



































Events and Tourism Review


  

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuion 4.0 International License. 

 

Events and Tourism Review 
 

December 2019 

 

Volume 2 No. 2 

 

 

Service-learning in a Tourism, Hospitality, and Event 

Management Program 
 

Kevin Naaman  

Indiana University Bloomington 

 

Weixuan Wang  

Indiana University Bloomington 

 

Chengming Hu 

Southeast Missouri State University 

 

Brandon Howell  

Indiana University Bloomington 

 
  

 

For Authors 

Interested in submitting to this journal? We recommend that you review the About the Journal 

page for the journal's section policies, as well as the Author Guidelines. Authors need to 

register with the journal prior to submitting or, if already registered, can simply log in and 

begin the five-step process. 

  

For Reviewers 

If you are interested in serving as a peer reviewer, please register with the journal. Make sure 

to select that you would like to be contacted to review submissions for this journal. Also, be 

sure to include your reviewing interests, separated by a comma. 

  

About Events and Tourism Review (ETR) 

ETR aims to advance the delivery of events, tourism and hospitality products and services by 

stimulating the submission of papers from both industry and academic practitioners and 

researchers. For more information about ETR visit the Events and Tourism Review. 

 

 

 

Recommended Citation 

Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019). Service-learning in a Tourism, 

Hospitality, and Event Management Program. Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about/submissions#authorGuidelines
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/index/login
https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   89 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Abstract 

 

If faculty do not monitor students’ perceptions of their service-learning experience, then they 

may end up harming the community that the students serve. Specifically, negative perceptions 

such as students’ prejudices and biases can harm community members. This study, therefore, 

measured one hundred and twenty-three Tourism, Hospitality, and Event Management 

(THEM) students’ perceptions and barriers of their service-learning experience. Results from 

the questionnaire indicated that, on average, students perceived the service-learning experience 

and the community favorably. Time and inconvenient locations were the most common 

barriers to service-learning participation. THEM faculty are provided an instrument to monitor 

their students’ service-learning perceptions. 

 

Keywords: Service-Learning, Undergraduate Curriculum, Personal Development, Tourism and      

                  Hospitality, Barriers 

 

Introduction 

 

Faculty have been found to perceive service-learning’s effects favorably, indicating 

positive outcomes such as increasing students’ awareness of societal challenges and enhancing 

educational outcomes (Abes, Jackson, & Jones, 2002). Though, faculty can find it difficult to 

implement service-learning in their curriculum. Hou & Wilder (2015) learned that faculty face 

the following barriers with implementing service-learning into their courses: (1) inadequate 

incentives, (2) lack of resources (i.e., time and funding), and (3) logistics (i.e., scheduling, 

transportation, and communication). These barriers have been documented since the turn of the 

century (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000), yet many institutions still find it difficult to implement this 

pedagogical framework.  

 Moreover, faculty must be aware of another contemporary issue if they decide to 

instruct a service-learning course. If service-learning programs are not implemented well, then 

they “may result in unanticipated outcomes, such as increased prejudice and bias” (Conner & 

Erickson, 2017, p. 53; Erickson, & O’Connor, 2000). Faculty can implement reflective writing in 

their service-learning courses to: (1) gather qualitative data, and (2) help students overcome their 

negative perceptions, such as their biases of the community they serve (Hobbs, 2007).  

However, research on quantitative measurements of students’ service-learning 

perceptions is needed (Conner et al., 2017) so that faculty may monitor how their students 

perceive service-learning activities and their interactions with the community (Caspersz & Olaru, 

2017; Cecil, 2012; Holsapple, 2012). Research has traditionally focused on students’ positive 

outcomes of service-learning (Conner et al., 2017), so this gap was addressed by also researching 

students’ negative perceptions (i.e., biases) and their barriers (i.e., lack of time) to service-

learning participation.  

The purpose of this article is to, therefore, assess students’ perceptions of their service-

learning experiences from a Tourism, Hospitality, and Event Management (THEM) program. 

