4. Results

#### 4.1. Descriptive statistics

Tables 3 and 4 show the descriptive statistics of the dimensions of the pretest and posttest for the different courses. The scores for each dimension were calculated as the sum of the items they comprise.

result of the comparison indicates that there is a significant difference in favour of the posttest.

A factorial analysis of variance was also performed. This model evaluates the individual and joint effect of two or more factors (course and group) on a quantitative dependent variable

In this case, it makes it possible to establish whether the interaction between the group factors

If the p-values are below 0.05, this indicates that the groups defined by pretest and posttest have significantly different average results and that the average results between courses are also significantly different. The information on the effect of the group\*course interaction indicates that the differences in the results with the provision of the social responsibility module that appear between the pretest and the posttest, in favour of the posttest, are not the same between courses, or, in other words, the differences between courses are not the same in

(pretest/posttest) and course affects the dependent variable.

Table 3 Statistics for dimensions by course (pretest (PR) and posttest (PO)).

the two groups (pretest and posttest). See Table 6.

See Table 5.

Course

BM (PR) BM (PO) BIO (PR) BIO (PO) SPPA (PR)

SPPA (PO)

DIM 1 X 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.7 3.9 5.3 4.4 4.8

DIM 2 X 4.5 4.6 4.8 5.1 4.5 4.9 4.6 5.0 4.4 5.5 4.8 5.2

DIM 3 X 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.1 4.5 3.9 4.3 4.1 5.4 4.0 4.2

DIM 4 X 4.4 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.7 4.8 5.5 4.8 4.8

N 31 24 41 41 63 46 37 49 20 20 39 29

S 0.71 0.72 0.77 0.77 0.86 0.61 0.65 0.60 0.70 0.55 0.66 0.60 Mode 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.6 4.0 5.4 4.6 5.2 Mdn 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.8 4.0 5.4 4.6 4.8

S 0.72 0.85 0.81 0.78 0.77 0.71 0.67 0.65 0.80 0.42 0.70 0.66 Mode 4.2 5.6 5.6 5.4 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.0 Mdn 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.2 4.6 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.4 5.6 4.6 5.2

S 0.98 0.75 1.11 1.14 0.99 0.84 0.92 0.83 0.73 0.39 0.91 0.73 Mod. 3.2 4.6 4.4 4.8 4.6 4.8 3.8 4.8 3.0 5.6 3.2 4.4 Mdn 4.0 4.6 4.4 4.8 4.2 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.1 5.5 4.2 4.4

S 0.86 0.96 1.03 0.71 0.92 0.69 0.68 0.66 0.65 0.34 0.81 0.73 Mod. 3.8 3.6 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 5.4 5.2 5.6 5.0 Mdn 4.4 4.4 4.8 5.0 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.8 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.0

AUD (PR)

AUD (PO)

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

LAW (PR)

LAW (PO)

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

DES + FA (PR)

DES + FA (PO)

29

(item 21 or dimension).

All of the courses have an average social commitment level of over 4.1 in all dimensions, in both the pretest and the posttest, with a few exceptions.

In general, on all of the courses, the average level of satisfaction for each dimension is higher in the posttest than the pretest, apart from a few minor exceptions.

Therefore, the descriptive results seem to indicate possible differences of means between the pretest and the posttest for almost all of the courses. These preliminary results require the use of inferential data processing methods that make it possible to decide whether the differences are significant or not.

#### 4.2. Comparison of mean difference for the evaluation of general impact

To test the general impact hypothesis between the pretest and posttest, the aggregate dimension as the sum of the four dimensions was calculated and Student's t test was performed. The


Table 3 Statistics for dimensions by course (pretest (PR) and posttest (PO)).

4. Results

28 Social Responsibility

they comprise.

are significant or not.

4.1. Descriptive statistics

Table 2. Profile of the sample.

both the pretest and the posttest, with a few exceptions.

the posttest than the pretest, apart from a few minor exceptions.

