本研究旨在探究影響大學校院教師開設服務-學習課程因素及其教學取向，以增進我國大學校院教師開設服務-學習課程並提升各專業領域服務-學習教學。研究問題包括：（一）影響大學校院（一般大學、技職校院、宗教型大學校院）教師開設服務-學習課程之因素（個人因素、學校因素）與教學取向（教學哲學、教學設計）為何？「個人因素」、「學校因素」之相對重要性為何？「個人因素」與「學校因素」為什麼及如何影響教師開設服務-學習課程？（二）不同學校類型（一般大學、技職校院、宗教型大學校院）教師在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上差異為何？（三）不同專長領域教師（人文社會類、醫護教育及社會服務類、科技類）在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上差異為何？(四) 不同課程類別教師（校訂服務-學習必修共同課程、融入服務-學習內涵通識課程、融入服務-學習內涵專業課程）在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上差異為何？（五）不同專業領域教師之服務-學習課程教學具體內涵（課程理念與課程設計）為何？

為達研究目的，本研究採取質量並行的研究方法及設計。第一階段採用實證量化研究法，以瞭解影響我國大學教師開設服務-學習課程的因素及其教學取向。參考國內外相關文獻以自編之「大學校院教師開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向問卷」做為研究工具，問卷內容包括「開設服務-學習課程影響因素問卷」及「服務-學習教學哲學與教學設計量表」二部分。以表面、專家評定及因素分析等方式建立效度，以內部一致性建立信度。因缺乏全國開設服務-學習課程教師母群資料，故依學校類型、專長領域及課程類別採配額取樣選取研究對象，又因預試與正式施測問卷完全相同且來自不同學校，為使研究對象涵括更為廣泛，將預試研究對象納入於正式研究對象中，以「合併預試研究對象後正式研究對象」作為本研究之正式研究對象，共包括全國53所大學校院，發出問卷1728份，回收880份，剔除填答不全，實際有效為876份，問卷回收率為50.69％。以描述統計和單因子獨立樣本變異數分析進行資料分析。

第二階段採用質性研究法，從第一階段研究對象中，以立意取樣方式，選取「服務-學習教學哲學與教學設計量表」得分較高且來自不同學校類型、專長領域及課程類別之大學校院教師，共選取教育、營建管理、傳播及醫護學門四位研究參與者，依據半結構式訪談大綱進行訪談，除進一步瞭解各因素為什麼及如何影響教師開設服務-學習課程外，並瞭解不同專業領域教師其服務-學習教學具體內涵，找出不同專業領域之服務-學習教學取向。以三角檢正、參與者檢核、同儕審視、與研究參與者建立信任關係、選擇訪談地點和研究者自我角色與主觀意識省察建立信實度。

本研究之主要發現包括：
一、大學校院教師開設服務-學習課程受「學校因素」影響程度高於「個人因素」；開設課程大致符合服務-學習課程教學取向，但仍有改進空間：
（一）學校因素：
1.「專責單位和專責行政人員協助」、「教師認同服務-學習精神」及「學校重視學生實作或做中學理念」是影響教師開設服務-學習課程的重要學校因素，「學校類型」及「學校宗旨」不重要。
2.一般大學教師首重教學助理提供，且較受學校及科系鼓勵影響；技職校院教師較受學校將教學創新列入教師評鑑指標影響；宗教型大學校院教師則較受學校提供相關教材及教師培訓影響。
（二）個人因素：
1.「認同服務-學習理念」、「妨礙學術研究」、「學生安全考量」、「促進學生學習」、「具備服務-學習基本專業知能」為主要個人影響因素。
2.「經費」、「以往或現在志願服務經驗」、「性別角色」和「宗教信仰」非影響開課主因，與國外文獻不符，教師人格特質才是關鍵。
3.服務-學習妨礙學術研究，與服務-學習相關研究不具嚴謹學術認證、課程安排耗時且缺乏學術發表平台有關，但仍視領域關聯性而定。
4.技職校院教師受「具備服務-學習專業知能」影響程度高於「促進學生學習」；宗教型大學校院教師則較受「學生安全考量」因素影響；而一般大學教師受「宗教信仰」影響程度高於「性別角色」。
（三）教學哲學：
1.教學哲學大致符合批判教育式教學理念，但尚未達到轉化學習式教學理念所強調之付諸行動階段。
2.一般大學教師較認同「學生具有批判思考能力」；技職校院教師較認同「服務-學習能活化教學」；宗教型大學校院教師較認同「服務-學習課程能幫助社區發展」。
（四）課程設計：
1.課程設計符合準備、服務、反思及慶賀四階段，但應用大學生發展理論於服務-學習教學中仍有待強化。
2.一般大學教師最符合反思階段之「服務反思帶領」；技職校院教師最符合慶賀階段之「肯定學生服務成果及服務承諾」；宗教型大學校院教師最符合慶賀階段之「期末成果發表」。