The questionnaire can be used by other THEM faculty to identify if: (1) their students face any 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   90 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

barriers to service-learning participation, and (2) their students’ perceptions pose the risk of 

negatively affecting the community. The implication from this study is that a questionnaire is 

provided to THEM faculty so that they can monitor students’ positive perceptions, negative 

perceptions, and barriers to service-learning participation. Strategies for using these data are 

discussed.  

 

Literature Review  

 

Service-learning is a pedagogical tool where students learn how to translate classroom content to 

practice through engagement with community organizations that relate to their academic degree 

(Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Three recent meta-analyses have indicated that students can benefit 

from service-learning in the following ways: (1) student development (i.e., academic 

performance; Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011), (2) social intelligence (Astin, Vogelgesang, 

Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Yorio & Ye, 2012), and (3) enhanced learning outcomes (Warren, 2012). 

THEM programs have been recognized as professional disciplines (Jamal, Taillon, & Dredge, 

2011; McIntosh, 1983; Van Weenen & Shafer, 1983), which are befitting venues for 

implementing service-learning experiences (Reising, Allen, & Hall, 2006). 

 However, service-learning should not be conceptualized as only benefiting student 

participants. Service-learning is rooted in a social justice framework, which is intended to 

provide mutual benefits for both the community partners and students (d'Arlach, Sánchez, & 

Feuer, 2009; Hammersley, 2012; Morton & Bergbauer, 2015). Service-learning’s foundations in 

equity and community engagement are threatened if faculty do not identify and assuage students’ 

negative perceptions towards their community members.  

 For instance, students that serve low-income community members may end up blaming 

those affected for their predispositions (Hollis, 2004). Another study found that some students’ 

negative stereotypes were strengthened after their service-learning experience (Jones, 2002). 

Take this excerpt as an example: “I think people with AIDS deserve what they got because it’s 

the consequence of their own bad behavior” (Jones, 2002, p. 11). Faculty must be careful if they 

decide to implement a service-learning course because there is the possibility that the students’ 

perceptions can negatively affect the community partners (Giles, 2014). Because service-learning 

can pose a risk to the community, it is important that faculty monitor their students’ perceptions 

of the community and service-learning activities.  

However, faculty must also recognize that their students face barriers to engaging in 

service-learning activities. Researchers have outlined many barriers that students face and some 

of the examples include (1) time, (2) inconvenient locations, (3) perceiving service-learning to be 

uninteresting, and (4) perceiving service-learning as not useful (Burke & Bush, 2013; McKinney, 

Medvedeva, Vacca, & Malak, 2004). Even if students do not have serious prejudices or biases, 

their service for the community will be insignificant if they are neither able nor willing to 

participate due to the barriers they face. It is therefore important, to provide a way to measure 

THEM students’ positive perceptions, negative perceptions, and barriers of service-learning. 

This is so that THEM faculty receives the necessary information to change their pedagogical 

practices so that they do not harm the community or students. This study provides a 

questionnaire that other faculty members may use to monitor their students’ perceptions. 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   91 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Methodology  

 

Sample and Participant Selection 

 

A convenience sample of one hundred and twenty-three undergraduate students 

participated in this study during March 2017. The students were from three Tourism, Hospitality, 

and Event Management (THEM) courses at a Midwestern University. Each course included a 

service-learning project. Internships were not included in this study. Each service-learning 

course mandated that all students: (1) were assigned to a THEM organization in the community, 

(2) assisted with operations during the semester, and (3) prepared both a written and oral report 

with their recommendations on how to improve their partnering agency’s operations. The 

partnering agencies were given these recommendations. The survey was administered by one of 

the researchers in each of the three classrooms. This survey was voluntary and completed as an 

in-person, pen-and-paper format.  

 

Instrumentation 

 

The administered questionnaire contained the following sections: (1) demographics, (2) 

perceptions of service-learning, and (3) service-learning barriers. Two different questionnaires 

were used to measure students’ perceptions of service-learning. The first was a fourteen-item 

questionnaire from Burke et al. (2013). The second questionnaire was also from Burke et al. 

