________________

10b.
_________________________________________________________________________

10c.
_________________________________________________________________________

The next few questions ask you to think about some specific civic activities.

102
11. In the past year, have you raised money or participated in a fundraiser for a
charity or social cause?
___ If No, skip to question 12 on next page ___ If Yes, proceed to questions
below:

Thinking about your fundraising efforts for a charity or social cause, please circle the
number that best corresponds to your answer to the following questions:

How good are you at raising money for a charity or social cause?
Not good at
all
About
Average
Very Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Compared to the other students who participated with you, how would you rate
yourself at raising money for a charity or social cause?
A lot worse
than other
students
About
Average
A lot better
than other
students
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Compared to most other civic engagement activities that you are involved in, how
good are you at raising money for a charity or social cause?
Not good at
all
About
Average
Very Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How important to you is raising money for a charity or social cause?
Not that
important
Very
Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In general, I find raising money for a charity or social cause …
Very
Boring
Okay Very
Interesting
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How much do you like raising money for a charity or social cause?
Not at all It’s Okay A lot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How useful do you think that this type of volunteering will be for what you want to do
after you graduate and go to work?
Not that
important
Very
Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

103
In general, how useful is what you learn from raising money for a charity or social
cause?
Not that
Useful
Very Useful
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Is the amount of effort it will take to do well at raising money for a charity or social
cause this year worthwhile to you?
Not that
Worthwhile
Very
Worthwhile
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. In the past year, have you worked together informally with someone or some
group to solve a problem in the community where you live?
__ No, skip to question 13 on next page Yes, proceed to questions below

Thinking about your work to solve a problem in the community where you live, please
circle the number that best corresponds to your answer to the following questions:

How good are you at working informally with others to solve a community problem?

Not good at
all
About
Average
Very Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Compared to the other students who worked with you, how would you rate yourself
at working informally to solve a community problem?
A lot worse
than other
students
About
Average
A lot better
than other
students
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Compared to most other civic engagement activities that you are involved in, how
good are you at this one?
Not good at
all
About
Average
Very Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How important to you is it to work informally with others to solve a community
problem this year?
Not that
important
Very
Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In general, I find working informally with others to solve a community problem…
Very
Boring
It’s Okay Very
Interesting
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

104
How much do you like volunteering for a candidate in an election?
Not at all It’s Okay A lot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How useful do you think being able to work informally with others to solve a
community problem will be for what you want to do after you graduate and go to
work?
Not that
important
Very
Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In general how useful is what you learn when you work informally to solve a community
problem?
Not that
Useful
Very Useful
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Is the amount of effort it will take to do well at working informally to solve a community
problem this year worthwhile to you?
Not that
Worthwhile
Very
Worthwhile
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. In the past year when there was an election taking place, did you try to persuade
people to vote for or against one of the parties, candidates or issues?
_ If No, skip to question 14 on next page ___ If Yes, proceed to questions below

Thinking about your work to persuade others during an election, please circle the number
that best corresponds to your answer to the following questions about this civic activity:

How good are you at persuading others?
Not good at
all
About
Average
Very Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Compared to the other students, how would you rate yourself?
A lot worse
than other
students
About
Average
A lot better
than other
students
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Compared to most of the civic activities that you are involved in, how good are you at
persuading others?
Not good at
all
About
Average
Very Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How important to you is working to persuade others during an election?
Not that
important
Very
Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

105
In general, I find persuading others during an election…
Very
Boring
It’s Okay Very
Interesting
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How much do you like persuading others during an election?
Not at all It’s Okay A lot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How useful do you think that persuading others will be for what you want to do after
you graduate and go to work?
Not that
important
Very
Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In general how useful is what you learn by working to persuade others in an election?
Not that
Useful
Very Useful
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Is the amount of effort it will take to do well at persuading others this year
worthwhile to you?
Not that
Worthwhile
Very
Worthwhile
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 In the past year, have you volunteered to tutor children in a local school?
___ If No, skip to question 15 ___ If Yes, proceed to questions below

Thinking about your volunteer work as a tutor, please circle the number that best
corresponds to your answer to the following questions about this civic activity:

How good are you at tutoring children?
Not good
at all
About
Average
Very Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Compared to the other students, how would you rate yourself as a tutor?
A Lot
Worse Than
Other
Students
About
Average
A Lot Worse
Than Other
Students
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

106
Compared to the other civic activities you are involved in, how good are you at
tutoring children?
Not Good
At All
About
Average
Very Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How important to you is tutoring children?
Not that
important
It’s Okay Very
Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In general, I find tutoring children…
Very
Boring
It’s Okay Very
Interesting
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How much do you like tutoring children?
A little A lot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How useful do you think that tutoring children will be for what you want to do after
you graduate and go to work?
Not that
Useful
Very
Useful
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In general how useful is what you learn by tutoring children?
Not that
Useful
Very
Useful
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Is the amount of effort it will take to do well tutoring children this year worthwhile to
you?
Not that
Worthwhile
Very
Worthwhile
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

107
15. Which of the following USC activities are you currently involved in? (check all
that apply)

A JEP assignment
An Alternative Spring Break
An Internship sponsored by
The Unruh Institute of Politics
SPPD
One of the following student organizations
Undergraduate Student Govt
Political Student Assembly
Helenes/Trojan Knights
Troy Camp

None of the above

Other Clubs/Organizations (please specify)

_________________________________________________________________________

16. Which of these USC activities were you involved in during the Fall 2006 semester?
(check all that apply)

A JEP assignment
An Alternative Spring Break
An Internship sponsored by
The Unruh Institute of Politics
SPPD
One of the following student organizations
Undergraduate Student Govt
Political Student Assembly
Helenes/Trojan Knights
Troy Camp

None of the above

Other Clubs/Organizations (please specify)

________________________________________________________________________

108
17. Thinking about the past year, please rank the activities that you were
THE MOST and the LEAST important to you.

First, rank 3 activities in the box below that were MOST IMPORTANT in the past
year:
1= the most important;
2= the next most important;
3= the next most important.

Second, rank 3 activities in the box that were the LEAST IMPORTANT in the past
year
15= the least important
14= the next least important
13= the next least important.

Voting in the national election
Displaying a campaign button, sticker or sign
Joining a political party
Leaving your car at home and walking or taking alternate transportation
to work or school
Buying certain products or services because you like the social or political
values of the company
Spending time with your friends
Going to USC football games and/or tailgate activities
Being an active member of a student club or organization
Attending a debate or lecture about a public policy issue
Participating in a political organization
Regularly volunteering for a social service organization
Taking part in a protest, march, rally or demonstration
Contacting the media to express your opinion on a political issue
Contacting an elected official to ask for assistance or to express an
opinion
Staying up to date on current events

109
18. Are you a United States Citizen?

Yes
No

19. Are you currently registered to vote?

Yes
No
Don’t know

20 Did you vote in the last national election?

Yes
No

21. When it comes to voting, which party are you affiliated with?

Democrat
Republican
Independent/Unaffiliated
Other

22. When it comes to most political issues, do you think of yourself as a:

Liberal
Conservative
Moderate

23. Do you consider yourself to be politically engaged or politically active?

Yes
No
Don’t know

24. Do you consider yourself to be engaged or active in community service?

Yes
No
Don’t know

25. When you were in high school, which of the following statements best describes
the level of your involvement in community service activities? (circle a number)

Inactive, I did not volun-
teer in high school
Somewhat
active

Very Active
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

110
APPENDIX B
ORIGINAL QUESTIONS FROM WIGFIELD AND ECCLES,
WITH ORIGINAL FACTOR LOADING SCORES AND
SCALE RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS
Original question Factor
loading
Scale in original Original
scale reliability
How good at math are you? (1 = not at
all; 7 = very good
.855 Math Self Concept of
Ability v1 and v2
.81
If you were to rank all the students in
your math class, where would you put
yourself? (1 = the worst; 7 = the best)
.811 Math Self Concept of
Ability v1 and v2
.81
Compared to most of your other school
subjects, how good are you at math? (1 =
much worse; 7 = much better)
.630 Math Self Concept of
Ability v1 and v2
.81
How useful do you think the math you are
learning will be for what you want to do
after you graduate and go to work? (1 =
not very useful; 7 = very useful)
.874 Math utility/
importance value
.83
In general how useful is what you learn in
math? (1 = not at all useful; 7 = very
useful)
.692 Math utility/
importance value
.83
Is the amount of effort it will take to do
well in math this year worthwhile to you?
(1 = not very worthwhile; 7 = very
worthwhile)
..656 Math utility/
importance value
.83
For me, being good at math is…(1 = not
very worthwhile; 7 = very worthwhile)
.540 Math utility/
importance value
.83
In general, I find working on math
assignments… (1 = very boring; 7 = very
interesting)
.728 Intrinsic value of
math
.87
How much do you like doing math? (1 =
very little; 7 = very much)
.919 Intrinsic value of
math
.87