二、不同學校類型教師在開設服務-學習課程影響因素上有顯著差異，但教學取向上則無顯著差異：
（一）技職校院、宗教型大學校院在「個人因素」與「學校因素」影響上，均顯著高於一般大學。
（二）不同學校類型在「教學哲學」與「教學設計」上，無顯著差異。

三、不同專長領域教師在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上有顯著差異：
（一）在「個人因素」影響上，醫護、教育及社會服務類顯著高於人文社會類，人文社會類顯著高於科技類；在「學校因素」影響上，醫護、教育及社會服務類顯著高於科技類。
（二）在「教學哲學」上，醫護、教育及社會服務類教師最傾向服務-學習教學取向、人文社會類教師次之、科技類教師最低；在「教學設計」上，醫護、教育及社會服務類教師，較科技類教師更傾向服務-學習教學取向。

四、不同課程類別教師在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上有顯著差異：
（一）在「個人因素」影響上，融入服務-學習內涵通識課程、融入服務-學習內涵專業課程顯著高於校訂服務-學習必修共同課程；在「學校因素」影響上，融入服務-學習內涵專業課程顯著高於校訂服務-學習必修共同課程。
（二）在「教學哲學」與「教學設計」上，融入服務-學習內涵通識課程、融入服務-學習內涵專業課程，均較校訂服務-學習必修共同課程，更傾向服務-學習教學取向。

五、教育、營建管理、傳播及醫護學門教師開設之服務-學習課程在背景脈絡、課程理念、課程設計、困難與解決方式、學校行政單位角色上相似，但課程目標關注重點、與社區協同合作關係、經費需求上則各有不同。

依據研究結果，分從國家政策及執行方面、大學校院政策及執行方面、大學校院教師教學方面及後續研究方面提出相關建議。

The purpose of the study was to explore the factors that influence college faculty engaging in service-learning courses and their teaching approaches in order to promote faculty engaging in service-learning courses and progressing their teaching approaches. The research questions included:
1.What are influential factors (personal factors and institutional factors) and teaching approaches (teaching philosophy and curriculum design) of college faculty who engaging in service-learning courses? Which influential factor, personal or institutional factor, is more important than the other? Why and how these personal and institutional factors influence faculty to engage in service-learning courses?
2.Are influential factors and teaching approaches varied from different institutional types?
3.Are influential factors and teaching approaches varied from different academic disciplines?
4.Are influential factors and teaching approaches varied from different types of curriculum?
5.What are the contents and teaching approaches of academic service-learning courses on different academic disciplines?

By using a mixed method approach, first, the instrument of quantitative research, “Questionnaire on Influential Factors and Teaching Approaches of College Faculty Who Teaching Service-Learning Courses” (QIFTA), which included “Questionnaire on Influential Factors of College Faculty Who Teaching Service-Learning Courses” (QIF) and “Inventory on Teaching Approaches of College Faculty Who Teaching Service-Learning Courses” (ITA), was developed by the researcher to collect data. Face, content and construct validity were established by a panel of experts, a field test, a pilot study and formal study. The reliability of the instrument was determined by an internal measure of consistency from pilot and formal study. Since lack of the target population, quota sampling in terms of institutional types, academic disciplines and types of curriculum was used to select the sample. In addition, because of the instrument (QIFTA) which using in both pilot and formal study was the same, and the sample institutions from pilot and formal study were total different , the final quantitative sample was combined from both pilot and formal study in order to broaden the research findings. 1728 questionnaires were sent out to 53 universities and colleges, resulted in 876 valid samples (50.69％). Descriptive statistics and one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to analyze the quantitative data.