4.2. Comparison of mean difference for the evaluation of general impact

Tables 3 and 4 show the descriptive statistics of the dimensions of the pretest and posttest for the different courses. The scores for each dimension were calculated as the sum of the items

Courses Pretest Posttest

Business Management (BM) 31 7.67 24 6.80 Biotechnology (BIO) 41 10.15 41 11.61 Sport and Physical Activity Sciences (SPPA) 63 15.59 46 13.03 Audiovisual Communication (AUD) 37 9.16 49 13.88 Law (LAW) 20 4.95 20 5.67 Design and Fine Arts (DES + FA) 39 9.65 29 8.22 Pre-school and Primary Education (EDU) 41 10.15 21 5.95 BM+ Law (Excellens) (EXC) 9 2.23 10 2.83 Physiotherapy (PHY) 38 9.41 37 10.48 Computer science (COM) 15 3.71 15 4.25 Marketing (MAR) 10 2.48 11 3.12 Journalism (JOU) 49 12.13 34 9.63 Marketing (MAR) 11 2.72 16 4.53

N% N%

All of the courses have an average social commitment level of over 4.1 in all dimensions, in

In general, on all of the courses, the average level of satisfaction for each dimension is higher in

Therefore, the descriptive results seem to indicate possible differences of means between the pretest and the posttest for almost all of the courses. These preliminary results require the use of inferential data processing methods that make it possible to decide whether the differences

To test the general impact hypothesis between the pretest and posttest, the aggregate dimension as the sum of the four dimensions was calculated and Student's t test was performed. The result of the comparison indicates that there is a significant difference in favour of the posttest. See Table 5.

A factorial analysis of variance was also performed. This model evaluates the individual and joint effect of two or more factors (course and group) on a quantitative dependent variable (item 21 or dimension).

In this case, it makes it possible to establish whether the interaction between the group factors (pretest/posttest) and course affects the dependent variable.

If the p-values are below 0.05, this indicates that the groups defined by pretest and posttest have significantly different average results and that the average results between courses are also significantly different. The information on the effect of the group\*course interaction indicates that the differences in the results with the provision of the social responsibility module that appear between the pretest and the posttest, in favour of the posttest, are not the same between courses, or, in other words, the differences between courses are not the same in the two groups (pretest and posttest). See Table 6.


Table 4. Descriptive statistics for dimensions by course (pretest (PR) and posttest (PO)).


The cross effects between course and group (pretest/posttest) are significant. The only dimension that shows a non-significant interaction between courses and pretest and posttest is

Origin Type III sum of squares df Root mean square F Significant direction Group 10160.547 1 10160.547 46.732 In favour of posttest\*\*\* Course 13064.114 10 1306.411 6.009 In favour of posttest\*\*\* Group \* Course 4146.474 10 414.647 1.907 In favour of posttest\*\*

ITEM 21 Inter-group 59.332 1 59.332 53.005 In favour of posttest\*\*\*

DIM 1 Inter-group 1139.147 1 1139.147 69.129 In favour of posttest\*\*\*

DIM 2 Inter-group 568.687 1 568.687 34.964 In favour of posttest\*\*\*

DIM 3 Inter-group 1095.207 1 1095.207 45.159 In favour of posttest\*\*\*

DIM 4 Inter-group 352.284 1 352.284 19.081 In favour of posttest\*\*\*

Sum of squares df Root mean square F Significant direction

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

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

31

Student's t-comparisons for mean differences were performed between the pretest and posttest (independent samples). Prior to this, Levene's test for matching variables was performed.

Table 13 shows the results obtained from the analysis of significance of the mean difference by

4.4. Comparison of mean difference for the study of impact by course.

dimension 2. Tables 8–12 show these results.

\*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

R squared = .186 (adjusted R squared = .156) \*\*Significant difference at 5% (p < 0.05) \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Table 6. Results for the aggregated dimension (two-factor ANOVA).

Total 897.747 750

Total 13465.148 749

Total 12588.618 740

Total 19163.280 746

Total 14106.699 746

Intra-group 838.415 749 1.119

Intra-group 12326.001 748 16.479

Intra-group 12019.931 739 16.265

Intra-group 18068.073 745 24.252

Intra-group 13754.415 745 18.462

Table 7. Results for the opinion item and for the dimensions (one-factor ANOVA).

course.

Table 5. Results in the aggregated dimension (Student's t-test).

#### 4.3. Comparison of mean difference for the evaluation of the impact by dimension

A one factor Analysis of Variance was performed with the opinion item (item 21) and with dimensions 1, 2, 3 and 4. The results indicate that the differences are significant in favour of the posttest. See Table 7.