(2013), and it also measured the barriers to service-learning participation. McKinney et al. 

(2004) is the primary source of these questionnaires. Data were gathered from a five-point Likert 

scale, where 1 represented Strongly Disagree, 2 represented Disagree, 3 represented Neutral, 4 

represented Agree, and 5 represented Strongly Agree.  

 

Data Analysis  

 

All data exploration and analysis were conducted through the statistical softwares, IBM 

SPSS 25 and RStudio. These data were investigated for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk’s test. 

The results from the service-learning perceptions and barriers were normally distributed, as 

assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p > .05).  

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) reduced the dimensions of the fourteen-item questionnaire 

to see if the resultant factors would be consistent with the literature. The suitability of EFA was 

assessed prior to analysis. The overall Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was 0.897 with 

individual KMO measures all greater than 0.7 (Kaiser, 1974). Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was 

statistically significant (p < .0005), indicating that the data were factorizable. The number of 

factors was decided upon using varimax rotation and factors that had eigenvalues above the 

value of one (Cattell, 1966). Next, a series of bivariate correlations were conducted to test 

whether the barriers would be negatively correlated with the three factors from the fourteen-item 

questionnaire. Lastly, descriptive statistics were calculated from the questionnaire to gauge how 

students perceived the service-learning activities, engagement with the community, and their 

barriers. 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   92 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Results and Discussion 

 

Results from the demographics indicated the sample was mainly female (n = 97, 78%), 

Caucasian (n = 99, 80%), and primarily between the ages of 20-21 (n = 91, 74%). Table 1 

provides the sample’s demographic information.  

 

Table 1. Demographic distribution of participants 

 

Demographic Characteristics Total 

 123 

Gender  

  Male 26 (21%) 

  Female 97 (78%) 

 

Age 

 

  18 0 (0%) 

  19 4 (3%) 

  20 44 (36%) 

  21 47 (38%) 

  22-25 27 (22%) 

  26-30 1 (1%) 

  31 - older 0 (0%) 

 

GPA 

 

  Below 1.0 0 (0%) 

  1.0-1.9 0 (0%) 

  2.0-2.9 24 (20%) 

  3.0-3.9 97 (78%) 

  4.0 2 (2%) 

 

Race  

 

  African American  5 (4%) 

  American Indian  0 (0%) 

  Asian 7 (6%) 

  Caucasian 99 (80%) 

  Hispanic  8 (7%) 

  Native Hawaiian 0 (0%) 

  Other 4 (3%) 

 

The results from the EFA generated three factors: (1) student development, (2) social 

values, and (3) learning outcomes. The three factors explained 66.01% of the total variance and 

were consistent with the literature. The first factor (student development) included items that 

measured a students’: (1) ability and interest to interact with the community (Caspersz, et al., 

2017), and (2) career preparation (Causin & Runnels, 2018). Secondly, social values measured 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   93 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

items regarding a students’: (1) stereotypes, and (2) ability to reflect (Conner et al. 2017; 

Levesque-Bristol, Knapp, & Fisher, 2011). Lastly, learning outcomes measured items regarding 

interpersonal relations and applying course content to real-world problems (Warren, 2012).  

 

Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Perceived Service-Learning Benefits  

 

Perceptions Factor Loading Eigenvalue Variance 

Student Development – Factor 1  6.97 49.81 

1. I feel more connected to the community after   

having service-learning experience. 

.791   

2. I am able to solve problems in my community 

after having service-learning experience. 

.696   

3. Service-learning experience impacts my career 

goal. 

.661   

4. Service learning is helpful to your major. .636   

5. I would recommend service-learning course to 

other students. 

.643   

6. I can be more inclined to be involved in my 

community after having service-learning 

experience. 

.657   

7. Service-learning experience empowered you. .586   

8. Service-learning experience is helpful to your 

overall undergraduate experience. 

.542   

 

Social Values – Factor 2 

 1.24 8.86 

9. Service learning decreases any stereotype that 

you may have had. 

.825   

10. Service learning increases your appreciation 

for different cultures. 

