This study examines the impact that SL has on Higher Education Students´ level of Intercultural Sensitivity (IS) and to see whether it differed from results coming from a non-Service Learning (SL) approach. To this end, we compared two groups of undergraduate students at Pablo de Olavide University (Seville, Spain) enrolled on the same Didactic course, and in two different formats: SL and non-SL. A quasi-experimental design of repeated measures pretest and posttest, using a comparison group, was implemented. The sample consisted of 233 Higher Education students.

IS has led to different models for analysis, evaluation and design of studies and experiences. This paper opts for the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) to understand the different orientations of cultural differences (Bennett 1993). Bennett (2004) conceptualizes how people react to cultural dissimilarities through various processes of cultural adaptation. The DMIS was used for data collection. The inventory reflected a five-factor structure (denial/defence, minimization, reversion, acceptance/adaptation, and encapsulated marginality). Our hypothesis predicted that SL students would report higher levels of IS and the data confirmed this. The results indicated that the students of the two groups are in the minimizing phase and that the posttest scores are higher than the pretest for both groups, although the SL group revealed a significantly higher level in all subscales (reversal, acceptance/adaptation and encapsulated marginality) with the SL course except in the denial/defence and the minimization stages. The discussion focuses on the effectiveness of SL to develop the level of IS in Higher Education students.

Currently, numerous studies have highlighted IS as one of the key competencies in professional work in contemporary multicultural democracies, where the need to interact effectively with people from other cultures has become a matter of vital importance (European Commission 2015). Employers seek professionals capable of working in different contexts. However, interculturality has not been carefully and meaningfully integrated into Higher Education (Deardorff and Arasaratam-Smith 2017). If the role of IS as a predictor of success in intercultural relations is to be recognized, it is necessary to explore which methodologies add to its development to contribute to the training of active citizens (Hammer, Bennett and Wiseman 2003).

Our reason for choosing SL is that it represents a teaching methodology designed to establish a reciprocal learning relationship between students (and their educational institutions) and the community, offering a service based on the community’s needs, helping students gain experience in practical and real-life issues. Thus, SL breaks the gap between university studies and the daily problems of society (McMillan, Goodman, and Schmid 2016). In practice, SL places students in real contexts where they encounter people and communities that are unfamiliar to them, but about which they often have previous attitudes or beliefs. Studies have demonstrated that SL helps students to use their knowledge and skills (Gerholz, Liszt and Klingsieck 2017).

As a pedagogical approach, Service Learning (SL) has succeeded in the field of education, proving its effectiveness regarding social commitment and in relation to academic engagement (Caspersz and Olaru 2017; Rodríguez-Izquierdo 2019, 2020; Wang, Zhang and Yao, 2019). However, previous studies have not paid enough attention to the relationships between the development of IS and SL (Chan, Ngai and Kwan 2017) indicating the need for more definitive empirical data on the influence of SL on IS development (O'Grady 2014, Rodríguez-Izquierdo 2018). The focus of this article links with debates on intercultural education, diversities, and global citizenship in the context of Higher Education.

Participants The participants were 233 students (76.13% female) from the Faculty of Social Sciences at Pablo de Olavide University (Seville, Spain) aged 19–38. Of this sample, 164 were in the SL group (EG) and 127 were in the non-SL group (CG). Both groups studied the course of Didactics in the Social Education Degree. The CG is formed with traditional methodologies based on master classes and classroom practices. The EG participated in a nursery and primary school located in a marginalizes neighborhood for 20 hours. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of languages spoken, previous SL or experiences abroad (all p-values > 0.22). Instrument The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) of Hammer, Bennett and Wiseman (2003) was used to measure students' orientation to cultural differences, Spanish version (Rodríguez-Izquierdo 2018). The instrument contains 36 items grouped into five factors: denial/defence, minimization, reversal, acceptance/adaptation, and encapsulated marginality. Responses were rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha was .85. The goodness of fit indices of the five-factor model, which were calculated with LISREL 9.1, reached acceptable levels (x2/gl = 1.64; GFI [Goodness of Fit Index] = .86; RMR [Root Mean Residual] = .07; RMSEA [Root Mean Square Error Approximation] = .033) (Autor, 2018). Procedures The class was taught over the course of the first semester. The pretest was also conducted during the first week of the course and the posttest evaluation took place during the first week of the second semester. During the process, a reminder was sent in the pretest and posttest phases to increase the number of responses. Students were invited to fill the inventory online through an anonymous survey. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants. This study conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines and relevant professional ethical guidelines, and the (anonymized) ethical committees have approved the study. Data Analysis The responses were analyzed using the SPSS program, version 23. First, in order to examine the differences between the students of both groups in their orientation towards cultural differences, one-way MANOVA analysis was used. Second, in order to ascertain whether the average score gained in each of the five factors of the inventory was related to participation in the SL group, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. Also, the effect size is calculated (Cohen d) (small < 0.50; moderate 0.50-0.79; large ≥ 0.80). SPSS v.23.0 was used in this case.