The two-factor analyses of variance reveal significant differences in all of the dimensions and in the item criterion in favour of the posttest, as well as significant differences between courses. Social Responsibility among University Students: An Empirical Study of Spanish Samples http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75115 31


R squared = .186 (adjusted R squared = .156) \*\*Significant difference at 5% (p < 0.05) \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Table 6. Results for the aggregated dimension (two-factor ANOVA).


Table 7. Results for the opinion item and for the dimensions (one-factor ANOVA).

4.3. Comparison of mean difference for the evaluation of the impact by dimension

No equal variances 7.114 711.224 8.00842

Levene's equality of variances test

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for dimensions by course (pretest (PR) and posttest (PO)).

posttest. See Table 7.

\*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Course

30 Social Responsibility

EDU (PR)

EDU (PO)

EXC (PR) EXC (PO) PHY (PR)

PHY (PO)

DIM 1 X 4.9 5.3 4.6 4.8 4.3 4.8 3.3 4.1 4.5 5.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 3.9

DIM 2 X 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.4 4.9 5.1 5.5 4.7

DIM 3 X 4.6 5.2 4.6 4.7 4.0 4.7 3.1 3.8 4.3 5.2 4.2 4.6 4.9 3.4

DIM 4 X 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.7 4.3 4.7 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.2 3.9

INF (PR)

N 41 21 9 10 38 37 15 15 10 11 49 34 16 11

S 0.65 0.47 0.43 1.03 0.87 1.04 1.27 1.04 0.99 0.48 0.86 0.81 0.93 0.52 Mode 5.0 5.2 4.2 5.0 3.6 4.6 2.6 4.8 4.8 5.4 4.8 4.6 4.6 3.6 Mdn 5.0 5.2 4.6 5.1 4.4 5.0 3.2 4.6 4.8 5.4 4.6 5.0 4.9 3.6

S 0.57 0.36 0.61 0.95 0.85 1.04 1.17 0.97 0.82 0.37 0.85 0.73 0.77 0.47 Mode 4.6 5.6 4.6 6.0 5.4 6.0 2.6 4.4 3.6 5.4 5.8 6.0 5.6 3.8 Mdn 5.2 5.6 5.4 5.3 5.0 5.2 3.6 4.4 5.3 5.4 5.0 5.2 5.6 4.6

S 1.03 0.52 0.54 1.00 0.99 1.04 1.28 1.21 0.84 0.46 0.93 1.05 1.16 1.01 Mode 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.6 3.0 4.8 4.0 4.4 4.2 5.4 4.0 4.6 5.4 2.8 Mdn 4.8 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.1 4.8 2.8 4.2 4.2 5.2 4.2 4.6 5.4 3.0

S 0.76 0.34 0.68 1.21 0.77 1.06 1.17 1.10 0.99 0.42 0.70 0.89 0.89 0.65 Mode 6.0 5.6 4.4 6.0 4.8 6.0 2.4 4.2 4.8 5.2 4.8 6.0 5.6 3.2 Mdn 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.5 5.0 5.2 3.4 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.4 3.6

INF (PO) MAR (PR)

MAR (PO)

JOU (PR) JOU (PO) MAR (PR)

MAR (PO)

Table 5. Results in the aggregated dimension (Student's t-test).

A one factor Analysis of Variance was performed with the opinion item (item 21) and with dimensions 1, 2, 3 and 4. The results indicate that the differences are significant in favour of the

F Sig. t df Mean difference

DIM TOT equal variances .166 .683 7.111 717 8.00842\*\*\* In favour of posttest

T test for equal means Significant direction

The two-factor analyses of variance reveal significant differences in all of the dimensions and in the item criterion in favour of the posttest, as well as significant differences between courses. The cross effects between course and group (pretest/posttest) are significant. The only dimension that shows a non-significant interaction between courses and pretest and posttest is dimension 2. Tables 8–12 show these results.

#### 4.4. Comparison of mean difference for the study of impact by course.

Student's t-comparisons for mean differences were performed between the pretest and posttest (independent samples). Prior to this, Levene's test for matching variables was performed.

Table 13 shows the results obtained from the analysis of significance of the mean difference by course.


R squared = .158 (adjusted R squared = .128) \*\*Significant difference at 5% (p < 0.05) \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Table 8. Results for the opinion item (two-factor ANOVA).