Second, by using purposive sampling, four college faculties who had higher score on ITA and varied from institutional types, academic disciplines and types of curriculum were selected as the qualitative participants. Semi-structured interview was used to understand why and how these institutional and personal factors influence them engaging in service-learning courses and their teaching approaches in depth. The trustworthiness was established by triangulation, member check, peer debriefing, developing trust relationship with participants, choosing where to interview, and self-reflectivity.

The major findings of this study are summarized as followings:
1.For college faculty who teaching service-learning courses, the impact of institutional factors is higher than the personal factors and their teaching approaches mostly comply with the service-learning approach but still need to be improved.
(1)”Institution provides with a centralized organization & staff to help the course running”, “Faculty agree with the sprite of service-learning”, and “Institution emphasizes the concept of learning by doing”, are the most important institutional factors. “Institutional types” and “Institutional mission” are less important.
(2)”Providing with teaching assistant” is the most important factor for university faculty, and they also tend to be impacted by the encouragement from institutional & academic department. Faculty in technological and vocational institutions is higher impacted by “Setting the innovation on teaching as an indicator for faculty evaluation”; and faculty in religious-affiliated institutions is higher impacted by “Providing faculty with teaching manual and training in service-learning”.
(3)For the impact of personal factors, “Agree with the service-learning concepts”, “Hinder academic research”, “Concern student safety”, “Foster student learning”, and “Possess service-learning competencies” are the most important influential factors.
(4)For the impact of personal factors, “Founding”, “Past or present volunteer experiences”, “Gender” and “Religion” are not important, which against the literature review; however, “Personality of faculty” is the key.
(5)Since lack of the professional journal publishes in service-learning and course preparation of service-learning is time intensive in Taiwan, faculty engaging in service-learning hinders their academic research, but is varied from different academic disciplines.
(6)For the impact of personal factors, Faulty of technological and vocational institutions is impacted higher by “Possess service-learning competencies” than “Foster student learning”; faculty in religious-affiliated institutions is impacted highly by “Concern student safety”; and University faulty is impacted higher by “Religion” than “Gender”.
(7)The teaching philosophy of college faculty in service-learning courses complies mostly with the concepts of critical pedagogy, but hasn’t gotten to the commitment action in transformative learning perspectives yet.
(8)University faulty highly agrees with “Students have the competency in critical thinking”; faulty in technological and vocational institutions highly agrees with “Service-learning can activate teaching”; faculty in religious-affiliated institutions highly agrees with “Service-learning can help community development”.
(9)The curriculum design of college faculty in service-learning courses complies mostly with the four stages of preparation, service, reflection and celebration; however, they need to strengthen the ability to apply the college student development theories to the service-learning teaching.
(10)For the curriculum design, University faulty complies mostly with the “Reflection practice” in the stage of reflection; faulty in technological and vocational institutions complies mostly with the “Recognize student learning outcomes and the commitment in service” in the stage of celebration; faculty in religious-affiliated institutions complies mostly with the “Learning outcome presentation at the end of semester” in the stage of celebration.

2.There are significant differences in the influential factors based upon institutional types, but no significant differences in teaching approaches.
(1)For the impact of personal factors and institutional factors, faulty in technological and vocational institutions and faculty in religious-affiliated institutions are significantly higher than university faulty.
(2)For the tending to service-learning teaching philosophy and curriculum design, there is no significant difference based upon institutional types.

3.There are significant differences in the influential factors and teaching approaches based upon academic disciplines.
(1)For the impact of personal factors, faulty in medical, nursing, education and social service fields is significantly higher than faulty in humanities and social sciences, meanwhile, faulty in humanities and social sciences is significantly higher than faulty in science and technology. For the impact of institutional factors, faulty in medical, nursing, education and social service fields is significantly higher than faulty in science and technology.
(2)For the tending to service-learning teaching philosophy, faulty in medical, nursing, education and social service fields scores significantly higher than faulty in humanities and social sciences, and faulty in science and technology scores the lowest. For the tending to service-learning curriculum design, faulty in medical, nursing, education and social service fields scores significantly higher than faulty in science and technology.