Our results confirmed our hypothesis, clearly revealing statistically significant differences between our CG, i.e. students attending a traditional class, and our EG, i.e. students participating in an SL experience. Furthermore, this has been the case in each of the subscales: reversal, acceptance/adaptation and encapsulated marginality, except in the denial/defence and the minimization stages. The absence of substantial changes for the defence/denial stage is not surprising given the findings indicate that most students had already resolved that stage before participating in the study, leaving little room for further development. The fact that most students are still in the minimization phase is not startling either, since identifying the value of cultural dissimilarities can be very hard according to Bennett's DMIS (Hammer, 2011). Additionally, the results suggest that SL aligned well with critical pedagogy as a border pedagogy (Giroux 2005) and as a borderline practice (McMillan, Goodman, and Schmid 2016) in which students are confronted with complex situations, at the limit of two communities of practice such as the college and the community, in which their beliefs about "the other" are mobilized. From this perspective, learning implies recognizing oneself with what one is in relation to "the other" and one's identity. To conclude, the study’s implications are considerably informative for policies and practices of higher education institutions offering SL programs. First, to challenge the tendency of narrowing college learning to workforce credentials (Deardorff and Arasaratam-Smith 2017), paving instead the way to preparing students for global citizenship. Secondly, the data are also significantly meaningful for educators to advocating the implementation of the multicultural approach by giving it formal, explicit teaching methodologies and environments where students engage with those who do not share their socially constructed identities, their beliefs, and their values (McMillan et al. 2016).

Bennett, M. 1986. “A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10 (2): 179-195. Bennett, M. 2004. “Becoming Interculturally Competent”. In Toward Multiculturalism: A Reader in Multicultural Education, edited by J. Wurzel, 62-78. Newton: Intercultural Resource. Caspersz, D., and D. Olaru. 2017. “The Value of Service Learning: The Student Perspective”. Studies in Higher Education 42 (4): 685-700. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1070818 Chan, S. C., G. Ngai, and K. P. Kwan. 2017. “Mandatory Service Learning at University: Do Less-Inclined Students Learn from It?”. Active Learning in Higher Education 20 (3): 189-202. doi: 10.1177/1469787417742019 Deardorff, D. K. and L. A. Arasaratam-Smith. 2017. Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application. London: Routledge. European Commission. 2015. The New EU Programme for Education, Training, Youth, and Sport for 2014-2020. http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/discover/index_en.htm Gerholz, K. H., V. Liszt, and K. B. Klingsieck. 2017. “Effects of Learning Design Patterns in Service Learning Courses”. Active Learning in Higher Education 19 (1): 47-59. doi:10.1177/1469787417721420 Giroux, H. A. 2005. Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Hammer, M. 2011. “Additional cross-cultural validity testing of the intercultural development inventory”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35; 474-487. Hammer, M., M. Bennett, and R. Wiseman. 2003. ”Measuring Intercultural Sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (4): 421-443. McMillan, J., S. Goodman, and B. Schmid. 2016. “Illuminating “Transaction Spaces” in Higher Education: University-Community Partnerships and Brokering as “Boundary Work”. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 20 (3): 8-31. O'Grady, C. R. (Ed.). 2014. Integrating Service Learning and Multicultural Education in Colleges and Universities. NY: Routledge. Rodríguez-Izquierdo, R. M. 2018. “Intercultural sensitivity among university students: measurement of the construct and its relationship with international mobility programmes”. Cultura y Educación 30 (1): 177-204. Rodríguez-Izquierdo, R. M. 2019. “Validación de una escala de medida del impacto del aprendizaje-servicio en el desarrollo de las competencias profesionales de los estudiantes en formación docente”. Revista Mexicana de Psicología 36 (1): 63-73. Rodríguez-Izquierdo, R. M. 2020 (in press). “Service Learning and academic commitment in Higher Education”. Psicodidáctica. Wang, C., X. Zhang, and M. Yao. 2019. “Enhancing Chinese College Students’ Transfer of Learning through Service-Learning”. Studies in Higher Education 44 (8): 1316-1331. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1435635