2. Method, hypothesis and results

#### 2.1. Goals

The general goal of this study is to evaluate the impact of taking the SREU module on students from a variety of university courses, using a reliable and valid tool.

characteristic, in which the sample should be similar to the study population, second year

Social Responsibility among University Students: An Empirical Study of Spanish Samples

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75115

27

The information was collected using an individual survey. The field work was performed two times: (1) in October 2012 it was performed on the students when teaching of the module had recently started (pretest) and (2) in May 2013 it was performed a second time when the students had completed the module (posttest). The samples from the pretest and the posttest are independent as the questionnaires are anonymous and the individuals who answered the pretest and posttest are not identified to make comparison of the samples possible. Table 1

A total of 757 surveys was eventually obtained: 404 surveys in the pretest (63.2% of the population) and 353 surveys in the posttest (55.2% of the population). The following profile of

The SPSS version 21 statistics program was used to codify and analyse the data (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Descriptive analyses were performed (central tendency measures and standard deviation). To compare the significant differences at the statistical level between the two moments (before and after taking the module), Student's t-test for independent samples and one factor and two factor Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) parametric tests were used to analyse the differences. The assumptions of independence of the data (normality and homoscedasticity) were tested. Student's t-test was performed, without distinguishing between courses, on an aggregate dimension (the sum of the four dimensions). One-factor analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed on each of the four dimensions and on the opinion item. For these six quantitative variables, two-factor ANOVA analyses were performed to evaluate the effects of the two possible sources of variance, as well as the interaction between them: (A) belonging to the pretest or posttest groups and (b) belonging to a particular course. One-factor ANOVA analyses were also performed on the four dimensions and the opinion item for each of the courses. A confidence level of 95% or higher was used in almost all of the analyses.

Universe Second year students at the UFV who are taking the social responsibility module

students at the UFV.

3.3. Data analysis process

Characteristics Survey

Sampling error 3%

Table 1. Technical details of the research project.

Sampling process By quotas Stratification by course Data collection Individual survey of the students in class Sample size 404 (pretest)/353 (posttest) surveys collected

Confidence level 95% for the most unfavourable case p = q = 0.5 Field Work November 2012 (pretest) and May 2013 (posttest)

shows the technical details of the sampling.

the sample was subsequently identified (Table 2).

The specific goals are:


#### 2.2. Hypothesis

There are three main hypotheses to compare in this study. They relate to three types of possible impact: (1) the module has a general impact on the students; (2) the different dimensions that make up SREU have different impacts on the students; and (3) the module has a different impact on the students in each course.