4.There are significant differences in the influential factors and teaching approaches based upon types of curriculum.
(1)For the impact of personal factors, service-learning embedded in general education courses and service-learning embedded in academic courses are significantly higher than service-learning embedded in obligatory courses. For the impact of institutional factors, service-learning embedded in academic courses is significantly higher than service-learning embedded in obligatory courses.
(2)For the tending to service-learning teaching philosophy and curriculum design, service-learning embedded in general education courses and service-learning embedded in academic courses score significantly higher than service-learning embedded in obligatory courses.

5.The teaching approaches of four different academic service-learning courses are similar in teachers’ personality & past service experiences, course philosophy, course design, course difficulties & solutions, and institutional supports; however, their course focus, partnership with community, and founding requirements are quite different.

Based on the findings, recommendations for policy, practice and further research are presented.

中文部份
人體研究法（2011年12月28日公布）。2012年4月22日，取自http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=L0020176
大學法（2010年9月1日修正）。2010年10月1日，取自http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=H0030001
何慧卿（2007）。大學專業課程與服務學習結合之探討：以「兒童福利」課程為例。載於林至善主編，學生事務與社團輔導，第六輯，頁367-379。
何慧卿（2009a）。教師對服務學習方案自我敘說觀點之反思。載於中華學生社團教育學會舉辦之「學生事務與服務學習」研討會論文集（頁1-22），臺北市。
何慧卿（2009b）。服務機構督導及教師對專業課程與服務學習方案自我敘說觀點之反思。載於明新科技大學舉辦之「2009服務學習學術研討會」論文集（頁104-121），臺北市。
李青松（2011）。國內大專院校服務學習課程之發展趨勢。載於輔仁大學舉辦之「第七屆服務-學習」研討會論文集（頁20-39），新北市。
李雪莉、彭昱融（2008）。哈佛的難題：聰明、會考試，卻不會問問題 「怎麼教」比「教什麼」更重要。天下雜誌，410。
林佩縈（2008）。重新感受自己的心，從心看見對方的新—研究生參與服務學習課程之多元文化觀點轉換歷程（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
林昱貞（2002）。批判教育學在臺灣：發展與困境。教育研究集刊，48（4），1-25。
林珮萱（2012）。服務力漸成大學生活的潛課程。遠見雜誌，大學專刊，55-57。
邱皓政（2006）。量化研究與統計分析─SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。臺北市：五南。
柯志堂、李彥慧（2010）。不同教學策略對服務學習課程推動成效之比較分析－以德明財經科技大學為例。載於國立臺灣師範大學舉辦之「2010年高等教育與學生事務國際學術研討會」論文集，臺北市。
紀岳錡（2012）。從教師觀點探討反思教育帶領歷程之研究─以靜宜大學大一服務學習課程為例（未出版之碩士論文）。靜宜大學，臺中市。
胡憶蓓、孫台鼎（2007）。靜宜大學「服務-學習」課程發展歷程之研究。載於鄧毓浩主編，高等教育與學生事務，頁287-306。
個人資料保護法（2010年5月26日修正）。2012年4月22日，取自http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=I0050021
徐明（2007）。大學服務學習方案品質與公民道德發展成果研究：比較五所大專校院服務學習方案的設計與執行。載於鄧毓浩主編，高等教育與學生事務，頁259-285。
徐明、林至善（2009）。服務-學習的基本概念與理論基礎。載於黃玉總校閱，從服務中學習－跨領域服務-學習理論與實務（頁19-56）。臺北市：洪葉文化。
徐明、邱筱琪（2009）。服務-學習方案的實施與夥伴關係的發展。載於黃玉總校閱，從服務中學習－跨領域服務-學習理論與實務（頁89-129）。臺北市：洪葉文化。
高等教育評鑑中心（2011a）。100年度校務評鑑實施計畫。2012年5月16日，取自http://www.heeact.edu.tw/ct.asp?xItem=12126&ctNode=327&mp=2
高等教育評鑑中心（2011b）。大學校院「通識教育」評鑑項目。2012年5月16日，取自http://www.heeact.edu.tw/ct.asp?xItem=13431&ctNode=327&mp=2