.707   

11. Service learning helps you view yourself 

differently. 

.711   

 

Learning Outcomes - Factor 3 

 1.03 7.34 

12. Service learning helps you work well with 

others. 

.843   

13. You can apply classroom materials to your 

service-learning activities. 

.636   

14. Service-learning experience helps you 

challenge the material you learned in the 

classroom. 

.618   

Total Variance   66.017 
Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index = .897 Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 950.085, df = 91 (p = .000). The Cronbach’s 

Alpha = .92 for the 14-item questionnaire, demonstrating high reliability (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   94 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Table 3 outlines the descriptive statistics of the students’ perceptions of their service-

learning activities and barriers. The results indicated that, on average, the students agreed the 

service-learning activities were beneficial for their development, social values, and learning 

outcomes. Only one of the fourteen service-learning perceptions was below 3.0. This result 

indicated that, on average, the students did not agree that they were able to apply classroom 

content to the service-learning activities. Information such as this can be useful for THEM 

faculty because they can adapt their teaching strategies to ensure the students are able to apply 

classroom content to the service-learning experience.   

Moreover, questions 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10 reflected items measuring a students’ perceptions 

of the community. None of these questions was below 3.0, which demonstrated that they did not 

perceive the community negatively (e.g., scores below a 3.0 are negative and scores above 3.0 

are positive). Lastly, students also agreed, on average, that they experienced two barriers: (1) 

time, and (2) inconvenient locations.  

THEM faculty can use this instrument to check in with students throughout the service-

learning process. If this instrument were administered at the end of the semester, then the faculty 

would not have enough time to change their pedagogical practices. Additionally, these results 

should not be used to solely determine whether the students’ perceptions pose a risk of 

negatively affecting the community. These questions are generalized and do not ask about 

specific facets of their interactions with the community. As a result of these limitations, faculty 

should be continuously engaged with the community partners and create an open atmosphere so 

that the community partners feel free to express any of their concerns with the students or 

service-learning process.  

 

Table 3. Summary statistics of students positive and negative perceptions of service-learning 

 

 Mean Median s n 

Composite Score for Student Development 3.51 3.63 0.66 123 

1. I feel more connected to the community after having 

service-learning experience. 

3.46 4.00 0.91 123 

2. I am able to solve problems in my community after having 

service-learning experience. 

3.23 3.00 0.91 123 

3. Service-learning experience impacts my career goal. 4.02 4.00 0.61 123 

4. Service learning is helpful to your major. 3.25 3.00 1.02 123 

5. I would recommend service-learning course to other 

students. 

3.45 4.00 0.99 123 

6. I can be more inclined to be involved in my community 

after having service-learning experience. 

3.59 4.00 0.90 123 

7. Service-learning experience empowered you. 3.43 4.00 0.91 123 

8. Service-learning experience is helpful to your overall 

undergraduate experience. 

3.66 4.00 0.94 123 

 

Composite Score for Social Values 

3.45 3.67 0.77 123 

9. Service learning decreases any stereotype that you may 

have had. 

3.60 4.00 0.97 123 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   95 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

10. Service learning increases your appreciation for different 

cultures. 

3.28 3.00 0.98 123 

11. Service learning helps you view yourself differently. 3.48 4.00 0.83 123 

 

Composite Score for Learning Outcomes  

3.27 3.33 0.84 123 

12. Service learning helps you work well with others. 3.38 4.00 0.99 123 

13. You can apply classroom materials to your service-

learning activities. 

2.94 3.00 1.10 123 

14. Service-learning experience helps you challenge the 

material you learned in the classroom. 

3.48 4.00 0.98 123 

 

Composite Score for Service-learning Barriers 

2.81 2.75 0.63 123 

1. The service-learning activities are time-consuming. 3.80 4.00 0.84 123 

2. The service-learning collaboration agency is 

inconveniently located. 

3.06 3.00 0.91 123 

3. Service-learning activities are not interesting. 2.46 2.00 0.97 123 

4. I do not believe service-learning activities are useful or 

beneficial to my education. 