R squared = .193 (adjusted R squared = .165) \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Table 9. Results for dimension 1 (two-factor ANOVA).


R squared = .165 (adjusted R squared = .135).

\*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Table 10. Results for the dimension 2 (two-factor ANOVA).


At a 10% significance level, the SREU module appears not to have any effect on BM + Law (Excellens). With Computer Science and Journalism students, the teaching of the SREU module seems to have a significant impact at a 10% level. With the Marketing, SPPA and Law courses there seems to be an impact on the students in all of the dimensions and in the opinion item. Dimensions 1 (Commitment to others and my surroundings) and 3 (Education in social responsibility) seem to have the greatest impact among the students, especially in dimension 1. Dimension 4 (Approaching my professional activity from a position of social commitment)

Course Opinion item DIM 1 DIM 2 DIM 3 DIM 4

COURSE 1117.229 10 111.723 6.454 In favour of posttest\*\*\* GROUP 428.835 1 428.835 24.773 In favour of posttest\*\*\* COURSE \* GROUP 342.801 10 34.280 1.980 In favour of posttest\*\*

Type III sum of squares df Root mean square F Significant direction

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

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

33

BIO \* \*\* SPPA \*\*\* \*\*\* \* \* \*

LAW \*\*\* \*\*\* \*\*\* \*\*\* \*\*\*

EDU \*\*\* \*\*\* \*\*\* \*\*\*

MAR \*\*\* \*\*\* \*\* \*\*\* \*\*\*

BM \*\* \*

AUD \*\* \*\*\* \*\* \*

PHY \* \*\* \*\*

MAR \*\* \*\*

DES + FA \* \*\* \*\*

Table 13. Summary of significant differences in each dimension by course.

INF \*

R squared = .149 (adjusted R squared = .120) \*\*Significant difference at 5% (p < 0.05) \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Table 12. Results for dimension 4 (two-factor ANOVA).

JOU \*

\*Significant differences at the 0.10 level of significance \*\*Significant differences at the 0.05 level of significance \*\*\*Significant differences at the 0.01 level of significance

BM + LAW (EXC)

is the one that generally has the smallest impact among the students.

R squared = .156 (adjusted R squared = .127) \*Significant difference at 10% (p < 0.10)

\*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Table 11. Results for the dimension 3 (two-factor ANOVA).

Social Responsibility among University Students: An Empirical Study of Spanish Samples http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75115 33


R squared = .149 (adjusted R squared = .120) \*\*Significant difference at 5% (p < 0.05) \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Type III sum of squares df Root mean square F Significant direction

Type III sum of squares df Root mean square F Significant direction

Type III sum of squares df Root mean square F Significant direction

Type III sum of squares df Root mean square F Significant direction

COURSE 35.144 10 3.514 3.209 In favour of posttest\*\*\* GROUP 59.409 1 59.409 54.243 In favour of posttest\*\*\* COURSE \* GROUP 22.579 10 2.258 2.062 In favour of posttest\*\*

COURSE 716.675 10 71.668 4.542 In favour of posttest\*\*\* GROUP 1031.545 1 1031.545 65.374 In favour of posttest\*\*\* COURSE \* GROUP 399.861 10 39.986 2.534 In favour of posttest\*\*\*

COURSE 1022.919 10 102.292 6.608 In favour of posttest\*\*\* GROUP 429.853 1 429.853 27.767 In favour of posttest\*\*\*

COURSE 1071.702 10 107.170 4.639 In favour of posttest\*\*\* GROUP 1028.217 1 1028.217 44.505 In favour of posttest\*\*\* COURSE \* GROUP 379.556 10 37.956 1.643 In favour of posttest\*

COURSE \* GROUP 224.897 10 22.490 1.453

R squared = .158 (adjusted R squared = .128) \*\*Significant difference at 5% (p < 0.05) \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

32 Social Responsibility

R squared = .193 (adjusted R squared = .165) \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

R squared = .165 (adjusted R squared = .135). \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

R squared = .156 (adjusted R squared = .127) \*Significant difference at 10% (p < 0.10) \*\*\*Significant difference at 1% (p < 0.01)

Table 10. Results for the dimension 2 (two-factor ANOVA).

Table 11. Results for the dimension 3 (two-factor ANOVA).