國科會國際科技合作簡訊網駐英科技組（2012）。英學者建議將「社會價值」列為大學社會貢獻指標之一。2012年3月6日，取自http://stn.nsc.gov.tw/view_detail.asp?doc_uid=1010217014
張盈堃等譯（2004）。批判教育學導論。臺北：心理。
張善楠（譯）（2008）。D. Bok著。大學教了沒？哈佛校長提出的8門課。臺北市：天下。
教育部（2007）。大專校院服務學習方案。2010年09月10日，取自http://english.moe.gov.tw/content.asp?CuItem=9407&mp=10000
教育部（2008a）。補助大專校院開設具服務學習內涵課程作業要點。2010年09月10日，取自http://english.moe.gov.tw/content.asp?CuItem=9569
教育部（2008b）。97學年度補助大專校院開設具服務學習內涵課程計畫審核結果出爐。高教技職簡訊，20。
教育部（2009）。公布98學年度補助大專校院開設具服務學習內涵課程計畫審核結果。高教技職簡訊，32。
教育部（2010a）。鼓勵技專校院開設勞作教育及服務學習課程實施要點。2010年09月10日，取自http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/NewsContent.aspx?id=215
教育部（2010b）。99學年度補助技專校院開設具服務學習內涵課程計畫審核結果出爐。高教技職簡訊，46。
教育部（2010c）。大專校院服務學習方案（99學年度～103學年度）。2010年10月31日，取自http://www.edu.tw/bulletin_list.aspx?pages=3
教育部（2011a）。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫100至101年度申請計畫書。2011年5月4日，取自http://www.csal.fcu.edu.tw/Edu/program_download-1.asp
教育部（2011b）。教育部獎勵補助私立技專校院整體發展經費核配及申請要點。2011年5月4日，取自http://www.tve.edu.tw/Notice.asp?NewsId=242
教育部（2011c）。100學年度教育部補助辦理品德教育推廣與深耕學校計畫遴選作業說明。2011年5月4日，取自http://www.edu.tw/displ/download_list.aspx?site_content_sn=7976
教育部（2011d）。教育部辦理補助公民素養陶塑計畫徵件事宜。2011年5月4日，取自http://hss.edu.tw/doc_detail.php?doc_id=2366&plan_title=現代公民核心能力養成中程個案計畫&class_plan=176
教育部（2011e）。教育部辦理補助現代公民核心能力課程計畫徵件事宜。2011年5月4日，取自http://hss.edu.tw/doc_detail.php?doc_id=2366&plan_title=現代公民核心能力養成中程個案計畫&class_plan=176
教育部（2011f）。教育部辦理補助智慧生活跨領域基礎課程與服務學習課程推廣計畫徵件事宜。2011年5月4日，取自http://www.edu.tw/consultant/bulletin_list.aspx?site_content_sn=7333
教育部（2011g）。教育部大專校院學科三分類(人文、社會、科技)之歸納表。2011年8月7日，取自http://www.edu.tw/statistics/content.aspx?site_content_sn=7858
教育部（2011h）。下一週期科技大學（技術學院）評鑑「原訂指標」與「簡化指標」對照表。2012年5月16日，取自http://tve-eval.twaea.org.tw/News_Detall.aspx?ID=186
教育部（2011i）。教育部100年度甄選全國技專校院辦理具勞作教育及服務學習內涵課程績優學校暨個人實施計畫。2012年5月16日，取自http://www.edu.tw/news.aspx?news_sn=4995
梁碧明、謝靜如（2008）。大學社區服務課程價值的實踐－服務提供者與接受者觀點之探究。東臺灣特殊教育學報，10，頁185-202。
莊明貞（2003）。當前臺灣課程重建的可能性：一個批判教育學的觀點。載於莊明貞主編，課程改革：反思與前瞻（頁24-48）。臺北市：高等教育。
陳倩玉、趙長寧（2007）。高等教育中的服務學習－靜宜大學「服務-學習」課程之研究。載於林至善主編，學生事務與社團輔導，第六輯（頁424-442）。臺北市：東吳大學。
陳曼玲（2011）。103年起技專校院評鑑改採認可制－－專訪教育部技職司長李彥儀。評鑑，30，1-3。
黃玉（2000）。服務學習：公民教育的新教學法之一。載於臺灣師範大學舉辦之「二十一世紀公民與道德教育學術研討會」論文集，臺北市。
黃玉（2005）。大學學生事務的理論與應用。載於陳伯璋、蓋浙生主編，新世紀高等教育政策與行政(頁395-470)。臺北：高等教育。
黃玉（2009）。再版序—從服務中學習。載於黃玉總校閱，從服務中學習－跨領域服務-學習理論與實務（頁Ⅲ-Ⅶ6）。臺北市：洪葉文化。
黃玉（2009）。服務學習融入大專校院課程的意義與目的，高教技職簡訊，26。
黃富順主編（2002）。成人學習。臺北市：五南。
楊昌裕（2002）。以服務學習的理念推展志願服務。學生事務理論與實務，41（1），43-54。
劉若蘭、楊昌裕（2009）。連結服務與學習—反思。載於黃玉總校閱，從服務中學習－跨領域服務-學習理論與實務（頁229-279）。臺北市：洪葉文化。
潘榮吉（2008）。家庭生活教育專業中的新移民服務學習方案。載於輔仁大學舉辦之「2008大專校院服務學習推動策略及師資培訓研討會：第六屆服務-學習研討會暨高峰論壇」論文集，新北市。
蔡明芳（2006）。成人志工生命意義之轉化學習歷程之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所，嘉義縣。
戴曉霞、吳佩真（2011）。風險社會與大學課程─臺灣博雅書院之探究。高等教育，6（2），1-31。