1.91 2.00 0.87 123 

Note. s = standard deviation. The Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83 for the two combined instruments, indicating 

good reliability of the instrument as a whole (Gliem et al., 2003). 
 

  

All bivariate correlations between the service-learning barriers and perceptions were 

negatively related. This is important to demonstrate so that faculty members realize the 

importance of identifying and subsequently removing barriers so that the students’ perceptions of 

service-learning are not hindered. Table 4 provides the results of the bivariate correlations and 

quantifies the negative relationships between these factors and barriers.  

 

Table 4. Relationship between students’ perceived barriers and benefits of service-learning 

 Time-Consuming Locations Uninteresting Not Useful 

Student Development -.208* -.172 -.352** -.506** 

Social Awareness             -.086     -.274**        -.128 -.357** 

Learning Outcomes -.205* -.133 -.250** -.362** 
Note. * = Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** = Pearson Correlation is significant at 

the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 

 

Conclusion and Implications 

 

Conclusions 

 

The purpose of this study was to provide Tourism, Hospitality, and Event Management 

(THEM) faculty a way to quickly and reliably monitor their students’ perceptions of their 

service-learning experiences, perceptions of the community, and barriers to service-learning 

participation. This study used a questionnaire to monitor three THEM service-learning courses 

and found that, on average, the students perceived the community and their service-learning 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   96 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

experience favorably. The faculty who taught these three courses were provided with data to 

improve their instruction and facilitation of their service-learning courses. Namely, these data are 

to be used to make sure faculty successfully implement service-learning in their curriculum.  

 

Implications 

 

Jamal et al. (2011) noted THEM instructors are presented with the opportunity to steward 

the next generation of THEM professionals to handle complicated cultural and sociological 

issues in the field. Service-learning in THEM programs is argued to be important because the 

experiences expose students to the profession, which enhances their ability to address 

complicated issues in the field (Boyer, 1994; Cecil, 2012). Therefore, it is important that service-

learning faculty monitor their students’ perceptions of service-learning experiences. This study 

argues that a lot is at stake—for the community and the students—so it is important that faculty 

diligently monitor their students’ service-learning perceptions and barriers. Service-learning is a 

deliberate process and may “do more harm than good” (Conner et al., 2017, p. 53) if the faculty 

do not monitor the relationships between the students and faculty members.  

 

Recommendations 

 

 THEM faculty can use this instrument to monitor their students’ perceptions and barriers 

throughout the semester. Faculty should use this instrument no later than halfway through the 

service-learning experience so there is enough time to collect the data, analyze them, and 

implement changes in the service-learning experience. Lastly, faculty can pair these data from 

the instrument with qualitative data from reflective writing exercises. However, Hobbs (2007) 

argues that mandatory writing can be harmful to student success; this article provides 

recommendations for implementing reflective writing.  

 

Limitations 

 

One limitation of this study is that the authors did not utilize a random sampling method 

or control group. A different insight into the data might have been achieved if the researchers 

looked at additional populations such as service-learning courses outside the department or 

across universities, and comparing it with courses without service-learning activities. The 

researchers did not measure the students’ perceptions and barriers at the end of the semester to 

see if the results had changed.   

 

Future Directions 

  

Additional research needs to be completed in community partnership involvement on the 

academic side of the service-learning partnership. Involvement in the development of the 

academic curriculum between the community and academic institutions could be of great 

interest.   

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   97 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

References 

 

Abes, E. S., Jackson, G., & Jones, S. R. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of 

 service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 5-17.  

Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects 

 students. Higher Education. Paper 144. Retrieved from 

 https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/144  

Boyer, E. L. (1994). Creating the new American college. Higher Education, 58. 

 https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/58  

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. The 

 Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221-239.  

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of service learning in higher 

 education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 273-290. doi: 

 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11780823   

Burke, A. S., & Bush, M. D. (2013). Service learning and criminal justice: an exploratory study 

 of student perceptions. Educational Review, 65(1), 56-69.  