Table 9. Results for dimension 1 (two-factor ANOVA).

Table 8. Results for the opinion item (two-factor ANOVA).

Table 12. Results for dimension 4 (two-factor ANOVA).


\*\*Significant differences at the 0.05 level of significance

\*\*\*Significant differences at the 0.01 level of significance

Table 13. Summary of significant differences in each dimension by course.

At a 10% significance level, the SREU module appears not to have any effect on BM + Law (Excellens). With Computer Science and Journalism students, the teaching of the SREU module seems to have a significant impact at a 10% level. With the Marketing, SPPA and Law courses there seems to be an impact on the students in all of the dimensions and in the opinion item.

Dimensions 1 (Commitment to others and my surroundings) and 3 (Education in social responsibility) seem to have the greatest impact among the students, especially in dimension 1. Dimension 4 (Approaching my professional activity from a position of social commitment) is the one that generally has the smallest impact among the students.

The social responsibility module appears to have an impact on students' commitment to others and their surroundings (DIM 1), except in the BM courses and the BM + LAW (Excellens) double degree. Discovering values (DIM 2) seems to be reinforced after taking the module in courses that are related to creativity such as Audiovisual Communication, Marketing, Fine Arts and Design and Pre-school and Primary Education. There also appears to be an impact in courses such as Law and Sport and Physical Activity Sciences where values play a very important role in the exercise of the profession. This hypothesis is reinforced by the impact that approaching their professional activity from a position of social commitment (DIM 4) has for the students. This impact is also present among students of Biotechnology, Teaching and Marketing.

on students' commitment to others and their surroundings, values, social responsibility, pro-

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

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

35

Taking the module appears to have a positive impact in virtually all of the courses (except BM and BM + Law) in students' commitment to others and their surroundings. Nonetheless, the professional approach from a position of social commitment after taking the module only seems to be positively affected in Biotechnology, SPPA, Law, Education and Marketing.

In summary, the results indicate that taking the social responsibility module has a significant impact on students from the UFV in general and by dimensions and courses but that this

SREU questionnaire (Values from 1 to 6 with 1 indicating minimal agreement and 6 maximum

1. I have an overview of the current situation of the world and I am conscious of the urgent need for sustainable

2. This consciousness increases my interest as a student in contributing to improving my immediate environment.

4. I put into practice my ability to serve and my commitment to immigrants, disabled people, homeless people, deprived

7. I recognise the need to open myself up to others, put myself in their place and find common good above individualistic

12. I have reflected on the importance of not remaining indifferent to or detached from what happens to other people. 13. I believe that the more I study in-depth and work hard at university, the more I can contribute to social change. 14. The training I receive at university will contribute in practice to increasing my level of social responsibility.

16. I approach performing my future professional activity wth a service vocation directed at the common good.

3. I ask myself what my personal position is faced with social injustice and other people's suffering.

5. I think that one of my obligations as a person is to help others, from a position of social commitment.

6. I believe that social commitment is based on recognising and respecting the dignity of every individual.

10. I believe that the experience of giving oneself to others is helpful for discovering personal values.

11. I believe that being a student helps me be aware of the importance of social responsibility.

15. I believe that social responsibility is a competence that should be worked on at university. Dimension 4. Approaching my professional activity from a position of social commitment

8. I believe that personal change is a necessary prior step to change the world around me. 9. I have personally experienced the happiness that comes from service and solidarity.

fessional approach and overall social commitment.

Dimension 1. Commitment to others and my surroundings

impact differs by course.

A. Appendices

agreement)

development.

interests.

children, the elderly, etc.

Dimension 2. Personal discovery of values

Dimension 3. Education in social responsibility

For students of Business Management, Audiovisual Communication, Physiotherapy, and Fine Arts and Design, while the experience of taking the module appears not to have had an impact in all dimensions, at a general level it does seem to have had an impact on their capacity for commitment and social responsibility. Students of teaching did experience a change in commitment, in discovery of values (DIM 2), in training in social responsibility (DIM 3) and in approaching their professional activity from a position of social commitment (DIM 4). They do not however seem to experience a change at a general level in their commitment and social responsibility. This could be explained by the students being capable of identifying each nucleus or dimension separately, but at an overall level believing that their commitment and responsibility has not changed significantly.