英文部分
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.
Antonio, A. L. (2002). Faculty of color reconsidered: Reassessing contributions to scholarship. Journal of Higher Education, 73 (5), 582-602.
Antonio, A. L., Astin, H. S., & Cress, C. M. (2000). Community service in higher education: A look at the nation’s faculty. Review of Higher Education, 23 (4), 373-398.
Baez, B. (2000). Race-related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing critical agency in academe. Higher Education, 39, 363-391.
Banerjee, M, & Hausafus, C. O. (2007). Faculty use of service-learning: Perceptions, motivations, and impediments for the human sciences. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 14 (1), 32-45.
Barker, D. (2004a, September). From service learning to the scholarship of engagement: A taxonomy of civic renewal in American higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Barker, D. (2004b). The scholarship of engagement: A taxonomy of five emerging practices, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9 (2), 123-137.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bloomgarden, A. H., & O’Meara, K. A. (2007). Faculty role integration and community engagement: Harmony or cacophony? Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 13 (2), 5-18.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 2, 112-122.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (3), 503-516.
Butin, D. (2005). Service-learning as postmodern pedagogy. In D. Butin & Associates (Eds.). Service-learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions (pp. 89-103). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Campus Compact. (2006). New times demand new scholarship: Research universities and civic engagement－A leadership agenda. Retrieved February 8, 2010 from http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/initiatives/research_universities/conference_report.pdf
Campus Compact. (2007). New times demand new scholarshipⅡ: Research universities and civic engagement－Opportunities and challenges. Retrieved February 8, 2010 from http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/initiatives/research_universities/Civic_Engagement.pdf
Chamber, T. C. (2005). The special role of higher education in society: As a public good for the public good. In A. J. Kezar, T. C. Chamber, & J. C. Burkhardt (Eds.), Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement (pp. 3-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Checkoway, B. (2001). Renewing the civic mission of the American research university. The Journal of Higher Education, 72 (2), 125-147.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Colbeck, C. L., & Wharton-Michael, P. (2006). Individual and organizational influences on faculty members’engagement in public scholarship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 105, 17-26.
Daloz , L. (2000). Transformative learning for common good. In J., Mezirow & Associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspective on a theory in progress (pp. 103-123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Daloz Parks, L. A., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks Daloz, S. (1996). Common fire: Leading lives of commitment in a complex world. Boston: Beacon Press.
Delve, C. I., Mintz, S. D., & Stewart, G. M. (1990). Promoting values development through community service: A design. In C. I. Delve, S. D., Mintz, & G. M. Stewart (Eds.), Community service as value education (pp. 7-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Driscoll, A. (2000). Studying faculty and service-learning: Directions for inquiry and development. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, Special issues, 35-41.
Evans N. J., Forney D.S., & Guido-DiBrito F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fertman, C. I., White, G. P., & White, L. J. (1996). Service learning in the middle school: Building a culture of service. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Gilchrist, L. Z., Mundy, M. E., Felten, P., & Shields, S. L. (2003). Course transitions, midsemester assessment, and program design characteristics: A case study. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 10 (1), 51-58.
Gilligan C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gonsalves, R. K. (2008). Service-learning from the perspective of faculty in higher education: A qualitative research (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses databases. (UNI No. 3351332)
Hammond, C. (1994). Integrating service and academic study: Faculty motivation and satisfaction in Michigan higher education. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 1 (1), 21-28.
Harwood, A. M., Ochs L., Currier D., Duke, S., Hammond J., Moulds L., …Werder C. (2005). Communities for growth: Cultivating and sustaining service-learning teaching and scholarship in a faculty fellows program. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 12 (1), 41-51.
Holland, B. (1997). Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 30-41.
Holland, B. A. (1999). Factors and strategies that influence faculty involvement in public service. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 4 (1), 37-43.