Caspersz, D., & Olaru, D. (2017). The value of service-learning: the student perspective. Studies 

 in Higher Education, 42(4), 685-700.  

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate behavioral 

 research, 1(2), 245-276. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 

Causin, G. F., & Runnels, C. (2018). Student Perceptions of Engagement in a Mandatory 

 Programmatic Service Learning. Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 46-52.  

Cecil, A. (2012). A framework for service learning in hospitality and tourism management 

 education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 12(4), 313-331.  

Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-

 learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 164-181.  

Conner, J., & Erickson, J. (2017). When Does Service-Learning Work? Contact Theory and 

 Service-Learning Courses in Higher Education. Michigan Journal of Community Service 

 Learning, 23(2), 53-65. 

d'Arlach, L., Sánchez, B., & Feuer, R. (2009). Voices from the community: A case for 

 reciprocity in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(1), 

 5-16. 

Erickson, J., & O’Connor, S. (2000). Service-learning’s effect on prejudice: Does it reduce or 

 promote it. In C. O’Grady (Ed.), Transforming education, transforming the world: The 

 integration of service-learning and multicultural education into higher education, 59-70. 

 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  

Giles, H. C. (2014). Risky epistemology: Connecting with others and dissonance in community-

 based research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 20(2), 65-78. 

Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha 

 reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in 

 Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. 

Hammersley, L. (2012). Community-Based Service-Learning: Partnerships of Reciprocal 

 Exchange?. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(3), 171-184. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/144
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/58
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11780823
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10


Naaman, K., Wang, W., Hu, C., & Howell, B. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 88-98.      

   98 

 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 88-98, DOI: 10.18060/22909 

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Naaman, Weixuan Wang, Chengming Hu, & Brandon Howell. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Hobbs, V. (2007). Faking it or hating it: can reflective practice be forced?. Reflective 

 practice, 8(3), 405-417.  

Hollis, S. A. (2004). Blaming me, blaming you: Assessing service learning and participants' 

 tendency to blame the victim. Sociological spectrum, 24(5), 575-600.  

Holsapple, M. A. (2012). Service-learning and student diversity outcomes: Existing evidence and 

 directions for future research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(2), 

 5-18. 

Hou, S. I., & Wilder, S. (2015). Changing pedagogy: Faculty adoption of service-learning: 

 Motivations, barriers, and strategies among service-learning faculty at a public research 

 institution. SAGE Open, 5(1), 1-7.  

Jamal, T., Taillon, J., & Dredge, D. (2011). Sustainable tourism pedagogy and academic-

 community collaboration: A progressive service-learning approach. Tourism and 

 Hospitality Research, 11(2), 133-147. doi: 

https://doi.org/10.1057/thr.2011.3  

Jones, S. R. (2002). The underside of service learning. About Campus, 7(4), 10-15. 

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 32-36. doi: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575   

Levesque-Bristol, C., Knapp, T. D., & Fisher, B. J. (2011). The effectiveness of service-

 learning: It's not always what you think. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(3), 

 208-224.  

McIntosh, R. W. (1983). A model university curriculum in tourism. Tourism Management, 4(2), 

 134-137.  

McKinney, K., M. Medvedeva, K. Vacca, and J. Malak. 2004. Beyond the classroom: An 

 exploratory study of out-of-class learning in sociology. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 

 43–60.  

Morton, K., & Bergbauer, S. (2015). A case for community: Starting with relationships and 

 prioritizing community as method in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community 

 Service Learning, 22(1), 18-31. 

Reising, D. L., Allen, P. N., & Hall, S. G. (2006). Student and community outcomes in service-

 learning: part 1—student perceptions. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(12), 512-515. 

Van Weenen, I., & Shafer, E. L. (1983). Graduate training in tourism: What the experts 

 think. Tourism Management, 4(2), 138-139.  

Warren, J. L. (2012). Does service-learning increase student learning?: A meta-

 analysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(2), 56-61. 

Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, 

personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning & 

Education, 11(1), 9-27.  

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.1057/thr.2011.3
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575