%ote. Information included in this table is based on results from wave 2 of the
Michigan Study of Life Transitions (MSALT). Source: Children’s Competence
Beliefs, Achievement Values, and General Self-Esteem: Change Across Element-
ary and Middle School, by A. Wigfield & J. Eccles, 1994, Journal of Early
Adolescence, 14(2), 107-138.

111
APPENDIX C
DISCUSSION OF TESTS UTILIZED IN DATA
ANALYSIS
Independence of Observations
The assumptions underlying analysis of variance relate to the distribution of
means and the level of measurement, and critical to this assumption is the inde-
pendence of observations. Pallant (2005) stated that each observation must be
independent and “not influenced by any other observation or measurement”
(p. 197). The data for this study were gathered from individual students responding
to the questionnaire independently from other students, and there was no
interaction between groups throughout the study; therefore, the researcher is
confident that the observations were independent.
Normal Distribution
Pallant (2005) noted that many social sciences studies violate the assump-
tion of normal distribution but added that most of the statistical tools (SPSS
included) are “robust” enough to “tolerate the violation of this assumption”
(p. 198). Pallant recommended that histograms and the corresponding statistical
tests be produced for each of the dependent variables. Histograms were produced
for Future Expectancy of Civic Engagement and each of the motivational subscales
by civic activity. Table C1 highlights the results of the normality test, which
provides the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic that, as Pallant instructed, supplements
the visual scan of the histogram. She wrote that a “nonsignificant result indicates
normality” (p. 57).

112
As shown in Table C1, the data for some of the variables violated the
assumption on first inspection of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, with a
significance value of less than .05. Pallant (2005) advised that violating this
assumption is “quite common for larger samples” and suggested that one inspect
the Normal Q-Q Plots (p. 57). The plots produced in this research indicated that
each of the dependent variables was “reasonably normal,” which Pallant noted is
common in research of this nature, where examining attitudes is often skewed
either positively or negatively.

Table C1

Test of %ormality

Civic activity
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistic
Joint
Educational
Project
(df = 25)
Alternative
Spring Break
(df = 35)
Student
Organization
(df = 41)
Control
(df = 27)
Totalace1
a
.093 .111 .092 .117
Totalace2 .213** .154* .138* .143
Totalace3 .206** .207** .125 .136
Ability1 .124 .108 .116 .155
Ability2 .105 .108 .091 .220**
Ability3 .117 .145 .085 .159
Interest1 .151 .099 .113 .134
Interest2 .122 .166* .098 .211**
Interest3 .129 .131 .093 .147
Utility1 .105 .112 .071 .155
Utility2 .110 .118 .094 .225
Utility3 .138 .132 .095 .139

a
Totalace is the Future Expectancy variable label; Ability, Interest, and Utility are
the motivational subscale variable labels. The 1, 2, and 3 indicate the time period.

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

113
Homogeneity of Variance
The assumption of homogeneity of variance requires that the samples “are
obtained from populations of equal variances” (p. 198) and that the variability is
similar for each of the groups. The Levene Test for equality of variances provides a
statistic that indicates whether this assumption has been met. The results of this test
yielded values with significance levels that were consistently greater than .05,
which means that the data did not violate this assumption. Table C2 provides the
results of this test, which was run in conjunction with the analysis of variance.