Holland, B. A. (2006). Wingspread Journal, Retrieved from: www.henceonline.org/resources/institutional
Jacoby, B.,& et al. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concept and practices . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jaeger, A. J., & Thorton, A. H. (2006). Neither honor nor compensation: Faculty and public service. Educational Policy, 20 (2), 345-366.
Jeavon, T. (1995). Service-learning and liberal learning: A marriage of convenience. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 2, 134-140.
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1999). The engaged institution. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
King, P. M. (2003). Student learning in higher education. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Jr. Woodard, & et al. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp.234-268). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory research and social Issues (pp.31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering, & et al. (Eds.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and changing society (pp.232-255). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice Hall.
Levine, M. A. (1994). Seven steps to getting faculty involved in service-learning: How a traditional faculty member came to teach a course on “voluntarism, community, and citizenship. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 1 (1), 110-114.
McEwen, M. K. (2003). New Perspective on identity development. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Jr. Woodard, & et al. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp.153-178). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKay, V. C., & Rozee, P. D. (2004). Characteristics of faculty who adopt community service learning pedagogy. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 10 (2), 21-23.
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quaterly, 32(1), 3-24.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J., Mezirow, E. W. Taylor, & et al., Transformative learning in practice: Insights form community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 18-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mintz, S. D., & Hesser, G. W. (1996). Principles of good practice in servce-learning. In B. Jacoby, & et al. (Eds.), Service-learcing in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, T. L., & Ward, K. (2010). Institutionalizing faculty engagement through research, teaching, and service at research universities. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 17(1), 44-58.
O’Meara, K. A. (2002). Scholarship unbound: Assessing service as scholarship for promotion and tenure. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
O’Meara, K. A. (2003). Reframing incentives and rewards for community service-learning and academic outreach. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 8 (2), 201-220.
O’Meara, K. A. (2005). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Have academic cultures really changed? New Directions for Institutional Research, 129, 77-95.
O’Meara, K. A., & Niehaus, E. (2009). Service-learning is…how faculty explain their practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 16(1), 17-32.
Parkins, L. C. (2008). Predicting faculty participation in service-learning pedagogy at research institutions (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses databases. (UNI No. 3306616).
Pribbenow, D. (2005). The impact of service-learning pedagogy on faculty teaching and learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 11 (2), 25-38.
Rice, D., & Stacey, K. (1997). Small group dynamics as a catalyst for change: A faculty development model for academic service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 4, 64-71.
Schnaubelt T., & Statham A. (2007). Faculty perceptions of service as a mode of scholarship. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 14 (1), 18-31.
Stanton, T. K. (1994). The experience of faculty participants in an instructional development seminar on service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 1 (1), 7-20.
Stocking V. B., & Cutforth N. (2006). Managing the challenges of teaching community-based research courses: Insights from two instructors. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 13 (1), 56-65.
Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Vogelgesang, L. J., Denson, N., & Jayakumar, U. M. (2010). Does Institutional support for engaged scholarship matter? Review of Higher Education, 33 (4), 437-472.
Wade, A. (2008). Faculty and the engaged institution: Toward understanding motivators and deterrents for fostering engagement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses databases. (UNI No. 3340287).
Ward, K. (2003). Faculty Service Roles and the Scholarship of Engagement. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 2003, 29 (5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wiechman, M. C. (1996). Investigating urban community needs: Service-learning from a social justice perspective. Education and Urban Society, 224-236.