Table C2

Test of Homogeneity of Variance

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
F (sig) F (sig) F (sig)
Ability .172 (.915) .477 (.699) .227 (.877)
Interest .645 (.587) .569 (.637) .320 (.811)
Utility .540 (.656) .412 (.745) .155 (.927)
Future Expectancy .600 (.616) 1.72 (.166) .785 (.504)

Type 1 Error and Type 2 Error
Type 1 error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true; this
error usually occurs when the researcher believes that there is a difference between
the groups and there is none. Pallant (2005) suggested that Type 1 error can be
avoided by setting an appropriate alpha level for significance testing, which is
generally either .05 or .01. In this research the alpha level was .05.

114
Type 2 error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is false, or
when the researcher believes that the groups do not differ but they are different.
Pallant (2005) warned that, when Type 1 error is controlled for, the likelihood of
finding Type 2 error is increased. She instructed that the power of a test can
alleviate this problem and is dependent on the sample size, effect size, and alpha
level. It is believed that samples of 100 or more respondents do not have a problem
with power (Stevens, 1996).
Stevens (1996) suggested that it is helpful to inspect the power values
provided in the output along with the analysis. If a result is insignificant and there
is a power value of less than .80, care should be taken in interpreting that result
because it could indicate that there was “insufficient power for the test, rather than
no difference between the groups”(p. 199).
Multivariate Normality
A factor in understanding the normal distribution of the data is to identify
the presence of outliers, using Mahalanobis Distances, which were computed and
compared to a critical value based on the number of dependent variables used in the
analysis. Pallant (2005) indicated that the critical value for a study with three
dependent variables is 16.27. This critical value was compared to the output
generated and it was determined that there were eight cases, which exceeded this
critical value.
Equality of Covariance Matrices
As a part of the analysis of variance output, Box’s M was generated to test
the assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices. When interpreting

115
the data, a significance value of greater than .05 indicates that the assumption held
true. Table C3 presents the results of this test.

Table C3

Equality of Covariance Matrices

Box’s M F Significance
Ability 17.99 .954 .512
Interest 20.04 1.06 .385
Utility 18.87 1.00 .455

Multiple Regression Assumptions
The presence of muliticollinearity was examined in the correlational
analysis. As indicated in Table 9, the motivation subscales were highly correlated, r
> .90. Due to this finding, the regression models were run separately with each
subscale for each time period. The results are shown in Tables 16, 17, and 18. The
examination of outliers occurred in the data screening process. The Mahalanobis
Distances were used to identify the cases, which exceeded the critical value.
Finally, the normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of the data were examined;
the data did not violate any of these assumptions.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Expectancy value theory and African American student motivation

PDF

Engaging together: exploring the peer effects of civic engagement

PDF

An examination of classroom social environment on motivation and engagement of college early entrant honors students

PDF

Understanding Native American women’s beliefs, values, and expectations for engagement with the Girl Scout organization

PDF

Civic engagement in American schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Alternative spring break and internationalization: a qualitative study using Chickering’s theory of student development

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

Male student-athlete perceptions of university academic staff expectations: a qualitative analysis of perceptions, value and academic motivation

PDF

Exploring the promise of multicultural literature: a case study exploring the impact of the use of mulitucultural literature on the engagement of students from diverse backgrounds

PDF

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

PDF

Factors influencing nursing students' motivation to succeed

PDF

Home and school factors and their influence on students' academic goal orientation and motivation

PDF

Motivation, persistence, and achievement in East Asian languages learning: an expectancy-value theory perspective

PDF

The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation

PDF

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

Pathways to immigrant civic engagement: the storytelling network and church participation

PDF

Growing international student enrollment from developing markets

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students

PDF

Vocational education graduates: a mixed methods analysis on beliefs and influences of career choice and persistence

Asset Metadata

Creator Gaeke, Melissa A. (author)

Core Title Exploring student motivations toward civic engagement: an application of expectancy-value theory

School School of Policy, Planning, and Development

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Public Administration

Publication Date 05/08/2009

Defense Date 12/08/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag civic education,civic engagement,co-curricular involvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,service learning,student development,volunteerism

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cooper, Terry L. (committee chair), Crigler, Ann N. (committee member), Sundeen, Richard A. (committee member)

Creator Email gaeke@usc.edu,melissa.gaeke@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2210

Unique identifier UC1470609

Identifier etd-Gaeke-2860 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-241587 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2210 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Gaeke-2860.pdf

Dmrecord 241587

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gaeke, Melissa A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu